how about the stories in the bible? god killed the first born of egyptians?the way god permiten the death of jobs children? how about king herods murder of kids under 2 .god warned mary and joseph but the other parents why? why why
...I saw this shirt that said a period is just a fetal suicide that occurs 12 times a year... so if it can kill itself 12x, I certainly can kill it once This video made me want that shirt.
I think there is no way to be able to present a contradicting opinion. You're already at a stance that is prepared to shield your belief. No one, and I mean, no onw will be able to pour more crap into your head since it's already full. Use your computer for more beneficial endeavors, like porn, for instance.
One story is her loving the child but losing it to some random violent beating she couldn't resist. The other, is her deciding she cant handle a child and chooses to have an abortion.
If abortions were when doctors held a mother down against her will and killed the child inside, everyone would be against it. But with her choosing she cant afford a baby life is more of a value than a moral as society sees it.
@Heinrick192 exactly what this man is doing is propaganda. He is telling some sad story to bring in your compassion and comparing it to something unrelated. I bet he is a bible thumper too
Let introduce you to common sense. A doctor does not out of evil intent beat the crap out of someone and kill the baby by force. One is a proffessional, the other guy is just weird. The legal age of abortion is at the stage of a fetus, who has the same amount of chance as a sperm cell. So by this logic, condums, birthcontrol, ect is genocide. Would you like a woman to have a baby she could not support?
Yeah cuz every child that goes to an adoption center gets adopted. Allow me to reinstall my testimony: ITS NOT A BABY. As far a science is concerned (which is the basis of life), that's just as much a kid as a sperm cell. Does that make birth control murder, and the pharmacy that carries it a grand master of the baby holocaust ?
@Dluciffer64 Actually, he does kill the baby by force. Look up abortion images and then deny that it is done by force. A professional? Like a hired hit man? What I would like is for the woman to make her choice to use those condoms and birth control or not have sex without being able to face the consequences. I can't steal a car and then say, I change my mind, now that I am in trouble you can just have it back. I still get punished. You have a choice, just long before the wrong one is made.
@nblucas97 A baby shouldn't be a punishment, which is what your pretty much saying is hers for not using protection. Yes, whenever someone says professional, they mean assassin cuz thats the only other occupation there is! (sarcasm). Saying "well you shoulda" doesnt solve the problems that a teen/teen's family faces when that happens.
@Dluciffer64 I agree, a baby is NOT a punishment which is why there is no reason to destroy it. They make is seem as though it's a punishment, not me. And what other name is there for a hired killer? You are correct again, it doesn't solve the problem, but there are other solutions. And after going to the first ultra sound, and seeing a shape and hearing the heart beat, you will NEVER convince me that what they abort is not a life.
@Dluciffer64 My girls were born very premature just over 23 weeks. Now at 6 years old, they are beautiful healthy girls. It was rough going at such a young age, but worth every struggle getting through college. The women that abort these baby's will never know that joy!
@nblucas97 No but what about the other babies... the ones you idiots all overlook. The ones that get thrown to an adoption center where they dont get adopted (very few orphans do its a statistical fact) and then have to face a cruel world with underdevolped social skills. Many of these become murderers or criminals. So if u wanna say yeah the selfish joy my baby gives me is worth all that suffering. Not every mother is as good as u
@Dluciffer64 Selfish joy? What about the joy the girls get out of experiencing life? The selfish decision is having unprotected sex and saying hell with the consequences. Don't try to bring up selfishness. And please pass on the statistical studies on adoption and their leading to being hardcore criminals you referenced for your point. I would love to read those. I guess it is better to murder the child then let it grow up and see if it will become a murderer or not.
@nblucas97 yeah if in fact everybaby was born by someone saying to hell with the consquences, rather then failed contraseptives and rape. look it up. No but lets instead waste millions of dollars on the child so that i can spawn more until there's nothing left for anyone. Regardless of morality, overpopulation is an issue.
@Dluciffer64 I understand there are other circumstances, and my stance is do what you want to do if you can live with the guilt. I could not and I think it's wrong. But what am I looking up? You didn't really give me any detail. Who is wasting millions of dollars? Overpopulation? 90 percent of the Earths population is focused on 20 percent of its habitable space. Quit listening to the scare mongers. Do what you want, I am not telling you one way or another what you need to do.
Good point to an extent - maybe some girls treat abortion as contraception. I don't know if anyone like that exists, but people like that need to take this more seriously.
In any case, your comparison is wrong. It's like comparing sex (consenting adults) to brutal rape, and then saying that that's why sex is evil.
watch the video response above...the one with the woman shown.read comments...at first i thought she was being sarcastic...shes not...i know she represents a very small fraction of people.
Well the beaten women might not be able to have kids ever again that is the down fall.
I have a genetic defect that makes my collagen/Elston weak. So no kids. So no sex cant risk it. I cant hold the weight of a child bad health risk for everyone. I think about abortion id never pass this gene on, my joints dislocate its long lasting pain. I wouldn't give that to anyone but killing a child. I think i might just rather have the child kill me bleed to death, drop an organ, rip something ect.
abortion is a very personal decision and there can be hundreds of different factors in your decision making process...raped,child will be born sick/deformed,might interfere with my social schedule...many factors.
If only they would tie my tubes then i could maybe get over the fear of dead in pain, being alone, and think about adopting. Yet they wont cos im not old enough though if i was 25 and had 4 kids they would do it. Doesn't matter that it could kill me leave a child motherless and put a knife through the heart of the father.
Not true, scientists admit they still dont fully understand which of 3 ways the plan B works, but the early stage provable facts is that it prevents a fertelized egg from being implanted in the uterine wall which is why you take it within the first 72 hrs after sex, so in fact you are actually pregnant, but with out implantation it is not a viable pregnancy, To conclude plan B is only 89% effective, compared to oral birth control that is 92 to 99.7% and stops ovulation thus prevents pregnancy.
1st I'd like to establish that I feel partial birth abortion is barbaric.
That being said, I think forcing someone to undergo a full term pregnancy and delivery is cruel and unusual punishment.
Forcing a woman to carry a child she doesn't want is tantamount to punishing her for the mistake of conceiving without intent.
No judge in America would be allowed to sentence a murderer to childbirth. It would be too cruel. How could we sentence an irresponsible teen to the same?
I thought there was something up when she talked about a rush and knew she was BSing when she pulled out the HAND WRITTEN punchcard. I think she was trying to portray aborters as evil.
You don't actually think she was serious do you? You're not ACTUALLY that gullible right?
you think she was trying to paint aborters as evil? you are wrong...you are the gullible one if you believe that...she is 100% pro-abortion...read her comments and wake up.
Her card did seem to be a fake hand written card, but if you will check planned parenthood does have an abortion rewards card, 5 abortions get the 6 abortion free. So what ever she is trying to do there really is a abortion reward card out there that is real... and I think its horrible
Abortion isn't the same thing as a person beating a pregnant woman to miscarriage. Abortion involves decision. If and when a woman does not want to have the child, or she will be unable to support the child (if she has low income or she is a teenager etc.), she can choose not to have a child who will not have a quality life.
Statistics also show that abortion decreases crime.
im pro choice.this is because i belive a baby is not a baby till its born.i agree it is living,just not a baby.also nothing has the right to any part of anyother person.if science could find some way for a fetus to survive outside the womb,this would be a differnt argument,but they cant.that fetus has no rights to any part of a woman,just as i couldnt demand a kidney from my mum because i needed it to survive.although i dont belive abortion should be the first choice,sometimes its the only one
I agree with Stoned here. Not because I believe in the religious side of it, but because I believe that every life deserves a chance to live. Whether what's inside of a pregnant woman is "alive" or not doesn't matter to me, what matters is what it can become can ONLY become if it's given the chance, and what it can become is a living, breathing, individual. Who are we to deprive that life of it's chance to live? Forgot to wear a condom, raped, don't want it.Doesn't matter. It deserves a chance.
And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend. -- Jeremiah 19:9
The LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon.... And there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. -- Exodus 12:29-30
I pose to you two other alternate realistic situations to add to your video.
1. A mother's child dies while still inside the womb because she refuses proper modern medical treatment simply because of her religious convictions.
2. A Religious woman destroys her unborn baby because her religious insanities mixed with her mental instibility tells her that she will be raising the Anti-Christ.
Way to go knightofdreamz! I like your style. You did forget to mention that in the bible, it's a noble act for a man to butcher his own conscious son with a knife despite the pleas and cries. As long as God tells you to do it, it's fine! I'm pretty sure that there is no command in the bible that even specifies what abortion is or if its wrong.
A premature birth is one where the baby does not survive. Making the fetus of lower value than a person, or at least a woman. So there you have it. The Bible itself does not equate a fetus with being human.
You do realize the Bible almost directly addresses this scenario? The Bible on numerous occasions says that the penalty for killing a human is death, and one of those places is in Exodus 21:12. Ten verses later this is what the Bible says "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the womans husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." continued in next comment
The first sotry is worse because the woman did not want to get beat up and she perhaps wanted a child.
I will add a third story to the list. A man has sez with a woman but he....USES A CONDOM!!! Dun Dun duhhhhh. Hundreds of sperm cells never make it killing off hundreds of babies. Also a large perportion of pregnancies end in miscarriage. GOD YOU SON OF A BITCH! MURDERER!
Yeah. Not a big deal you motherfucker. Without a brain it is just a lump of cells. I am pro killing braindead people too.
You sanctomonius mysogonyst, a womans reprodutive choices are her own, are deeply personal and have no place in government or your scheme of things. Remember that lil thing.. seperation of church and state, abortion is not a religious issue, its a personal issue for women, and quite frankly you have no rights to their reproductive choices, keep your dick in your pants and they wont get pregnant will they, whats next, women that miscarry are murderers by association? You're beyond belief!!
Your own words "we have free will...god does not make nor prevent us from doing anything" so free will is given by god, therefore a womans free will to make her reproductive choices is given by god? ergo god is happy at her choice else he would not have given her the ability to choose
Your own words "the timeless question...why do terrible things happen to the innocent?
you can die the most horrible death imaginable,but if you have lived as a good person then that death is nothing compared to an eternity in heaven." you see life and person as at conception, therefore the foetus lead a "good" life, goes to heaven and all is well, so by your logic, women having abortions are in fact sending souls to heaven, and heaven is good, right!!!
Suppose a man starts punching a pregnant woman in the belly. He takes a knitting needle and sticks it inside her. She's at serious risk of infection, but is too afraid to visit her doctor. Who is he?
Answer: He's her husband. He's doing this because anti-abortionists have made it impossible to get a clean, safe, legal abortion - and force doctors to report suspected cases of backstreet abortion.
Golden Crocoduck? Maybe we need a Golden Coathanger for pro-lifers.
A woman is walking down the street at night. Suddenly a man comes out of the dark and assaults her. He brings her somewhere and rapes her violently. Weeks later she finds out shes pregnant.
Or, we have a married couple that have been planning to have a child for a few months, and find out the great news that the wife is pregnant.
you bring up a different argument...your question deals with a woman who was raped,then became pregnant as a result...that is a tough one...why should a woman have a baby that she did not want or plan,a baby forced into her?no...both of them should not be happy.
My argument is that sad stories are not an argument. Im happy to have a debate about this subject. I myself feel very ambivalent about it. But your not really debating, your using emotion to persuade people to agree with you.
Isn't your argument about a woman being raped emotional? Because there is a logical alternative to abortion in that case. uh uh adoption??? Ever heard of it?
adznruses, you've got it backwards... the LACK of proper education and how to protect oneself is what causes teen pregnancies... and there is no sex ed in elementary school, but some schools have implemented a short course so young children can learn how to recognize molestation and defend/avoid it.. or in the worst case, know who to call if it does happen
god has nothing to do with the mothers free will to either keep or terminate the baby...rape is a tough one...its hard to imagine keeping a child that was forced into you by rape...plus if the victem is very young the baby coming could hurt or even kill her...people forget that god knows we will make bad decisions...thats why we confess to him and try to be better...the bible says we shall not kill...but we do...in war,crime,self defense,by accident and with abortion.god forgives all sins.
On another side of this issue. If the baby will be healthy then give him/her up. Hatred will only cause more suffering, so let the child be raised by loving parents. No one asked for their parents.
Except that the criteria that you appealed to doesn't recognize the difference between them. You keep talking about the sanctity of micro-organic life, yet you yourself have no problem with destroying that kind of life every day.
This is yet another example of how the consequences of the emotionally laden rhetoric you're employing is something that the rational side of you sees the problem with.
If you really draw no distinction between bacteria and an embryonic child then you are either insane or operating at a level of denial heretefore unseen in human history.
The point was that the criteria that *you* chose to appeal to doesn't recognize any difference. Don't try and shift the problem with your argument into me being in some sort of denial.
Again, another illustration of appealing to emotion instead of thinking through the consequences of what you're saying.
...says the person who has been throwing around terms like "murder" and wielding definitions of what constitutes moral agency without considering the legal, logical, or ethical implications of doing so.
I think it's more than clear who has been "arguing like a child" here.
I can understand why you'd want to end the discussion via a schoolyard response instead of actually addressing the consequences of your own argument, but that doesn't make those consequences disappear any more than winkey smileys do.
The fact remains that you call abortion "murder", yet at some level you recognize that it isn't; you're not prepared to treat those that engage in it the same way as those who actually commit murder are. Typical antichoice didn't-think-the-argument-through nonsense
Are you humorless? If you'd like to keep discussing this we can. I was trying to inject a bit of fun into an otherwise serious discussion. It's your call.
Giving lie once again to your own "murder" rhetoric: What kind of person "jokes" about or "interjects fun" into a discussion about something that they truly believe to be the actual murder of babies in massive numbers on an ongoing basis?
I again submit that you don't even believe your own nonsense. "Argue like a child", indeed!
I try to keep these debates friendly because in such an impersonal medium it's easy to forget sometimes that we're just two people trying to hash-out a difficult issue.
Was that before of after you chose to wield the rhetorical weapon of claiming those that "hash-out the difficult issue" differently than you were either "murderers" / that they support "killing of the most defenseless among us"?
The fact that you want to assume moral agency premises rather than actually discuss them and that you want to employ pejorative and legally laden rhetoric in one giant appeal to emotion shows not only that you're not interested in "friendly debate", just histrionics.
You keep attacking my "moral agency" and "appeals to emotion" but let's turn this around for a moment. If all of society were to adopt your purely logical viewpoint, it is conceiveable that were that same society ever to adopt the belief that destroying our own embryonic children is illogical and undesirable, you would become the enemy.
I said nothing at all about *your* moral agency (I said that it's dishonest and disingenuous for you to keep employing the "killer"/"murderer" rhetoric when you yourself don't believe it). I criticized your assumption of moral agency existing simply due to gamete unification without providing an argument for it. You push it via rhetoric instead of doing the intellectual heavy lifting of actually making a case.
If you can make a logical case for banning choice, then I implore you, please do it.
I do believe that the intentional destruction of an embryo is the killing of a human being. But words like "murder" are admittedly sticky when used in a blanket fashion. That's why the law recognizes degrees of murder (first, second, manslaughter, etc.). I just think it's bizarre that you completely discount emotion when discussing this, as if it were not part of the overall human package. Logic and reason are invaluable, but can be dangerous when divorced from emotion.
Do you think the mother should get the death penalty for having an abortion?? If you're against the death penalty, I assume you believe they should get life in prison?
Interesting that you ask that because there's enormous competition among sperm, so if "every sperm is sacred" then I'd say the unborn baby has taken quite a lot of lives, possibly thousands or millions as sperm don't survive long.
Yet a sperm is a cell. are we murders because cells die all the time? No! but when the two cells combine they become life. Are you so blind that you can't see the forest for the trees?
The cells don't "become life." They were alive long before fertilization. Surely your science education progressed beyond the 3rd grade! You're ascribing special value to a few cells, not me. Your reasons are religious, not science or evidence-based. I value physiologically autonomous, intelligent life w/ a capacity for self-awareness, abstract thought & a high measurable degree of suffering. My goal is to decrease suffering.A 1st trimester fetus lacks the cognitive processes necessary to suffer
Ok then what is a baby? Could it possibly be a life? My scientific view is obviously beyond yours. I have the ability to understand what the evidence presents. If you want to decrease suffering then join the fight against abortion. Babies feel pain too.
Clearly your scientific view is beyond evidence as well. Calling a fetus a baby doesn't make it so anymore than calling the surge successful makes it so. You are quite deliberately choosing to alter the definitions of words to fit neatly into the rhetoric of your ideology. That is not science. The definition of a baby is "a child or animal that is newly or recently born." 1st trimester feti don't have a nervous system to feel pain. We have different words for different things to avoid confusion
Except for the simple fact that a fetus is a baby. Clearly you don't know what the word evidence means. Your ideaology is what causes words to be redefined for another purpose. Just because the nervous system hasn't developed doesn't make it less alive. If your nervous system suddenly quit working, would it be ok to kill you? Obviously your answer is no. So why is it ok to kill a baby that doesn't have one?
The heart is developed enough to start beating in less than one week after conception. You not scientifically dead unless the heart stops beating. Why the double standard? If you kill a fetus inside a willing mother it's murder. So why can doctors rip them out and kill them in a clinic? once again Why is there a double standard?
"The heart is developed enough to start beating in less than one week after conception."
This is impossible.
In one week, there is no cell in the "fetus" other than stem cells. You cant have formed ANYTHING. (Its not even called a fetus, its called an embryo.)
Embryogenesis lasts 8 weeks. during this time the embryo is nothing but stem cells. It has no functioning system of any sort.
"You not scientifically dead unless the heart stops beating. Why the double standard?"
Again. not true.
Legal death is brain death. If your heart stops beating but they can keep the blood flowing through machinery(not possible in emergencies, but certainly possible.) then your still alive.
BUT if your brain dies and your heart is still beating, your legally dead.
There is such thing as an artificial heart. Are these people legally dead?
Remember legally dead is only a matter of constitutional law. Nothing to do with science. The body is not officially dead until everything ceases function.
Your final question proves your an idiot. The Jarvik heart is still a working heart. Go back to school and finish 3rd grade please.
Again, the definition of a baby - "a child or animal that is newly or recently born." Fetus - "the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the 2nd month of gestation." A fly is alive too but I don't see you concerned about their deaths. How ethical a killing is is largely, though not completely, proportional to the degree of perceived harm or suffering.
Examine your own definition of fetus. You missed the point. If we are animals why do we excuse sub-animalistic behavior. Unlike animals we have morality. So why the double standard? You yet again fail to answer my questions. Why?
Animals kill their on kind for a purpose. What is the purpose of killing a baby or fetus. (Same thing) If what you just said is even slightly true than there is no purpose for humans being the intelligent beings at the top of the food chain.
Ethical killing is proportional to survival. Flies carry the potential to infect one with a disease. Cows are eaten. Animals kill for food all the time. We execute the innocent and throw them in garbage bins. Now how ethical is that?
You'll have to explain what you mean by "sub-animalistic behavior." Many animals do have morality: chimps, bonobos, dogs, etc. & I have no problem w/ doggy abortions so I don't see any double standard. I'm not arguing about killing babies; I'm talking about underdeveloped pre-human life w/ not the capacity to think in any meaningful way, physically survive autonomously, or suffer. The purpose of terminating a pregnancy is theoretically to alieve the suffering of the would-be parent. cont'd
Are you serious? You don't know what the prefix SUB means?
First: Chimps, bonobos, and dogs, do not show morality. They have emotions, but morality and emotions are seperate entities. I never brought up "doggy abortions" The double standard applies to the fact that you want to argue butchering a cow as abortion. The purpose of sex theoretically is to have babies. If you don't want to suffer the inconvience of a baby... DON'T HAVE SEX! quit overlooking the obvious and answer my questions.
I don't know what you are defining as "sub-anamalistic behavior."
I've analyzed the studies and no, chimps, bonobos & dogs DO show true altruistic behaviors. I didn't bring up butchering cows; you did & I still see no double standard. Human beings are hardwired to have sex, a holdover from when the purpose of sex was indeed purely procreation. Now we've technologically evolved to where sex can have many purposes, 1 of which is recreation or gratification. Contraception affords us that option.
Behavior beneath that of an animals. Welcome obviousville population: you. Like I said you can't see a double standard because you live it. You were the first to suggest butchering cows. Think before you post. Once again Humans are not animals. I still don't see why you fail to answer questions. Humans are not hard wired for sex idiot. No amount of drugs and technology will change that. Science is a tool not a purpose. But your probably too lazy to understand responsibility too.
You're misunderstanding my questions. What DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE behavior beneath that of an animal? & what is the double standard? I've asked 2 very clear questions & you've avoided answering both of them. I never made any reference to cows. Humans ARE animals. Humans ARE hardwired for sex. These are facts. But you're right, technology hasn't changed that; it has however changed the reason many people choose to have sex. This might come as a shock but most of the time, it isn't for procreation
Yes, there is no objective, innate purpose for humans being the intelligent beings at the top of the food chain. Meaning is a subjective trait that comes from us. The universe is indifferent; it neither cares about us nor will it miss us when we're gone. That we exist at all & that we have the ability to ascribe meaning to things appears to be merely an unmotivated epiphenomena of natural forces playing out over vast quantities of time.
I see. You are a lost cause. So busy being self-absorbed in his materialistic, neo athenian humanist beliefs that you can't see the perverbial forest for the trees.
Everything has a purpose. If you can't see that, then perhaps you should ask yourself questions instead of throwing your insipid, nonsensical jabberings at people who choose to educate themselves. Had sad it must be to bare such a burden of self inflicted blindness.
By "materialistic" you of course mean "reality." "Everything has a purpose"--prove it. And no, not sad at all. I can't complain. I'm one of the lucky ones who's overcome enormous obstacles to exist at all. So it's all good.
No I mean you belive stuff gives meaning. You want proof of purpose take a good look around. Prove it doesn't. I didn't say you were emotionally sad. I said pathetic. By the way... Why did you bother trying to overcome those obstacles if there was no purpose in life? There is proof of purpose. Still I know you can't understand this. You don't seem to understand simple things.
There is no evidence whatsoever to validate the claim that there is objective purpose; that is a faith-based belief, not an evidence-based one. You're shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim; it's your job to back it up. I didn't say there was "no purpose in life." I said there was no objective, innate purpose in life. We're perfectly capable of creating purpose ourselves w/o any need to attribute that meaning to outside agency. Ad hominem arguments are no substitute for rational ones.
ok that is just blatant stupidity. You feeble minded way of thinking is the problem with youtube. Someone who has an artificial heart STILL HAS A WORKING HEART! For the sake of everything decent in this world. Please go back to school and finish the 3rd grade.
no,women who have abortions should not get the death penalty.they should not get in any trouble at all while alive...thier trouble comes when they die and must answer for thier actions...if they confess and really mean it in thier hearts then god will forgive them and possibly one day they will be reunited in the afterlife.mother and child...together forever.
Your own analogy compared OBGYNs to "hitmen" and women who have abortions to people who hire hitmen. Think for a few seconds about the legal implications of that. Then watch yourself run away from that with this whole "no, they'll be judged in the afterlife".
That's precisely what I mean about you people not believing your own rhetoric and the intellectual dishonesty of engaging in it.
we have faith in god...not proof.if a women kills her unborn we pray for them both.a person who kills a human being has commited a murder of unquestionable fact...stop grasping for straws idiot.
Thanks for that admission that your entire argument isn't rooted in fact, logic, or reason, but merely your non-factual, illogical, irrational,personal belief and your desire that everyone else obey it.
The problem is the equivocation of the two stories and the premise behind that equivocation.
In the first story, the assailant robs the woman of control over her own body. The second story is one of a woman exercising that very control. Yes, one story is worse than the other, and the fact that you'd even consider the two comparable is quite revealing. Praytell you find yourself some babyfactory some day who shares your bronze-age views.
Let me get this straight. tryancooley considers a mother a "baby factory" and the sanctity of life an outdated "Bronze-age" view. No wonder they say that forward movement is not always progress.
Actually, I consider a mother to be more than a "baby factory". That was the point I was making. Thanks, though, for putting the brilliant reasoning capabilities of the anti-choice movement on display once again.
You didn't make a point. And for the record, it doesn't take brilliance to recognize what is self-evident: 1 sperm cell + 1 egg = new and unique life. When you destroy that life, you cancel an innocent person via violence. That's murder.
Is that your way of apologizing for lying about what I consider "baby factories"?
BDCW has already called attention to the problem with your rhetoric. If failing to carry any single celled zygote to term is "murder", then miscarriages, failed implantation, and even IVF are also acts of murder. If you truly believe your own nonsense to be true, you should be campaigning to put OBGYNs to death and rape victims that take emergency contraception in jail. The diff b/w you and Paul Hill is...?
Again, more pointless rhetoric because life is self-evident and your side doesn't have a leg to stand on. I cannot come to the defense of a fetus as I might a neighbor in distress, simply because the law is against me. That's why we work through the courts, and through hearts and minds, to stop abortions. A miscarriage, unless brought-on artificially, is a death by natural cause. With regard to IVF, I have no opinion because I haven't yet thought through it. It's called intellectual honesty.
"Pointless rhetoric" is right! If you believe that rape victims that seek contraception, that people who take emergency contraception measures, and that OBGYNs who assist all of the above are indeed "murderers", then what do you advocate ought to be done with them? Is the "murder" garbage a bit of convenient rhetoric, or do you really believe it? Will you follow it to it's logical and legal conclusion?
To what? Jail OBGYNs? Incarcerate women who choose to have an abortion? Punish rape victims or anyone else that seeks emergency contraception? Ban IVF? I realize that calling people baby-haters/killers is a fun bit of rhetoric, but I don't think you even believe that yourself.
You want me to say that I hate and want to punish people because maybe that's what you believe about me. It's not true. My ultimate, blue-sky vision of all this is much gentler and more positive. If it were up to me we'd come out of this abortion debate less murderous as a species and more appreciative of our value to one another.
No, what I want you to do is recognize the implications of the rhetoric that you've adopted. You're using is because it's convenient, but I don't think even you believe it. So would you have abortion providers sentenced to life or to death for the "murders" they carry out? How about women who seek out emergency contraception? Couples who use IVF? Rape victims? Or are you just using that kind of histrionic rhetoric because it's convenient and you haven't really thought things through?
The reality is that human life has become disposable at its earliest stages (I'd argue that it's not treated much better in its late stages, but that's another debate). You can confuse the argument all you like but it does not change the fact that abortion is dehumanizing and it's murder. That's the core of what we're talking about. The heart beating within your chest should be a constant reminder to you. If it's not, you're just in denial.
Change the laws to what? If you really believe your own "murder/babykiller" rhetoric, what punishment would you see the people you so cavalierly call "murderers/babykillers" receive?
This is what I mean about not thinking through the implications of your emotional appeal and use of loaded language. It's amusing the lengths that you've gone to avoid addressing this. I realize that you want to "change the laws", but would that change reflect the inflammatory rhetoric that you've been employing?
I imagine the "punishments" and charges would reflect circumstances, like the system we currently have, including distinctions between murder and manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc, and then degrees within that, such as first-degree, second-degree, etc.
Since abortion is almost always intentional, informed, and pre-meditated, you're still avoiding the consequences of your rhetoric.
You don't seem to realize that the emotionally loaded language that you've adopted either makes you Paul Hill-like in your views (see "evilmaster") for actually believeing it or disingenuous for using it. I think you're more intelligent than "evil", but I also do think you haven't thought your own argument through to its conclusions. That's why you're dissembling.
I have thought it through. I wish you would study my language more carefully before characterizing it. You have seen me call abortion murder, but you have never seen me call a mother or her doctor a murderer. If we are ever to get beyond this age of casual destruction of human life we will have to dig out from under generations of fear, anger and misunderstanding. I judge the act, yes, but not the actor. My idealistic hope is that we get to a new place as a culture.
I understand that you want to separate your rhetoric from its logical and legal consequences. That is precisely the point. You want to wield the sword of calling abortion, emergency contraception, IVF, embrionic stem cell research, etc.. "murder", but you don't want to accept the logical or legal consequences of doing so.
I hope we get to a new place as a culture as well, but that will require a rejection of the divisive, emotionally laden rhetoric that you've chosen to employ.
like poor children who have lost faith in faimily and god so they seek acceptance in street gangs...these lost souls find comfort with each other on you-tube.pathetic.
Unlike your dark ages views right. That woman exercises her control, but at the same time takes away a childs control. What if that baby was a girl? Doesn't she have the right to keep her body living?
If you're so convinced abortion is institutionalized baby murdering, then why aren't you stopping it by any means necessarily like any sane person would if they believed babies were being murdered by the government? What are you, a coward? I'll tell ya, if I believed abortion was institutionalized baby murdering, I'd form an army and do something. I wouldn't sit around for 40 years hoping some1 changes the laws. Wuss!
youd start an army...you stupid ass,what a childish response...that implies killing people to make them stop.i dont want to kill anyone...life is a gift that i nor you has the right to destroy.now that obama is finished,mabye the law will be changed.put lipstick on an atheist and its still an atheist.tee hee.
"You see why we avoid that option, It's not diplomatic."
You know what else it's not? Successful. How many "babies" have been exterminated through abortion since Roe v. Wade? If you actually believe this stuff what are you personally doing to stop all the "baby-killing?" This is how you're rationalizing sitting on your butt for 35 years while it happens? Good job. & how exactly do you think this is better than the German bystanders who did nothing during the Holocaust? Keep up the non-work.
Woah! hold right there. Now you want to get self righteous? FIrst off I'm not sitting on my butt about it. I'm very active in politics. I don't vote for candidates that support abortion, and I spread the word to as many as possible. You better know someone before you try to pull that crap again.
"Now you want to get self righteous?" Um, I think you got that backwards. I'm sure all those dead "babies" would appreciate your being "very active in politics." How's that's working for ya?
& I'm pretty sure the word has already been spread to every1 already. This is why abortion will never ever be repealed in the U.S. The opposition either doesn't believe in their cause enough to actually fight for it or are too cowardly to risk their cushy lives by fighting for it. Either way you still lose
Why didn't your patents got an abortion, fucking moron.
What if a woman got raped and got pregnant, then she must relief that moment for the rest of het life though her child????
Moron
queenfanmichel 4 months ago
IN the story, it seems the mother would have wanted to keep the baby.
Abortions are when you do not.
pokeybadger 7 months ago
how about the stories in the bible? god killed the first born of egyptians?the way god permiten the death of jobs children? how about king herods murder of kids under 2 .god warned mary and joseph but the other parents why? why why
jmrail 1 year ago
@jmrail lots of horrible stuff in the bible for sure...why? Humans are ants to God.
stonedcommander 1 year ago
...I saw this shirt that said a period is just a fetal suicide that occurs 12 times a year... so if it can kill itself 12x, I certainly can kill it once This video made me want that shirt.
waxxjf 1 year ago
I think there is no way to be able to present a contradicting opinion. You're already at a stance that is prepared to shield your belief. No one, and I mean, no onw will be able to pour more crap into your head since it's already full. Use your computer for more beneficial endeavors, like porn, for instance.
ebrak47 1 year ago
One story is her loving the child but losing it to some random violent beating she couldn't resist. The other, is her deciding she cant handle a child and chooses to have an abortion.
If abortions were when doctors held a mother down against her will and killed the child inside, everyone would be against it. But with her choosing she cant afford a baby life is more of a value than a moral as society sees it.
notanon666 2 years ago
they are both bad, its just that the mother has the choice to kill the baby; if you get attacked by some psycho, thats against your power
Heinrick192 2 years ago
@Heinrick192 exactly what this man is doing is propaganda. He is telling some sad story to bring in your compassion and comparing it to something unrelated. I bet he is a bible thumper too
BreakBlowBurn 2 years ago
bible thumper? you just showed your hand, LOL!
stonedcommander 2 years ago
@stonedcommander i just simply assume u are backing ur thoughts with the bible or christianity.
BreakBlowBurn 2 years ago
Let introduce you to common sense. A doctor does not out of evil intent beat the crap out of someone and kill the baby by force. One is a proffessional, the other guy is just weird. The legal age of abortion is at the stage of a fetus, who has the same amount of chance as a sperm cell. So by this logic, condums, birthcontrol, ect is genocide. Would you like a woman to have a baby she could not support?
Dluciffer64 2 years ago
yes, she could give up the baby for adoption.
you enjoy life id imagine...shouldn't that baby have the same right, to enjoy life?
stonedcommander 2 years ago
Yeah cuz every child that goes to an adoption center gets adopted. Allow me to reinstall my testimony: ITS NOT A BABY. As far a science is concerned (which is the basis of life), that's just as much a kid as a sperm cell. Does that make birth control murder, and the pharmacy that carries it a grand master of the baby holocaust ?
Dluciffer64 2 years ago
@Dluciffer64 Actually, he does kill the baby by force. Look up abortion images and then deny that it is done by force. A professional? Like a hired hit man? What I would like is for the woman to make her choice to use those condoms and birth control or not have sex without being able to face the consequences. I can't steal a car and then say, I change my mind, now that I am in trouble you can just have it back. I still get punished. You have a choice, just long before the wrong one is made.
nblucas97 1 year ago
@nblucas97 A baby shouldn't be a punishment, which is what your pretty much saying is hers for not using protection. Yes, whenever someone says professional, they mean assassin cuz thats the only other occupation there is! (sarcasm). Saying "well you shoulda" doesnt solve the problems that a teen/teen's family faces when that happens.
Dluciffer64 1 year ago
@Dluciffer64 I agree, a baby is NOT a punishment which is why there is no reason to destroy it. They make is seem as though it's a punishment, not me. And what other name is there for a hired killer? You are correct again, it doesn't solve the problem, but there are other solutions. And after going to the first ultra sound, and seeing a shape and hearing the heart beat, you will NEVER convince me that what they abort is not a life.
nblucas97 1 year ago
@Dluciffer64 My girls were born very premature just over 23 weeks. Now at 6 years old, they are beautiful healthy girls. It was rough going at such a young age, but worth every struggle getting through college. The women that abort these baby's will never know that joy!
nblucas97 1 year ago
@nblucas97 No but what about the other babies... the ones you idiots all overlook. The ones that get thrown to an adoption center where they dont get adopted (very few orphans do its a statistical fact) and then have to face a cruel world with underdevolped social skills. Many of these become murderers or criminals. So if u wanna say yeah the selfish joy my baby gives me is worth all that suffering. Not every mother is as good as u
Dluciffer64 1 year ago
@Dluciffer64 Selfish joy? What about the joy the girls get out of experiencing life? The selfish decision is having unprotected sex and saying hell with the consequences. Don't try to bring up selfishness. And please pass on the statistical studies on adoption and their leading to being hardcore criminals you referenced for your point. I would love to read those. I guess it is better to murder the child then let it grow up and see if it will become a murderer or not.
nblucas97 1 year ago
@nblucas97 yeah if in fact everybaby was born by someone saying to hell with the consquences, rather then failed contraseptives and rape. look it up. No but lets instead waste millions of dollars on the child so that i can spawn more until there's nothing left for anyone. Regardless of morality, overpopulation is an issue.
Dluciffer64 1 year ago
@Dluciffer64 I understand there are other circumstances, and my stance is do what you want to do if you can live with the guilt. I could not and I think it's wrong. But what am I looking up? You didn't really give me any detail. Who is wasting millions of dollars? Overpopulation? 90 percent of the Earths population is focused on 20 percent of its habitable space. Quit listening to the scare mongers. Do what you want, I am not telling you one way or another what you need to do.
nblucas97 1 year ago
yes but doctors dont beat the crap out of the women
mobby32 2 years ago
Good point to an extent - maybe some girls treat abortion as contraception. I don't know if anyone like that exists, but people like that need to take this more seriously.
In any case, your comparison is wrong. It's like comparing sex (consenting adults) to brutal rape, and then saying that that's why sex is evil.
SoftwareEngineer3 2 years ago
watch the video response above...the one with the woman shown.read comments...at first i thought she was being sarcastic...shes not...i know she represents a very small fraction of people.
stonedcommander 2 years ago
Well the beaten women might not be able to have kids ever again that is the down fall.
I have a genetic defect that makes my collagen/Elston weak. So no kids. So no sex cant risk it. I cant hold the weight of a child bad health risk for everyone. I think about abortion id never pass this gene on, my joints dislocate its long lasting pain. I wouldn't give that to anyone but killing a child. I think i might just rather have the child kill me bleed to death, drop an organ, rip something ect.
Geszelda 2 years ago
abortion is a very personal decision and there can be hundreds of different factors in your decision making process...raped,child will be born sick/deformed,might interfere with my social schedule...many factors.
stonedcommander 2 years ago
If only they would tie my tubes then i could maybe get over the fear of dead in pain, being alone, and think about adopting. Yet they wont cos im not old enough though if i was 25 and had 4 kids they would do it. Doesn't matter that it could kill me leave a child motherless and put a knife through the heart of the father.
Geszelda 2 years ago
The morning after pill is before your pregnant. It prevents you from getting pregnant.
xRennyBx 2 years ago
Not true, scientists admit they still dont fully understand which of 3 ways the plan B works, but the early stage provable facts is that it prevents a fertelized egg from being implanted in the uterine wall which is why you take it within the first 72 hrs after sex, so in fact you are actually pregnant, but with out implantation it is not a viable pregnancy, To conclude plan B is only 89% effective, compared to oral birth control that is 92 to 99.7% and stops ovulation thus prevents pregnancy.
daddyspooying 2 years ago
1st I'd like to establish that I feel partial birth abortion is barbaric.
That being said, I think forcing someone to undergo a full term pregnancy and delivery is cruel and unusual punishment.
Forcing a woman to carry a child she doesn't want is tantamount to punishing her for the mistake of conceiving without intent.
No judge in America would be allowed to sentence a murderer to childbirth. It would be too cruel. How could we sentence an irresponsible teen to the same?
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
do me a favor and watch the video response above (the one with the woman),tell me,do you agree with her?be honest.
stonedcommander 3 years ago
Do you mean do I agree with the point she's trying to make?
Is she saying abortion can be addictive?
Maybe. Cutting yourself can be addictive. Removing toes can be addictive. I guess abortion could be addictive to some really F'ed up people.
I really don't think most people get a rush from the experience.
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
i hope she was just trying to be funny.
nobody could be that evil...right?
stonedcommander 3 years ago
I thought there was something up when she talked about a rush and knew she was BSing when she pulled out the HAND WRITTEN punchcard. I think she was trying to portray aborters as evil.
You don't actually think she was serious do you? You're not ACTUALLY that gullible right?
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
you think she was trying to paint aborters as evil? you are wrong...you are the gullible one if you believe that...she is 100% pro-abortion...read her comments and wake up.
stonedcommander 3 years ago
Her comment insists the abortion card is legit when it was obviously hand written. The "Platinum Edition" was a cute touch.
I could be wrong about her intended message but that video was not genuine. There was some kind of satirical message.
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
i agree,thats why i said she must be trying to be funny...and failing,i might add.
a 14 year old girl facing this monumental choice is a far cry from her monsterous comments.
stonedcommander 3 years ago
Her card did seem to be a fake hand written card, but if you will check planned parenthood does have an abortion rewards card, 5 abortions get the 6 abortion free. So what ever she is trying to do there really is a abortion reward card out there that is real... and I think its horrible
daddyspooying 2 years ago
Abortion isn't the same thing as a person beating a pregnant woman to miscarriage. Abortion involves decision. If and when a woman does not want to have the child, or she will be unable to support the child (if she has low income or she is a teenager etc.), she can choose not to have a child who will not have a quality life.
Statistics also show that abortion decreases crime.
VampireSaviorX 3 years ago
The one good point I have seen in any of your videos. I can't understand why my fellow non-religious people can't see this.
personzorz 3 years ago
Yes sir,it is wrong StonedCommander...I couldn't agree with you more.I also like what you typed at the end too.Thanks!
FUCMYPO0705 3 years ago
im pro choice.this is because i belive a baby is not a baby till its born.i agree it is living,just not a baby.also nothing has the right to any part of anyother person.if science could find some way for a fetus to survive outside the womb,this would be a differnt argument,but they cant.that fetus has no rights to any part of a woman,just as i couldnt demand a kidney from my mum because i needed it to survive.although i dont belive abortion should be the first choice,sometimes its the only one
sampiro1 3 years ago
abortion is wrong.
i dont care how the woman gets pregnant,
ABORTION IS WRONG!!!
I cant believe that people will be upset if someone kills an animal but then they think that abortion is ok. i agree with you 100%
BuddyBoy091994 3 years ago
everyone that's for abortion...
could have been aborted.
would they be for that too?
of coarse not,they love life.
stonedcommander 3 years ago
one - woman was got the fucked kicked out of her and wanting her baby that is why people would be pissed
second-the others whanted the fetus/parusite (go look up the defenation) termanated and did not get the fuck killed out of them why it happened
er45nie 3 years ago
I agree with Stoned here. Not because I believe in the religious side of it, but because I believe that every life deserves a chance to live. Whether what's inside of a pregnant woman is "alive" or not doesn't matter to me, what matters is what it can become can ONLY become if it's given the chance, and what it can become is a living, breathing, individual. Who are we to deprive that life of it's chance to live? Forgot to wear a condom, raped, don't want it.Doesn't matter. It deserves a chance.
Puri7y 3 years ago
Here is my answer.
He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15
He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17
And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. -- Leviticus 26:29
And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. -- Deuteronomy 28:53
knightofdreamz 3 years ago 2
And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend. -- Jeremiah 19:9
The LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon.... And there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. -- Exodus 12:29-30
Yes, Lets focus on abortion here.
knightofdreamz 3 years ago 2
I pose to you two other alternate realistic situations to add to your video.
1. A mother's child dies while still inside the womb because she refuses proper modern medical treatment simply because of her religious convictions.
2. A Religious woman destroys her unborn baby because her religious insanities mixed with her mental instibility tells her that she will be raising the Anti-Christ.
knightofdreamz 3 years ago 2
Way to go knightofdreamz! I like your style. You did forget to mention that in the bible, it's a noble act for a man to butcher his own conscious son with a knife despite the pleas and cries. As long as God tells you to do it, it's fine! I'm pretty sure that there is no command in the bible that even specifies what abortion is or if its wrong.
mwolfson86 3 years ago
You're a fucking moron.
nedak 3 years ago 4
What if she was atheist?
Ajuinvaliid 3 years ago
Well of course that is okay.
knightofdreamz 3 years ago
A premature birth is one where the baby does not survive. Making the fetus of lower value than a person, or at least a woman. So there you have it. The Bible itself does not equate a fetus with being human.
huttonism 3 years ago
You do realize the Bible almost directly addresses this scenario? The Bible on numerous occasions says that the penalty for killing a human is death, and one of those places is in Exodus 21:12. Ten verses later this is what the Bible says "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the womans husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." continued in next comment
huttonism 3 years ago
The first sotry is worse because the woman did not want to get beat up and she perhaps wanted a child.
I will add a third story to the list. A man has sez with a woman but he....USES A CONDOM!!! Dun Dun duhhhhh. Hundreds of sperm cells never make it killing off hundreds of babies. Also a large perportion of pregnancies end in miscarriage. GOD YOU SON OF A BITCH! MURDERER!
Yeah. Not a big deal you motherfucker. Without a brain it is just a lump of cells. I am pro killing braindead people too.
AceGikmo45 3 years ago
You sanctomonius mysogonyst, a womans reprodutive choices are her own, are deeply personal and have no place in government or your scheme of things. Remember that lil thing.. seperation of church and state, abortion is not a religious issue, its a personal issue for women, and quite frankly you have no rights to their reproductive choices, keep your dick in your pants and they wont get pregnant will they, whats next, women that miscarry are murderers by association? You're beyond belief!!
MidianSpawned 3 years ago
Your own words "we have free will...god does not make nor prevent us from doing anything" so free will is given by god, therefore a womans free will to make her reproductive choices is given by god? ergo god is happy at her choice else he would not have given her the ability to choose
MidianSpawned 3 years ago
Your own words "the timeless question...why do terrible things happen to the innocent?
you can die the most horrible death imaginable,but if you have lived as a good person then that death is nothing compared to an eternity in heaven." you see life and person as at conception, therefore the foetus lead a "good" life, goes to heaven and all is well, so by your logic, women having abortions are in fact sending souls to heaven, and heaven is good, right!!!
MidianSpawned 3 years ago
It's a pity this guy's mother didn't opt for abortion.
furrybarry 3 years ago
Have you ever asked your mother if she has any regrets.. ?
DoctorE0 3 years ago
way to straw man there chief...
chyrd 3 years ago
I have a question of my own.
Suppose a man starts punching a pregnant woman in the belly. He takes a knitting needle and sticks it inside her. She's at serious risk of infection, but is too afraid to visit her doctor. Who is he?
Answer: He's her husband. He's doing this because anti-abortionists have made it impossible to get a clean, safe, legal abortion - and force doctors to report suspected cases of backstreet abortion.
Golden Crocoduck? Maybe we need a Golden Coathanger for pro-lifers.
lindsay40k 3 years ago
Your comparing apples and knives.
How about another example.
A woman is walking down the street at night. Suddenly a man comes out of the dark and assaults her. He brings her somewhere and rapes her violently. Weeks later she finds out shes pregnant.
Or, we have a married couple that have been planning to have a child for a few months, and find out the great news that the wife is pregnant.
They are both women that get pregnant.
Shouldn't both of them be happy?
How about an actual argument.
flamablesteve 3 years ago
you bring up a different argument...your question deals with a woman who was raped,then became pregnant as a result...that is a tough one...why should a woman have a baby that she did not want or plan,a baby forced into her?no...both of them should not be happy.
stonedcommander 3 years ago
My argument is that sad stories are not an argument. Im happy to have a debate about this subject. I myself feel very ambivalent about it. But your not really debating, your using emotion to persuade people to agree with you.
flamablesteve 3 years ago
Isn't your argument about a woman being raped emotional? Because there is a logical alternative to abortion in that case. uh uh adoption??? Ever heard of it?
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
my argument is emotional?
I didnt make an argument for abortion.
I was making a comparison to the type of argument he was making, to show how ridiculous it is.
"My argument", or rather the sad story I wrote, is not a legitimate argument. I was comparing it to his argument saying his isn't legitimate either.
How about actually reading.
flamablesteve 3 years ago
Sex ed causes, teen pregnancies and abortions. Stop elementary school sex ed or lust ed.
adznruses 3 years ago
adznruses, you've got it backwards... the LACK of proper education and how to protect oneself is what causes teen pregnancies... and there is no sex ed in elementary school, but some schools have implemented a short course so young children can learn how to recognize molestation and defend/avoid it.. or in the worst case, know who to call if it does happen
ScreamingNinja47 3 years ago 2
I'm curious do you believe a woman who is raped and gets pregnant should be allowed an abortion under god?
jimmy202500 3 years ago 2
god has nothing to do with the mothers free will to either keep or terminate the baby...rape is a tough one...its hard to imagine keeping a child that was forced into you by rape...plus if the victem is very young the baby coming could hurt or even kill her...people forget that god knows we will make bad decisions...thats why we confess to him and try to be better...the bible says we shall not kill...but we do...in war,crime,self defense,by accident and with abortion.god forgives all sins.
stonedcommander 3 years ago
On another side of this issue. If the baby will be healthy then give him/her up. Hatred will only cause more suffering, so let the child be raised by loving parents. No one asked for their parents.
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago 2
Cancer, is also life groing inside of you. Find one person who would be sad to have a malignant tumor removed from their body.
RuleOfLogic 3 years ago 3
"groing" should be replaced by growing.
RuleOfLogic 3 years ago
Does cancer have a heartbeat and unique DNA? If it does then perhaps we need to rethink our stance on it.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
A large number of micro-organisms that you "kill" on a daily basis fit that description.
"Murderer". ;)
Good work on shooting your own argument in the foot.
tryancooley 3 years ago
I'm here to speak on behalf of babies, not bacteria.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
Except that the criteria that you appealed to doesn't recognize the difference between them. You keep talking about the sanctity of micro-organic life, yet you yourself have no problem with destroying that kind of life every day.
This is yet another example of how the consequences of the emotionally laden rhetoric you're employing is something that the rational side of you sees the problem with.
tryancooley 3 years ago 2
If you really draw no distinction between bacteria and an embryonic child then you are either insane or operating at a level of denial heretefore unseen in human history.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
The point was that the criteria that *you* chose to appeal to doesn't recognize any difference. Don't try and shift the problem with your argument into me being in some sort of denial.
Again, another illustration of appealing to emotion instead of thinking through the consequences of what you're saying.
Cheers to consistency!
tryancooley 3 years ago
You argue like a child.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
...says the person who has been throwing around terms like "murder" and wielding definitions of what constitutes moral agency without considering the legal, logical, or ethical implications of doing so.
I think it's more than clear who has been "arguing like a child" here.
tryancooley 3 years ago
Oh yeah? Same to you! ;)
gorillamummy 3 years ago
I can understand why you'd want to end the discussion via a schoolyard response instead of actually addressing the consequences of your own argument, but that doesn't make those consequences disappear any more than winkey smileys do.
The fact remains that you call abortion "murder", yet at some level you recognize that it isn't; you're not prepared to treat those that engage in it the same way as those who actually commit murder are. Typical antichoice didn't-think-the-argument-through nonsense
tryancooley 3 years ago 2
Are you humorless? If you'd like to keep discussing this we can. I was trying to inject a bit of fun into an otherwise serious discussion. It's your call.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
Giving lie once again to your own "murder" rhetoric: What kind of person "jokes" about or "interjects fun" into a discussion about something that they truly believe to be the actual murder of babies in massive numbers on an ongoing basis?
I again submit that you don't even believe your own nonsense. "Argue like a child", indeed!
tryancooley 3 years ago
I try to keep these debates friendly because in such an impersonal medium it's easy to forget sometimes that we're just two people trying to hash-out a difficult issue.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
Was that before of after you chose to wield the rhetorical weapon of claiming those that "hash-out the difficult issue" differently than you were either "murderers" / that they support "killing of the most defenseless among us"?
The fact that you want to assume moral agency premises rather than actually discuss them and that you want to employ pejorative and legally laden rhetoric in one giant appeal to emotion shows not only that you're not interested in "friendly debate", just histrionics.
tryancooley 3 years ago
You keep attacking my "moral agency" and "appeals to emotion" but let's turn this around for a moment. If all of society were to adopt your purely logical viewpoint, it is conceiveable that were that same society ever to adopt the belief that destroying our own embryonic children is illogical and undesirable, you would become the enemy.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
I said nothing at all about *your* moral agency (I said that it's dishonest and disingenuous for you to keep employing the "killer"/"murderer" rhetoric when you yourself don't believe it). I criticized your assumption of moral agency existing simply due to gamete unification without providing an argument for it. You push it via rhetoric instead of doing the intellectual heavy lifting of actually making a case.
If you can make a logical case for banning choice, then I implore you, please do it.
tryancooley 3 years ago
I do believe that the intentional destruction of an embryo is the killing of a human being. But words like "murder" are admittedly sticky when used in a blanket fashion. That's why the law recognizes degrees of murder (first, second, manslaughter, etc.). I just think it's bizarre that you completely discount emotion when discussing this, as if it were not part of the overall human package. Logic and reason are invaluable, but can be dangerous when divorced from emotion.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
Cancer does infact have "unique" DNA.
RuleOfLogic 3 years ago
Ok, so if God forbid you ever get cancer be sure to give it a name and start a college fund.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
Yeah but cancer is a cell, not an organism.
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
Win I scratch my ass and a few cell get rip and die. Is this murder?
anonfsm 3 years ago 2
no it is not murder
stonedcommander 3 years ago
Do you think the mother should get the death penalty for having an abortion?? If you're against the death penalty, I assume you believe they should get life in prison?
baraqiyal 3 years ago 2
answer: yes
The death penalty is reserved for murderers.
How many lives has an unborn baby taken?
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
Interesting that you ask that because there's enormous competition among sperm, so if "every sperm is sacred" then I'd say the unborn baby has taken quite a lot of lives, possibly thousands or millions as sperm don't survive long.
mjr256 3 years ago
Yet a sperm is a cell. are we murders because cells die all the time? No! but when the two cells combine they become life. Are you so blind that you can't see the forest for the trees?
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
The cells don't "become life." They were alive long before fertilization. Surely your science education progressed beyond the 3rd grade! You're ascribing special value to a few cells, not me. Your reasons are religious, not science or evidence-based. I value physiologically autonomous, intelligent life w/ a capacity for self-awareness, abstract thought & a high measurable degree of suffering. My goal is to decrease suffering.A 1st trimester fetus lacks the cognitive processes necessary to suffer
mjr256 3 years ago
Ok then what is a baby? Could it possibly be a life? My scientific view is obviously beyond yours. I have the ability to understand what the evidence presents. If you want to decrease suffering then join the fight against abortion. Babies feel pain too.
Oh sorry, is that too logical for you?
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
Clearly your scientific view is beyond evidence as well. Calling a fetus a baby doesn't make it so anymore than calling the surge successful makes it so. You are quite deliberately choosing to alter the definitions of words to fit neatly into the rhetoric of your ideology. That is not science. The definition of a baby is "a child or animal that is newly or recently born." 1st trimester feti don't have a nervous system to feel pain. We have different words for different things to avoid confusion
mjr256 3 years ago
Except for the simple fact that a fetus is a baby. Clearly you don't know what the word evidence means. Your ideaology is what causes words to be redefined for another purpose. Just because the nervous system hasn't developed doesn't make it less alive. If your nervous system suddenly quit working, would it be ok to kill you? Obviously your answer is no. So why is it ok to kill a baby that doesn't have one?
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
The heart is developed enough to start beating in less than one week after conception. You not scientifically dead unless the heart stops beating. Why the double standard? If you kill a fetus inside a willing mother it's murder. So why can doctors rip them out and kill them in a clinic? once again Why is there a double standard?
Why are you unable to answer my questions?
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
"The heart is developed enough to start beating in less than one week after conception."
This is impossible.
In one week, there is no cell in the "fetus" other than stem cells. You cant have formed ANYTHING. (Its not even called a fetus, its called an embryo.)
Embryogenesis lasts 8 weeks. during this time the embryo is nothing but stem cells. It has no functioning system of any sort.
flamablesteve 3 years ago
"You not scientifically dead unless the heart stops beating. Why the double standard?"
Again. not true.
Legal death is brain death. If your heart stops beating but they can keep the blood flowing through machinery(not possible in emergencies, but certainly possible.) then your still alive.
BUT if your brain dies and your heart is still beating, your legally dead.
There is such thing as an artificial heart. Are these people legally dead?
flamablesteve 3 years ago 2
It is a double standard. It's also very true.
Remember legally dead is only a matter of constitutional law. Nothing to do with science. The body is not officially dead until everything ceases function.
Your final question proves your an idiot. The Jarvik heart is still a working heart. Go back to school and finish 3rd grade please.
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
Again, the definition of a baby - "a child or animal that is newly or recently born." Fetus - "the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the 2nd month of gestation." A fly is alive too but I don't see you concerned about their deaths. How ethical a killing is is largely, though not completely, proportional to the degree of perceived harm or suffering.
mjr256 3 years ago
Examine your own definition of fetus. You missed the point. If we are animals why do we excuse sub-animalistic behavior. Unlike animals we have morality. So why the double standard? You yet again fail to answer my questions. Why?
Animals kill their on kind for a purpose. What is the purpose of killing a baby or fetus. (Same thing) If what you just said is even slightly true than there is no purpose for humans being the intelligent beings at the top of the food chain.
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
Ethical killing is proportional to survival. Flies carry the potential to infect one with a disease. Cows are eaten. Animals kill for food all the time. We execute the innocent and throw them in garbage bins. Now how ethical is that?
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
You'll have to explain what you mean by "sub-animalistic behavior." Many animals do have morality: chimps, bonobos, dogs, etc. & I have no problem w/ doggy abortions so I don't see any double standard. I'm not arguing about killing babies; I'm talking about underdeveloped pre-human life w/ not the capacity to think in any meaningful way, physically survive autonomously, or suffer. The purpose of terminating a pregnancy is theoretically to alieve the suffering of the would-be parent. cont'd
mjr256 3 years ago
Are you serious? You don't know what the prefix SUB means?
First: Chimps, bonobos, and dogs, do not show morality. They have emotions, but morality and emotions are seperate entities. I never brought up "doggy abortions" The double standard applies to the fact that you want to argue butchering a cow as abortion. The purpose of sex theoretically is to have babies. If you don't want to suffer the inconvience of a baby... DON'T HAVE SEX! quit overlooking the obvious and answer my questions.
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
I don't know what you are defining as "sub-anamalistic behavior."
I've analyzed the studies and no, chimps, bonobos & dogs DO show true altruistic behaviors. I didn't bring up butchering cows; you did & I still see no double standard. Human beings are hardwired to have sex, a holdover from when the purpose of sex was indeed purely procreation. Now we've technologically evolved to where sex can have many purposes, 1 of which is recreation or gratification. Contraception affords us that option.
mjr256 3 years ago
Behavior beneath that of an animals. Welcome obviousville population: you. Like I said you can't see a double standard because you live it. You were the first to suggest butchering cows. Think before you post. Once again Humans are not animals. I still don't see why you fail to answer questions. Humans are not hard wired for sex idiot. No amount of drugs and technology will change that. Science is a tool not a purpose. But your probably too lazy to understand responsibility too.
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
You're misunderstanding my questions. What DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE behavior beneath that of an animal? & what is the double standard? I've asked 2 very clear questions & you've avoided answering both of them. I never made any reference to cows. Humans ARE animals. Humans ARE hardwired for sex. These are facts. But you're right, technology hasn't changed that; it has however changed the reason many people choose to have sex. This might come as a shock but most of the time, it isn't for procreation
mjr256 3 years ago
cont'd
Yes, there is no objective, innate purpose for humans being the intelligent beings at the top of the food chain. Meaning is a subjective trait that comes from us. The universe is indifferent; it neither cares about us nor will it miss us when we're gone. That we exist at all & that we have the ability to ascribe meaning to things appears to be merely an unmotivated epiphenomena of natural forces playing out over vast quantities of time.
mjr256 3 years ago
I see. You are a lost cause. So busy being self-absorbed in his materialistic, neo athenian humanist beliefs that you can't see the perverbial forest for the trees.
Everything has a purpose. If you can't see that, then perhaps you should ask yourself questions instead of throwing your insipid, nonsensical jabberings at people who choose to educate themselves. Had sad it must be to bare such a burden of self inflicted blindness.
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
By "materialistic" you of course mean "reality." "Everything has a purpose"--prove it. And no, not sad at all. I can't complain. I'm one of the lucky ones who's overcome enormous obstacles to exist at all. So it's all good.
mjr256 3 years ago
No I mean you belive stuff gives meaning. You want proof of purpose take a good look around. Prove it doesn't. I didn't say you were emotionally sad. I said pathetic. By the way... Why did you bother trying to overcome those obstacles if there was no purpose in life? There is proof of purpose. Still I know you can't understand this. You don't seem to understand simple things.
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
There is no evidence whatsoever to validate the claim that there is objective purpose; that is a faith-based belief, not an evidence-based one. You're shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim; it's your job to back it up. I didn't say there was "no purpose in life." I said there was no objective, innate purpose in life. We're perfectly capable of creating purpose ourselves w/o any need to attribute that meaning to outside agency. Ad hominem arguments are no substitute for rational ones.
mjr256 3 years ago
I believe what defines a human life is our capacity to think.
According to your definition, someone with an artificial heart has no rights.
Why do you hate people with heart problems?
flamablesteve 3 years ago
ok that is just blatant stupidity. You feeble minded way of thinking is the problem with youtube. Someone who has an artificial heart STILL HAS A WORKING HEART! For the sake of everything decent in this world. Please go back to school and finish the 3rd grade.
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
When a sperm and an egg combine, they don't really change at all. They just mix their DNA together.
Other than that, the stem cell of the two combined are not really any different than an individual egg or sperm.
flamablesteve 3 years ago
No individual egg or sperm ever became a person. Do I really have to explain that?
gorillamummy 3 years ago
no,women who have abortions should not get the death penalty.they should not get in any trouble at all while alive...thier trouble comes when they die and must answer for thier actions...if they confess and really mean it in thier hearts then god will forgive them and possibly one day they will be reunited in the afterlife.mother and child...together forever.
stonedcommander 3 years ago
WTF You don't believe murderers should get into any trouble at all??
baraqiyal 3 years ago 2
trying to twist my words idiot...you should have been aborted you filthy animal.
stonedcommander 3 years ago
"Pro-life", indeed!
Good show.
tryancooley 3 years ago
Your own analogy compared OBGYNs to "hitmen" and women who have abortions to people who hire hitmen. Think for a few seconds about the legal implications of that. Then watch yourself run away from that with this whole "no, they'll be judged in the afterlife".
That's precisely what I mean about you people not believing your own rhetoric and the intellectual dishonesty of engaging in it.
tryancooley 3 years ago 2
we have faith in god...not proof.if a women kills her unborn we pray for them both.a person who kills a human being has commited a murder of unquestionable fact...stop grasping for straws idiot.
stonedcommander 3 years ago
Thanks for that admission that your entire argument isn't rooted in fact, logic, or reason, but merely your non-factual, illogical, irrational,personal belief and your desire that everyone else obey it.
"Idiot", indeed!
tryancooley 3 years ago 6
The problem is the equivocation of the two stories and the premise behind that equivocation.
In the first story, the assailant robs the woman of control over her own body. The second story is one of a woman exercising that very control. Yes, one story is worse than the other, and the fact that you'd even consider the two comparable is quite revealing. Praytell you find yourself some babyfactory some day who shares your bronze-age views.
tryancooley 3 years ago
do you like rabbit stew...i dont think so...you just hate human babies...monster.
stonedcommander 3 years ago
Yes, clearly I "hate human babies". Thanks for putting the brilliant reasoning capabilities of the anti-choice movement on display once again.
Go back to your "planets are round, god musta done it" nonsense. At least that was relatively benign and somewhat amusing.
tryancooley 3 years ago
Let me get this straight. tryancooley considers a mother a "baby factory" and the sanctity of life an outdated "Bronze-age" view. No wonder they say that forward movement is not always progress.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
Actually, I consider a mother to be more than a "baby factory". That was the point I was making. Thanks, though, for putting the brilliant reasoning capabilities of the anti-choice movement on display once again.
tryancooley 3 years ago 2
You didn't make a point. And for the record, it doesn't take brilliance to recognize what is self-evident: 1 sperm cell + 1 egg = new and unique life. When you destroy that life, you cancel an innocent person via violence. That's murder.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
Is that your way of apologizing for lying about what I consider "baby factories"?
BDCW has already called attention to the problem with your rhetoric. If failing to carry any single celled zygote to term is "murder", then miscarriages, failed implantation, and even IVF are also acts of murder. If you truly believe your own nonsense to be true, you should be campaigning to put OBGYNs to death and rape victims that take emergency contraception in jail. The diff b/w you and Paul Hill is...?
tryancooley 3 years ago
Again, more pointless rhetoric because life is self-evident and your side doesn't have a leg to stand on. I cannot come to the defense of a fetus as I might a neighbor in distress, simply because the law is against me. That's why we work through the courts, and through hearts and minds, to stop abortions. A miscarriage, unless brought-on artificially, is a death by natural cause. With regard to IVF, I have no opinion because I haven't yet thought through it. It's called intellectual honesty.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
"Pointless rhetoric" is right! If you believe that rape victims that seek contraception, that people who take emergency contraception measures, and that OBGYNs who assist all of the above are indeed "murderers", then what do you advocate ought to be done with them? Is the "murder" garbage a bit of convenient rhetoric, or do you really believe it? Will you follow it to it's logical and legal conclusion?
tryancooley 3 years ago
They're operating under the law right now, so I wouldn't do anything to them. We're out to change the laws.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
To what? Jail OBGYNs? Incarcerate women who choose to have an abortion? Punish rape victims or anyone else that seeks emergency contraception? Ban IVF? I realize that calling people baby-haters/killers is a fun bit of rhetoric, but I don't think you even believe that yourself.
tryancooley 3 years ago
You want me to say that I hate and want to punish people because maybe that's what you believe about me. It's not true. My ultimate, blue-sky vision of all this is much gentler and more positive. If it were up to me we'd come out of this abortion debate less murderous as a species and more appreciative of our value to one another.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
No, what I want you to do is recognize the implications of the rhetoric that you've adopted. You're using is because it's convenient, but I don't think even you believe it. So would you have abortion providers sentenced to life or to death for the "murders" they carry out? How about women who seek out emergency contraception? Couples who use IVF? Rape victims? Or are you just using that kind of histrionic rhetoric because it's convenient and you haven't really thought things through?
tryancooley 3 years ago
The reality is that human life has become disposable at its earliest stages (I'd argue that it's not treated much better in its late stages, but that's another debate). You can confuse the argument all you like but it does not change the fact that abortion is dehumanizing and it's murder. That's the core of what we're talking about. The heart beating within your chest should be a constant reminder to you. If it's not, you're just in denial.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
Change the laws to what? If you really believe your own "murder/babykiller" rhetoric, what punishment would you see the people you so cavalierly call "murderers/babykillers" receive?
This is what I mean about not thinking through the implications of your emotional appeal and use of loaded language. It's amusing the lengths that you've gone to avoid addressing this. I realize that you want to "change the laws", but would that change reflect the inflammatory rhetoric that you've been employing?
tryancooley 3 years ago
I imagine the "punishments" and charges would reflect circumstances, like the system we currently have, including distinctions between murder and manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc, and then degrees within that, such as first-degree, second-degree, etc.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
Since abortion is almost always intentional, informed, and pre-meditated, you're still avoiding the consequences of your rhetoric.
You don't seem to realize that the emotionally loaded language that you've adopted either makes you Paul Hill-like in your views (see "evilmaster") for actually believeing it or disingenuous for using it. I think you're more intelligent than "evil", but I also do think you haven't thought your own argument through to its conclusions. That's why you're dissembling.
tryancooley 3 years ago
I have thought it through. I wish you would study my language more carefully before characterizing it. You have seen me call abortion murder, but you have never seen me call a mother or her doctor a murderer. If we are ever to get beyond this age of casual destruction of human life we will have to dig out from under generations of fear, anger and misunderstanding. I judge the act, yes, but not the actor. My idealistic hope is that we get to a new place as a culture.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
I understand that you want to separate your rhetoric from its logical and legal consequences. That is precisely the point. You want to wield the sword of calling abortion, emergency contraception, IVF, embrionic stem cell research, etc.. "murder", but you don't want to accept the logical or legal consequences of doing so.
I hope we get to a new place as a culture as well, but that will require a rejection of the divisive, emotionally laden rhetoric that you've chosen to employ.
tryancooley 3 years ago 2
like poor children who have lost faith in faimily and god so they seek acceptance in street gangs...these lost souls find comfort with each other on you-tube.pathetic.
stonedcommander 3 years ago
Unlike your dark ages views right. That woman exercises her control, but at the same time takes away a childs control. What if that baby was a girl? Doesn't she have the right to keep her body living?
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
If you're so convinced abortion is institutionalized baby murdering, then why aren't you stopping it by any means necessarily like any sane person would if they believed babies were being murdered by the government? What are you, a coward? I'll tell ya, if I believed abortion was institutionalized baby murdering, I'd form an army and do something. I wouldn't sit around for 40 years hoping some1 changes the laws. Wuss!
mjr256 3 years ago
youd start an army...you stupid ass,what a childish response...that implies killing people to make them stop.i dont want to kill anyone...life is a gift that i nor you has the right to destroy.now that obama is finished,mabye the law will be changed.put lipstick on an atheist and its still an atheist.tee hee.
stonedcommander 3 years ago
Strange statement since Obama is more christian than McCain.
flamablesteve 3 years ago
1. What would a militia do?
*Cause a counter strike from the National Guard.
*Kill those fighting to save lives.
*Erase all traces of those who fought for the right to live.
You see why we avoid that option, It's not diplomatic.
By the way, people have tried that. I doesn't help anything, is gives momentum to the opposition.
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
"You see why we avoid that option, It's not diplomatic."
You know what else it's not? Successful. How many "babies" have been exterminated through abortion since Roe v. Wade? If you actually believe this stuff what are you personally doing to stop all the "baby-killing?" This is how you're rationalizing sitting on your butt for 35 years while it happens? Good job. & how exactly do you think this is better than the German bystanders who did nothing during the Holocaust? Keep up the non-work.
mjr256 3 years ago
Woah! hold right there. Now you want to get self righteous? FIrst off I'm not sitting on my butt about it. I'm very active in politics. I don't vote for candidates that support abortion, and I spread the word to as many as possible. You better know someone before you try to pull that crap again.
evilmasterstudios 3 years ago
"Now you want to get self righteous?" Um, I think you got that backwards. I'm sure all those dead "babies" would appreciate your being "very active in politics." How's that's working for ya?
& I'm pretty sure the word has already been spread to every1 already. This is why abortion will never ever be repealed in the U.S. The opposition either doesn't believe in their cause enough to actually fight for it or are too cowardly to risk their cushy lives by fighting for it. Either way you still lose
mjr256 3 years ago
We'll win eventually, in the Supreme Court.
gorillamummy 3 years ago
Keep telling yourself that.
Good luck. :)
mjr256 3 years ago