If you value liberty, you should value a woman's choice about her own body over a few cells that can't feel anything. 'Life begins at conception' - bullshit. The only thing you're preventing with abortion is the potential for a life, which is the same thing you are preventing if you wear a condom, or even decide not to have sex. It's not a law that we should be constantly fucking each other. Sorry to break it to you Ron, but you kill 100,000,000 sperm cells every time you masturbate.
If we protect the rights of the fetus because it's "alive", then we should protect the rights of an animal too. And bugs. And cancer cells. And crabs. And mold.
@WrathoftheGoddess I'm really not trying to tell people what they should be doing with "their" bodies. People can do what they want with "their" bodies. My point is that when you become pregnant, you have another 'body' to think about and put first before your own self. The body of the baby is NOT the same as the body of the mother. Someone needs to speak for the innocent who cannot speak for themselves.
@angelkdz1 You can speak up for the innocent all you like, but you cannot oppress a woman's bodily autonomy for them. You do not have to put the baby first and forget yourself, you should think about your own body and the baby. Do we force a person to use their body against their will to keep another person alive? Like a person on kidney dialysis or something? No, because no person has the right to use another person's body to keep themselves alive. Unless of course they offer to.
oh come on...I agree with Ron Paul on a lot of things but is he really saying a fetus can really feel pain the day after conception? I'd say women shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion 28 weeks into the pregnancy. It's their body, their choice, & doesn't hurt the fetus until the thalamus is developed.
@AlexaInternational Top abortionists agree that the baby can feel pain at the latest by 20 weeks and are required to offer the mother anesthesia for the baby to lessen his/her suffering. I respectfully don't agree with the "It's their body" comment at all. The baby is not the same as the body of the mother so the mother's choice to abort, infringes on the baby's right to a life. When I was pregnant, I was very aware that my body and the baby's body were completely seperate.
I agree with Ron Paul on so many issues but then I get to this one and I hit a brick wall and don't really know how to feel. It's such an important issue that it's hard to just ignore his stance. But I suppose he couldn't really succeed as a Republican candidate if he was pro-choice.
Ron Paul is not a libertarian. Libertarians are by default pro-choice because they believe that every person should do what they want with their lives and bodies without any outside interference.
Ayn Rand, arguably the mother of Libertarianism, was a staunch pro-choicer with very harsh views of the so-called "pro-lifers".
@SexedUpAtheist It's a rather distorted libertarianism, seeing as the discipline of libertarianism is very pro-choice, and basically pro-keeping government/state out of private affairs with a person's body, and a woman's bodily autonomy is one of them.
I'm not prepared to give a baby/fetus/child without concsiousness of its own existence, more autonomy than a woman. It seems rather illogical.
@WrathoftheGoddess Lol so what is it then? It's just an organism that isn't a being of any sort? Should PETA begin to take issue at abortion then if its not a human being yet? Is it a germ, a virus, a microscopic organism? What is it then if not human? I'm not saying this as an argument to infringe on a woman's civil liberties, but what is that thing that is in her womb? It is very much alive, even if not containing a consciousness or a sentient life form.
@punkmusicmetal It's a parasite. Pregnancy is a very dangerous thing & if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant- she shouldn't be forced to share her uterus. The so-called "rights" of a fetus should not usurp the rights of a grown, conscious woman.
@punkmusicmetal Well of course it's alive and of course it has human DNA, but that's about it. I am not prepared to view humans from a reductionist point of view: Namely, that all we are is our DNA, which seems to be what you are implying. I don't like the idea of having to give up my bodily autonomy so that a baby/fetus can continue to live off of me without my consent. Doesn't that sound a bit police state-ish?
@WrathoftheGoddess I'm not telling you what do with your body. I didn't say anything about forcing women to do anything. If anyone is going to make a decision, it should be the individual carrying the fetus/baby/organism. But I don't care how anyone defines it; I believe whatever it is, it is alive and I don't feel that someone should take something like taking a living organism's life lightly. We were all once that, and I wouldn't have wanted someone to end me. This is just my opinion.
@punkmusicmetal We were also once sperm and egg. An egg dies every month in one persons body and millions of sperm die every day in another persons body. Bacteria die so that I can live, and do the things I want. Terminating a pregnancy should not be taken lightly but no one should tell another person what to do with their life, especially considering a fetus is not living as we are, but rather just existing.
What is ironic about this is that Ron Paul would refuse to let a woman have an abortion yet when the child is born he would resent the state from raising that child.
I am very undecided on the topic of abortion..But im leaning more that it should be illegal. It's still a life...and should not be killed. Yeah you can say, ''well I can't take care of him or give it a proper life or I just don't want a kid anymore'' Well then don't have unprotected sex?
@NomNomIEatChu I believe it is the choice of the Mother. It's her body, and until that baby is born it is still apart of her own body. But, I believe that safe sex teaching should be used alongside abstinence. To provide a safe alternative to sex, so that no one would need to abort.
@Chaz6993X Why is suicide illegal? If it is your own body? Why is it not okay to end your own life but a woman can go and have a baby inside of her killed and the argument is that it is her body? The body of the baby is absolutely not the same as the body of the mother. The baby is living inside of the mothers womb...basically on life support.
@NomNomIEatChu What about people who had "protected" sex and it failed? Contraceptives aren't 100% effective. Also, what if a woman gets raped and impregnated that way? Should she have to give birth to a child that was forced upon her by a rapist?
@bigfrotes9912 In the case of rape, it is actually less than 1% of ALL abortions. If your father robbed a bank, should you go to prison for his crime? Why should an innocent baby be killed in a case of rape? So that it is easier for the mother? I can tell you that it would not make the mother feel better about the rape. Adoption is a better option and many women who have been in that situation did chose adoption and their children grew up to be great people.
@angelkdz1 Yes I know it is rare, it was an example of something to think about. The mother should have the choice to abort a baby in any circumstance but especially in the case of rape. Who are you to tell someone what they can do with their own body? The only time I disagree with abortion is if it's past 5 months in.
@bigfrotes9912 Is suicide legal? We are already told what we can do with OUR body but it's okay for a woman to kill a baby in the womb? If a man hits a woman in the stomach when she is pregnant and the baby dies, he can then be arrested for murder. Our world is SO backwards! Everytime I see pictures of abortion or read about how it is done, I feel sick to my stomach because it is complete horror what is happening. A baby's hearts starts beating around 5-6 weeks...
@angelkdz1 That's good for you, but don't try to be an authoritarian and tell other people what they should be doing with their bodies. I do not personally like police states.
@bigfrotes9912 (con't) ...When I was pregnant, everything I did for my body was for the health of the baby, what I ate, didn't eat, how much I slept. When you become pregnant, you have to put the baby first and I know that is difficult in this selfish and self serving world we live in but it can be done. If you UNABLE to care for the baby, there is a better choice. The problem is, abortion is more often then not used as "birth control" when real contraceptives were not used.
@bigfrotes9912 I was also going to mention that I saw a video on abort73, it was like 5 minutes and it does give a lot of facts regarding abortion...wouldn't hurt to watch, even if you think you already know all there is to know...at the risk of sounding condescending, you may learn something.
@bigfrotes9912 Then close your legs and don't have sex till your ready. I don't see the big deal. Would a mother really be cruel enough to get an abortion and kill her own child? It's still hers! The rapist would obviously be punished for what he did but I feel like theres no need to kill the life!
@NomNomIEatChu Don't come at me with that bullshit. People have sex, that's the way it is. So according to you, one should only have sex to have a baby? If you are having protected sex then you are being responsible, but sometimes shit happens. And, women have the right to get an abortion if they feel the need to. If you don't want your kids or friends or whatever to get abortions than tell them, but you have no right telling others what they can do with their own bodies.
@bigfrotes9912 its not just for a baby but you are coming up with the silliest things.If you truly are safe, nothing will happen. Besides you act as if sex is everything which its not.what happend to kissing, cuddling, besides It's a life thats at risk! Tbh idk how can you say you would get an abortion without your conscious saying maybe i shouldnt be killing my own child. lol. Im 15. And theres pregnant 16 year olds all over my school getting abortions. Thats not right, im sorry we dont agree.
@bigfrotes9912 and p.s im not telling what to do with your body. im not president or any higher person. I am just stating my opinion as you are stating yours.
@NomNomIEatChu Ok, well you are 15 telling me about being safe. BTW I'm a guy not a girl, just advocating for the rights of women. I never said sex is everything, but it is a part of life. Also, you apparently don't know what you are talking about, because even if you are being safe (contraceptives) you can still get pregnant. Then my last point, even if you were "president or any higher person" you still would have no right to tell others what to do with their body.
@bigfrotes9912 It's a part of life-exactly. Why kill the life that comes from having sex? xD Okay then don't have sex, I REALLY do not see the issue. Theres different ways to have sex too without having to get pregnant or having any risk of pregnancy. You really don't make sense :/ Im not telling you what to do with your body. It's my opinion. And we live in the United Sates, where everyone can have their own opinion and where you cannot force your beliefs on others.
@NomNomIEatChu So if a father rapes his daughter, she should be forced to keep it or flood foster homes with unwanted children? Some women never want children but want to have sex. Pregnancy is a very dangerous thing & if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant- she shouldn't be forced to share her uterus. The so-called "rights" of a fetus should not usurp the rights of a grown, conscious woman.
@AlexaInternational because every father rapes his daughter? Most woman that have abortions I guarantee are not because of rape. Okay well don't have sex? Find other ways to interact with your partner. If she doesnt want to be pregnant she should think of her child before herself, especially since it is not the unoborn babies fault in the end, it was your fault. It's pretty much like murder if you ask me. And just because you are older does not give you any more rights than somebody younger
@NomNomIEatChu Chill. I never said you do not have a constitutional right to state your opinion, I am merely stating mine as well. An embryo the size of a seed is far less conscious than a fish or a bird and is not even close to resembling a human being. It has the potential of becoming one which is like resembling an acorn to a tree."
@ProphetOfTheTeapot According to planned parenthood, less than 7% are girls in their teens. The majority of abortions are done by women in their 20's.
@angelkdz1 Quoted from Abort73. additionally, i am really growing quite tired of people throwing around their opinions as if they were fact. Abortionists have agreed that pain is felt at the least by 20 weeks which is in the 2nd trimester, halfway thru the pregnancy. abortionist's are required to offer women anesthesia to the baby to lessen its suffering. Now that, is a fact.
@dudeonthasopha The fetal pain question is not at all central to the abortion debate. Whether the unborn child suffers pain during an abortion or not is secondary to the much bigger reality; the child is being killed. Quietly shooting someone in their sleep makes you no less guilty of murder than if you had stabbed them to death. Providing an unborn child with anesthesia so you can kill them "humanely" makes abortion no less heinous.
this speech is very oxymoronic. and i thought he was libertarian? he is more like a half-assed libertarian, he wants a fully free market and no big government but he still wants to govern your morality with this abortion shit. fuck ron paul.
@dudeonthasopha He wants to protect the life of the unborn, which shouldn't be governed by any one person's morality (or lack thereof). Stop being a tool, and think for yourself.
@SexedUpAtheist I am thinking for myself, I suppose you think because i dont believe what you believe i have no ability to form my own opinions on the subject. If we have the technology to do it who are you to say they cant? the silent scream theory is bs because pain receptors aren't developed until mid 3rd trimester. abortions have been performed since ancient egypt. they'll do it safely or get infected and die doing it themselves. either way people will always do it.
@dudeonthasopha I don't care if you agree with me: I do care that you're being disingenuous.
Libertarians are just fine with small government making laws against such things as murder, rape, etc. If they happen to be pro-life, then they believe that laws should protect the unborn.
Your appeal to tradition means nothing to me: we used to keep slaves, and women used to have no rights. Also, people have always raped and murdered: doesn't mean they should be legal.
@SexedUpAtheist you dont understand libertarianism then. No government, no religious twist, no moral governing,Libertarians are basically anarchists that only approve the state for international protection.so i wouldnt call him a full libertarian, words lose their meaning when people don't understand them. its weird for an atheist to say that. im atheist too and i don't believe its "life" like many religious opinions do. its a dependent organism, and its the MOTHER'S body/choice
@dudeonthasopha You should probably know more about what you're talking about before you talk about it. No government = anarchy. Libertarianism is not anarchy. Libertarians desire a small government institution whose sole purpose is to serve and protect all people. Ron Paul is a libertarian.
I don't care if you believe or not: human life begins at conception, it's a fact. It is dependent, but that's irrelevant. It is alive, and deserves the protection that society can give it.
@tgurau if you knew what the libertarian theory was you wouldn't ask that. words lose their meaning when you dont know, the point of libertarianism is the government is out of EVERY aspect of your life. If you want an abortion the gov't can't say shit just like there are no federal taxes or basically ANY federal government. its an semi-anarchic state with a military, which is a legitimate philosophy, but not what ron paul presents.read up on political theory before you act like u know it
@dudeonthasopha No, it isn't. Words don't lose their meaning at all: however, when you don't understand their meaning, then your arguments lose their meaning.
Libertarianism is not anarchism. Period. Please refer to a dictionary or other source of information to learn more about each, so that you may know the difference between them.
@SexedUpAtheist wow your fucking dumb. its ANARCHIC (you know what adjectives are, right?) not full blown anarchy, that was apparent when i said the state exists. i don't have to refer to a dictionary hahaha, i have 25-30 text books dealing with political theory, 2 are specifically on libertarianism as well as 4 years of study in politics. many political philosophies have elements of anarchy. libertarianism cannot be a part of America's religious right wing, its an oxymoron.
@dudeonthasopha You dare to accuse me of being stupid, and ask me if I know what an adjective is, yet your sentence lacks proper capitalization and punctuation, and you even misplace an adjective (your) by using it in place of a conjunction (you're). Oh, the delicious irony!
Now, please: look up these words before you use them, so that you don't look like an idiot when you try to converse with others... top of the list should be "oxymoron".
@SexedUpAtheist drop the fuckin standard English argument. its hella annoying when people do that. welcome to the fucking internet hahaha. you should probably stop caring. we have 500 characters, im not going to waste a bunch on punctuation or bother to really proof read. i constantly overlook misspellings and punctuation from other people because there isn't much of a reason for me to give a shit, its the message that matters.
@dudeonthasopha Nice try, but you can't play the "lol internet" card when you get snarky about adjectives, genius. Besides, that's a shit cop-out for lazy fucktards who can't be bothered to know how to communicate properly.
Also, it wasn't an argument: it was just a perceptive observation. Again, I suggest that you hit the fucking books so that you can stop mangling the English language. Thank you.
@dudeonthasopha It's not about a choice. He see's it as murder. If a man kills a pregnant woman and is convicted, he's convicted of murder on 2 counts, one for the mother and one for the child.
@tgurau A fetus isn't developed enough to have any concept of life or reality. Bringing it into a home that is breaking down with abusive parents or drug addicts is a lot worse than simply ending it's life before it begins. That is just like saying, don't use condoms or masturbate because you are killing sperm or you have to have a baby every 9 months because otherwise the egg is dying. A fetus is not developed enough to be called living as we are, more as sperm, eggs, bacteria and things are.
@ProphetOfTheTeapot Well a new born baby doesn't have that concept either. It's just as dependant on the mom as an embryo is, would you killing that too? It's nothing like killing killing sperm or bacteria because once the sperm inseminates the, it becomes an embryo. The said embryo has the DNA that it will live and die with decades after birth. Keeping someone from a broken home is no excuse for killing them. That's a lame arguement.
@tgurau Broken home argument is one of the best arguments for abortion. I do foster caring and almost all the kids we deal with are from broken homes. The ones that get out early, thanks to the police, are the ones that grow up to be good, functioning members of society. Studies show that after 5, kids become almost unhelpable, as they have the mindset of hating the government, they haven't had a good education fro their parents and they are a lot more likely to become unhappy with their lives.
@ProphetOfTheTeapot You're view actually disgusts me. It's disgusting to think that instead of helping a child in a broken home, you would instead kill him or her. I know you're not saying to kill the child that's already in society, but you're basically wishing death upon these children. You shouldn't be doing foster care in any circumstance. Besides, most abortions aren't aborted because they're in a broken home, which is why your argument is invalid.
@ProphetOfTheTeapot Most abortions happen because the baby is an inconvenience. The child wouldn't make the parent's life worse, they just don't want the child so they kill it.
@tgurau That my friend, is wrong. Most abortions happen because there are children having children. If you want to lower abortion rates, which I do, then teach children about safe sex, rather than take the American "Catholic" approach and just say don't do it. Teach people to use condoms and take birth control pills, then we won't have so many abortions, but in a lot of cases, they are necessary. Also, if a person has no motor skills, look at what they have said earlier.
@tgurau Why bring a baby into an already overpopulated world, into an abusive home that can't look after it properly and then they get moved around from home to home with no stability so they can when they grow up they can go in and out between a prison and a gutter?
@tgurau Also, a new born does have a concept of reality, and is living, an embryo does not and is not. Also, old people who have no more incentive to keep on living I believe should have the option of euthanasia. If I become at the state where I can no longer do things for myself and need to rely on various machines, I will give my life up, as I hardly have one anymore, so money and time isn't wasted on me, when it could be used on more important things. I could die when I chose with my loved
@ProphetOfTheTeapot I wasn't talking about giving them the choice, I was talking about just doing it. The point is that they wouldn't be able to decide if given the choice because they're close to brain dead, incontenent, and barely in control of any motor function.
@ProphetOfTheTeapot Why don't we just kill all the older people that can no longer take care of themselves and are no longer self aware due to some kind of condition in the brain. They wouldn't suck money from their family or the government (because lots of people become dependant on our tax $ through medicare/medicaid) and they wouldn't suffer anymore. They wouldn't know the difference.
For the sake of arguing, why is it that life begins at conception? Conception by definition is the fertilization of the egg with the sperm. After a few days that fertilized egg either attaches to the uterus or is drained away by the normal period cycle. As explained in Planned Parenthood, half of the fertilized eggs usually don't attach to the uterus before implantation so it's lost. So why would we define life then when in normal circumstances it's already gone due to a normal period cycle?
@EvaneLunestra This is the whole problem: people imagine they can "define" things that are already matters of established fact. Why not call a dog's tail its fifth leg? What if most people agree that we should? Why shouldn't two and two make five on every other Thursday? That would be good for business. Heck, Pluto used to be a planet, but then someone decided it wasn't. Pluto's still whatever it was before the "change," though, isn't it? And calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't a thing, does it?
@billybagbom Even though this isn't your main point and you were just using it as an example. Pluto is and always was a dwarf planet, it was just misclassified as a planet. I thought that needed to be clarified, sorry for changing the subject.
@billybagbom Fact? No. Definitions are subjective. We agree to call a dog's tail a tail, but it isn't objectively a tail any more than a dog is objectively a dog. They are both subjective definitions, agreed upon by general consensus.
The general consensus of biologists is that life begins at conception. If you believe otherwise, then you are deluding yourself. In fact, many who argue pro-choice concede this point, but consider it irrelevant. THEREIN lies the REAL cause for debate.
Biologists like everyone is human. There are rights, wrongs, opinions, views, and other things that separate us. Just because they got a masters degree or PHD doesn't mean they are always right. A few months back, CERN scientists with subatomic particles broke the speed of light. Einstein's theory was proven wrong. In short, we are still growing, learning, and try to understand everything, but subjective to making mistakes because we're only human.
@EvaneLunestra Einstein's theory has not yet been proven wrong beyond reasonable doubt, which is why more tests will be done to verify the results.
Still, for 105 years, we have maintained that this theory is true, and this is because there has been substantial evidence suggesting that it is true, while there has been no substantial evidence suggesting that it is not true.
The same holds true for when human life begins. Human doubt is not sufficient reason to ignore it.
Once the results have been fully proven, then just that single test against the theory about the speed of light. That's all it takes for proofs is a single contradiction. I said nothing about human doubt. It is caused as human error or if thought out, technology error. Humans make mistakes and for technology, it takes a long time to advance to where other problems can be solved and facts confirmed. That's why science isn't set in stone. It's theoretical.
@EvaneLunestra You have no idea what you're talking about: you're laboring furiously to make a valid point, and spectacularly failing to do so.
IF the results are fully proven. It could be that the tests were flawed in some fashion, and that the theory will remain true. However, it's irrelevant: we don't go around not accepting theories or scientific consensus just because they might possibly be proven incorrect someday.
Until proven otherwise, human life begins at conception.
Scientists don't base their finding experimentation off of theories and scientific consensus due to the possibility that it may be wrong. They go off of facts.
Anyways, as stated in my first post, why define it at conception? Even though an egg gets fertilized, it doesn't mean that it will automatically start growing right then. It has to attach to the uterus walls first, but that doesn't happen some times. So in your terms life is lost.
@EvaneLunestra I am not going to argue theory with you, because you obviously lack understanding of its definition, or its place in the scientific method, and in any case it's irrelevant to our current topic of discussion: "life begins at conception" is a fact, not a theory.
There is a point of becoming an individual life form with the potential of becoming a fully developed complex organism, which occurs with the successful fertilization of an ovum. More specifically, (cont.)
Those words. "Point of becoming" and "Potential". So it isn't a life form yet and once it is then it could be a complex organism? In your view that point of life form is at conception when all that has happened is two or possibly more germ cells come together to complete the 23 pairs of chromosomes and hasn't shaped itself into anything until it actually attaches to the uterus where it will take about eight weeks for the first organ to be formed. (cont.)
So it makes me wonder, would you be against people that take the Plan B (After Morning) Pill, Birth Control Pills, and other sterilization techniques? They haven't been declared as abortions but it does wipe away any fertilized egg that comes from the fallopian tube and keeps it from attaching from the walls of the uterus. In your terms stopping the life form from becoming an organism. Some even work just to kill sperm entering the uterus. Thoughts?
@EvaneLunestra There are those who argue that emergency contraception pills are, in fact, an abortifacient, and that they can interrupt an actual pregnancy.
However, in my personal opinion, the fertilized egg that is unattached to the womb remains a potential, and studies show that many fertilized eggs fail to attach naturally: taking a pill that mimics that failure is, for me, an acceptable method of preventing pregnancy, and avoiding abortion when the potential is realized.
Hooray we agree on something! Hooray for Birth Control! ^.^
In any case, I still believe in pro-choice. Though in my opinion I would rather keep the abortion time before the eight week mark when the heart is developed where it would be classified as an organism. However I would love to see a male put himself through what women go through in pregnancy (Back aches, big belly, sensitive nipples, sickness, etc.) for the full nine months more or less.
@EvaneLunestra If people are educated, and responsible, and such methods as emergency contraceptives are made readily available, then it would be the rare occurrence where an abortion would be necessary beyond that point.
I don't like the implication that pro-life *isn't* pro-choice: I believe in choice, as well: I just see the choice as being necessary before potential becomes realized.
Also, I would love to have had the opportunity to experience pregnancy! No, seriously!
@EvaneLunestra Pain is just weakness leaving the body, lol!
Seriously, though: I would accept all of the pain, the hormonal imbalance, all of it... my wife had a connection to my children through that experience that I will never have, or understand (other than academically).
What you said does make sense. Mothers due tend to have the strongest connection to their children over the father due to being the one that is going through the pregnancy. However I admire fathers that drive to understand and also have that passion for their children. It's beautiful and I tip my hat to you (even though I don't wear hats but whatever) In any case, thank you for this discussion and I hope you live a wonderful life with your family.
@SexedUpAtheist I'm sorry. I wasn't talking about phonetic symbol systems when I spoke of "definitions." We may arbitrarily call anything whatever we want. We may invent a language that is shared by no one beyond ourselves. But if you want to communicate with others of your own kind and debate issues of life and death, it is dishonest to shift symbol systems in the middle of the discussion. Or would you also argue that morality is also a wax nose that we are free to twist into any shape we like?
@billybagbom Do you believe in objective morality? Do you have evidence of this objective morality? If so, please share it, because I am unaware of its existence at this point. To my knowledge, morality is just as subjective as the other things that I have described.
Are you implying that I have shifted symbol systems? If so, please refresh my memory: it is sometimes difficult to retain memory of multiple conversations, especially with this inferior format.
@billybagbom Don't apologize: you are discussing something with someone who you think exists outside your head! Several someones, apparently.. or, at least, I think you are.
That's the foundation of language. We try to use words to describe something that we observe and use more words to try to define why, what, when, where, and other things about it. Being human, our observation may not be entirely accurate. That's why there are hundreds if not thousands of tests done to make sure something is purely fact. So deeming life at conception may be a troubling definition and not match to the actual fact. Possibility of human error.
@billybagbom With all due respect, I must repeat: that human life commences at conception (for what else is meant by "conception"?) is a matter of scientifically established and verifiable fact. A "dwarf planet" is still a "planet"; somebody might arbitrarily move the marker that differentiates "dwarf" from "non-dwarf," but they have not changed the definition of "planet" in so doing. We can arbitrarily refer to "trimesters" to discuss when to protect human life, but redefinition is delusional.
@SexedUpAtheist Life starts at conception. This isn't a political statement being thrown around, it is a scientifically proven fact (look it up). Dr Paul is, afterall, an OBGYN, so he would know better about the process of pregnancy much better than you.
Now, you take a human life, it's called murder, you should get prosecuted and you go to jail. How old the life is shouldn't matter.
It's disgusting that animals have more rights than unborn babies.
@tgurau Yeah, yeah, blah blah blah I don't particularly give a fuck, but that doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about, junior. I know when life starts: I also know that one must set realistic goals in order to achieve them. It would be much easier at this point to lower the bar to exclude fetuses from abortion than it would be to attempt to police every womb in America to make sure that the fertilized egg isn't swept from the womb by an emergency contraceptive.
@SexedUpAtheist Sure, I understand. What you're saying is that we should lower the bar so we don't have to defend what's right. You're being lazy. If you illegalize abortion, you wouldn't have to police every womb in America, that's just stupid, junior. Besides, by your standards, we should legalize murder because we wouldnt have to police everyone in America, hell, let's just get rid of the law and the police and see where that takes us.
@tgurau You don't understand anything. If you did, you wouldn't throw the word stupid around and then become a hypocrite by saying really stupid things.
How exactly do you expect to enforce life at conception, then? How are you going to prevent people from obtaining emergency contraceptive pills, or hell, just using regular household ingredients to make their own abortifact? Huh?
Also, it would help if you read previous posts to get a better understanding of where I stand on the issue.
@tgurau Life begins at conception. That's a fact. However, fully aware you'll see this as a slippery slope, I say we need to re-examine the nature of the "right to life." I have a right to life, and so do you--because we *experience* our own existence, and that gives our life value. An embryo or early fetus does not have this experience or any capability thereof; it is not metaphysically different from a nonliving thing in this regard. It's life, but it has no brain to support consciousness.
@tgurau (Part 2) At the same time, however, if you will argue that pro-choicers are being foolish to treat this as a "choice" issue, I'll agree. I've heard people say "If you don't like abortion, don't get one." I've had to tell my ignorant fellow pro-choicers (I hate that term, too) that to a pro-lifer this is like "If you don't like murder, don't murder." The key is to establish why abortion *isn't* murder, not to establish it as a choice or right of privacy.
@tgurau --"Now, you take a human life, it's called murder, you should get prosecuted and you go to jail."
Totally and unequivocally absurd. Under this definition, every time i scratch my arm, I am committing mass murder. The fact that something is a 'human life' does not, as a matter of rule, mean that that thing is a taxonomic 'person'.
--"Life starts at conception." This is not--in ANY possible sense--a scientific fact. Life began somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.8 billion years ago.
@NiNj4xNUTZz You're an idiot with a dictionary. Saying life starts at conception isn't a fact and then stating life began 3.8 billion years ago is pretty damn contradictory. I spent 2 months researching abortion and SCIENTISTS and DOCTORS say, that life starts at conception. This is something that has been observed. The observation of life beginning billions of years ago has not been observed so it's a "theory."
--"Saying life starts at conception...blah blah...is pretty damn contradictory" No. It's not. Demonstrate otherwise.
--"I spent 2 months researching abortion" Appeal to Authority.
--"SCIENTISTS and DOCTORS say that life starts at conception"
In what sense? In the special sense of a taxonomic PERSON who deserves protection under the law? How groundbreaking! Surely this/these scientist(s)/doctor(s) deserve(s) (a) Nobel Prize(s). Names? Peer reviewed works?
Don't get me wrong: I don't see eye to eye with Ron Paul on this.
Personally, I believe that abortion should only be allowed in (approximately) the first trimester (before the heart begins pumping the baby's unique blood through its system), but that a better sexual education system be established and implemented at the general point in which children become reproductively viable, and making alternate preventative measures more accessible (example: day-after pill).
RIGHT OR WRONG. WOMAN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET AN ABORTION. THOUGH IT SHOULD BE DONE WITH A DR CERTIFIED TO DO THE OPERATION IN A CLEAN STABLE SETTING. cHECK OUT TECH N9NE REAL KILLER.
@BALLERCOLORADO "Right or wrong"? In other words, moral considerations and consequences be damned, if I want to kill my unborn child, it's my business and not the government's, except that the government should insure my right to do it hygienically? No. That CAN'T be what you mean. What exactly DO you mean? cHECK OUT THE UNHAPPY OUTCOME OF SOCIETIES THAT HAVE SOUGHT SOLUTIONS TO THEIR PROBLEMS BY DEATH AND KILLING.COM Honestly: If your mother had killed you, would we be having this discussion?
If someone want to say that "life begins at conception", then wouldn't you also have to say that "every sperm and egg wasted, is a potential life wasted"? I mean, are we gonna put people in jail for masturbating now?! It certainly isn't scienftific to say that life begins at conception, most scientists doesn't define an unborn baby to be "alive" until it has developed the nervous system, or until the brain and heart starts developing
@KamasutraButterfly Semantics. A single sperm or an unfertilized egg, left alone, will never be anything more than a sperm, or an egg. However, once a sperm fertilizes an egg and attaches to the womb, that fertilized egg will, if left alone, become a fully developed human.
Most biologists define a fetus as alive, because it is: most biologists define a fetus as human, because it is.
@SexedUpAtheist But every sperm is still a POTENTIAL human being, that was my point, so in a way masturbating is wasting thousands of potential human lifes for pure pleasure!! And yes, I would agree that a fetus is human, but a fetus doesn't start developing until about the 9th week after conception, and that's not the same thing as saying "life begins at conception". It's simply not the case that you can just walk in to a clinic after several weeks to get an abortion with no questions asked
@KamasutraButterfly Wow, you really believe that the "fetus doesn't start developing until about the 9th week after conception". You are seriously misinformed. I have two children and have read about everything possible on fetal development. Go to the babycenter website and educate yourself.
@angelkdz1 Don't play stupid with me, please.... Of course the fetus STARTS to develop at the point of conception, but the whole point is that you can't talk about it as a living human being until several weeks after conception. In the same way you can't talk about a sperm or an egg as "living" in any sense. Do you get my point now?
@KamasutraButterfly Do you realize that when you use phrases such as "Don't play stupid with me, please" and "Do you get my point now?" that you come off extremely immature and lack the ability to have an adult conversation in a respectful manner. If you do and don't care, then I don't care to continue conversing. Do you have children?
Human life begins at conception. Period. This is true no matter how you attempt to deny it through semantics or other disingenuous means. Human life doesn't begin as a fetus, because that's just one stage in the development of human life. The first stage is the fertilized egg.
You ask that people "don't play stupid": what do you call blathering about sperm and eggs? That's playing stupid, as you say.
@SexedUpAtheist I don't have a point? So.... you don't think that every sperm can potentially become a human being? So where do you think human beings come from? My sperms are a part of me, and I am living, so in that sense the sperm is also alive as a part of my physical body. And in that sense POTENTIAL human life begins even BEFORE conception. If you disagree with that, I would like to know why?
@emilyrl I'm just gonna hop in on this argument here.... Are you saying that we should allow a fully-fledged, mentally alert human being with muscular dystrophy suffer for years and years just to spare a small bundle of cells that has no hopes, dreams, aspirations, or mind yet? Because by outlawing abortion, you would basically stop embryonic stem cell research, which has the potential to cure chronic diseases like that for thousands and thousands of people.
@HoraceTheClown You don't need dead fetuses to do stem cell research. It's true that most stem cells are taken from dead fetuses. However, the same can be done with adult stem cells.
@emilyrl Some people don't view it that way, why does that mean I'm a moron? It's not that black and white, it's not just about "saving the unborn", you have to take the mother's situation into account aswell. If for example a teenager gets pregnant and has no means whatsoever to care for the child, don't you think the best thing to do is to have an abortion, instead of letting the child grow up to be a miserable, poor and unhappy baby? How in the world is that good for the child?!
@KamasutraButterfly You still don't have a point. The potential is irrelevant: once sperm and egg meet, they become the very first stage of human life.
@SexedUpAtheist I don't see how that is irrelevant? The potential for human life is there, right? So wouldn't it by your logic be immoral to waste it? Let me ask you this: would you be against abortion even if the baby was the product of rape or incest, or if it for example was missing half of it's brain?
@KamasutraButterfly I understand that you're attempting to draw a correlation between a sperm and a fertilized egg attached to the womb, but I assure you that they are two very different things. A sperm is potential, while a fertilized egg in utero is no longer potential: it is actual.
You attempt to set a dangerous precedence when you do this. For example: a newborn is far less developed than an adult: do we, then, give the newborn's life less consideration than the adult?
@SexedUpAtheist Actually, even a fertilized egg can be viewd as "potential life", since they sometimes get "naturally aborted" so to speak. So I think my point still stands.
And you didn't answer my question: would you be against abortion even if the baby was the product of rape or incest, or if it for example was missing half of it's brain? Is it all about saving the unborn baby's life at whatever the cost, or do you take other factors into account aswell such as the mother's situation?
@KamasutraButterfly @_@ Are you and tgurau the same person? If not, it would really help if you stopped responding to posts that I make addressing him/her as if I were addressing you, because it becomes really confusing.
I did answer your question, though: in the case of rape or incest, an emergency contraceptive would be an effective preventative measure if a pregnancy were undesirable. I do believe that, in all things, each case should be evaluated on an individual basis.
@SexedUpAtheist What? I don't think I ever did that..... but I agree, when your responding to several posts at a time it can get confusing, so I'm gonna leave it here
@SexedUpAtheist (continued) No, I would not give the newborn less consideration than an adult, and I am AGAINST abortion after a certain amount of weeks. I couldn't poissibly view a fertilized egg as "human" in any way, but when the fetus starts developing actual organs and limbs and such, then I think we can start talking about a human being.
@KamasutraButterfly If a fetus is a human being why don't women who have pro life ideals have funerals? Why is it when its a human its abortion and when its a chicken its an omelet?
I really like this guy on this topic. Babies have rights and are just alive as anyone else. Just because they have not been born yet, does not mean you can and should kill a baby. What is wrong with you people that are for and do abortion? "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born" Ronald Reagan
It's disgusting that this man thinks a group of cells that has scientifically been defined as CELLS, and not a LIFE, has more right to my body than I do. My body, my choice. Don't want an abortion? Don't get one. How dare a man tell me what I can and can't do with my body.
@heythereXkerin You waived your rights the moment you spread your legs, knowing that you could get knocked up. Don't want a baby? Don't fuck! How dare you turn your womb into a slaughterhouse?
Scientifically defined as cells, which aren't alive? That's not science: that's stupid. You're stupid. Please don't breed. Thank you. Signed, Humanity.
I'm DEFINATELY not voting for this asswipe in 2012.. fuck that prolife christian shit...
shadowtygo 50 minutes ago
If you value liberty, you should value a woman's choice about her own body over a few cells that can't feel anything. 'Life begins at conception' - bullshit. The only thing you're preventing with abortion is the potential for a life, which is the same thing you are preventing if you wear a condom, or even decide not to have sex. It's not a law that we should be constantly fucking each other. Sorry to break it to you Ron, but you kill 100,000,000 sperm cells every time you masturbate.
shinobijikininki 1 hour ago
Then we should have funerals for miscarriages.
What? I thought we were counting every fetus as a human being.
mantops3 15 hours ago
If we protect the rights of the fetus because it's "alive", then we should protect the rights of an animal too. And bugs. And cancer cells. And crabs. And mold.
PACKyourSHITfolks420 16 hours ago
Comment removed
punkmusicmetal 19 hours ago
Sick and tired of hearing some middle-aged or old white man talk against a women's reproductive rights.
jaybird321 20 hours ago
@151user And I should take your word over the word of a medical Doctor?
BibleTruth9 1 day ago
everyone that supports ron paul lives under a rock.
taledarkside 1 day ago
Abortion should be illegal except for negroids.
famileri 1 day ago
@famileri Do you live under a rock sir? How ignorant of you.
TheOnlyLoneSolja 1 day ago
@TheOnlyLoneSolja The only thing you say that makes sense is calling me sir!
famileri 12 hours ago
@WrathoftheGoddess I'm really not trying to tell people what they should be doing with "their" bodies. People can do what they want with "their" bodies. My point is that when you become pregnant, you have another 'body' to think about and put first before your own self. The body of the baby is NOT the same as the body of the mother. Someone needs to speak for the innocent who cannot speak for themselves.
angelkdz1 2 days ago
@angelkdz1 You can speak up for the innocent all you like, but you cannot oppress a woman's bodily autonomy for them. You do not have to put the baby first and forget yourself, you should think about your own body and the baby. Do we force a person to use their body against their will to keep another person alive? Like a person on kidney dialysis or something? No, because no person has the right to use another person's body to keep themselves alive. Unless of course they offer to.
WrathoftheGoddess 21 hours ago
Comment removed
Darkfoxx999 3 days ago
Ron Paul is so, so right. A right to live, for everyone.
blacktronic 4 days ago
oh come on...I agree with Ron Paul on a lot of things but is he really saying a fetus can really feel pain the day after conception? I'd say women shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion 28 weeks into the pregnancy. It's their body, their choice, & doesn't hurt the fetus until the thalamus is developed.
AlexaInternational 4 days ago
@AlexaInternational Top abortionists agree that the baby can feel pain at the latest by 20 weeks and are required to offer the mother anesthesia for the baby to lessen his/her suffering. I respectfully don't agree with the "It's their body" comment at all. The baby is not the same as the body of the mother so the mother's choice to abort, infringes on the baby's right to a life. When I was pregnant, I was very aware that my body and the baby's body were completely seperate.
angelkdz1 4 days ago
I agree with Ron Paul on so many issues but then I get to this one and I hit a brick wall and don't really know how to feel. It's such an important issue that it's hard to just ignore his stance. But I suppose he couldn't really succeed as a Republican candidate if he was pro-choice.
paradisecamo 4 days ago 2
if you dont have a womb, get the fuck out of the room.
babybirdtrill 4 days ago
your the man ron paul
scooterjumpers 4 days ago
only thing i dont agree with him on...
UCNTHANDLEDATRUTH1 4 days ago
Ron Paul is not a libertarian. Libertarians are by default pro-choice because they believe that every person should do what they want with their lives and bodies without any outside interference.
Ayn Rand, arguably the mother of Libertarianism, was a staunch pro-choicer with very harsh views of the so-called "pro-lifers".
WrathoftheGoddess 4 days ago
@WrathoftheGoddess Wrong. He is a libertarian because he believes that the unborn child also has the right to life, without any outside interference.
Ayn Rand's opinion is irrelevant.
SexedUpAtheist 4 days ago
@SexedUpAtheist It's a rather distorted libertarianism, seeing as the discipline of libertarianism is very pro-choice, and basically pro-keeping government/state out of private affairs with a person's body, and a woman's bodily autonomy is one of them.
I'm not prepared to give a baby/fetus/child without concsiousness of its own existence, more autonomy than a woman. It seems rather illogical.
WrathoftheGoddess 2 days ago 2
@WrathoftheGoddess Distorted? Not at all. It simply includes the unborn child's right to life and liberty into the equation.
The woman gives up bodily autonomy when she accepts the risk of pregnancy to engage in sexual intercourse.
The argument of consciousness is irrelevant, as it is a temporary condition and it does not determine life (or lack thereof).
SexedUpAtheist 2 days ago
@WrathoftheGoddess Lol so what is it then? It's just an organism that isn't a being of any sort? Should PETA begin to take issue at abortion then if its not a human being yet? Is it a germ, a virus, a microscopic organism? What is it then if not human? I'm not saying this as an argument to infringe on a woman's civil liberties, but what is that thing that is in her womb? It is very much alive, even if not containing a consciousness or a sentient life form.
punkmusicmetal 2 days ago
@punkmusicmetal It's a parasite. Pregnancy is a very dangerous thing & if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant- she shouldn't be forced to share her uterus. The so-called "rights" of a fetus should not usurp the rights of a grown, conscious woman.
AlexaInternational 2 days ago 2
@punkmusicmetal Well of course it's alive and of course it has human DNA, but that's about it. I am not prepared to view humans from a reductionist point of view: Namely, that all we are is our DNA, which seems to be what you are implying. I don't like the idea of having to give up my bodily autonomy so that a baby/fetus can continue to live off of me without my consent. Doesn't that sound a bit police state-ish?
WrathoftheGoddess 21 hours ago
@WrathoftheGoddess I'm not telling you what do with your body. I didn't say anything about forcing women to do anything. If anyone is going to make a decision, it should be the individual carrying the fetus/baby/organism. But I don't care how anyone defines it; I believe whatever it is, it is alive and I don't feel that someone should take something like taking a living organism's life lightly. We were all once that, and I wouldn't have wanted someone to end me. This is just my opinion.
punkmusicmetal 19 hours ago
@punkmusicmetal We were also once sperm and egg. An egg dies every month in one persons body and millions of sperm die every day in another persons body. Bacteria die so that I can live, and do the things I want. Terminating a pregnancy should not be taken lightly but no one should tell another person what to do with their life, especially considering a fetus is not living as we are, but rather just existing.
ProphetOfTheTeapot 12 hours ago
What is ironic about this is that Ron Paul would refuse to let a woman have an abortion yet when the child is born he would resent the state from raising that child.
maxi29011990 5 days ago
@maxi29011990 Yeah, heaven forbid the people no longer rely on government, and take care of each other instead.
SexedUpAtheist 4 days ago
I am very undecided on the topic of abortion..But im leaning more that it should be illegal. It's still a life...and should not be killed. Yeah you can say, ''well I can't take care of him or give it a proper life or I just don't want a kid anymore'' Well then don't have unprotected sex?
NomNomIEatChu 5 days ago
@NomNomIEatChu I believe it is the choice of the Mother. It's her body, and until that baby is born it is still apart of her own body. But, I believe that safe sex teaching should be used alongside abstinence. To provide a safe alternative to sex, so that no one would need to abort.
Chaz6993X 4 days ago
@Chaz6993X Why is suicide illegal? If it is your own body? Why is it not okay to end your own life but a woman can go and have a baby inside of her killed and the argument is that it is her body? The body of the baby is absolutely not the same as the body of the mother. The baby is living inside of the mothers womb...basically on life support.
angelkdz1 4 days ago
@NomNomIEatChu What about people who had "protected" sex and it failed? Contraceptives aren't 100% effective. Also, what if a woman gets raped and impregnated that way? Should she have to give birth to a child that was forced upon her by a rapist?
bigfrotes9912 4 days ago
@bigfrotes9912 In the case of rape, it is actually less than 1% of ALL abortions. If your father robbed a bank, should you go to prison for his crime? Why should an innocent baby be killed in a case of rape? So that it is easier for the mother? I can tell you that it would not make the mother feel better about the rape. Adoption is a better option and many women who have been in that situation did chose adoption and their children grew up to be great people.
angelkdz1 4 days ago
@angelkdz1 Yes I know it is rare, it was an example of something to think about. The mother should have the choice to abort a baby in any circumstance but especially in the case of rape. Who are you to tell someone what they can do with their own body? The only time I disagree with abortion is if it's past 5 months in.
bigfrotes9912 4 days ago
@bigfrotes9912 Is suicide legal? We are already told what we can do with OUR body but it's okay for a woman to kill a baby in the womb? If a man hits a woman in the stomach when she is pregnant and the baby dies, he can then be arrested for murder. Our world is SO backwards! Everytime I see pictures of abortion or read about how it is done, I feel sick to my stomach because it is complete horror what is happening. A baby's hearts starts beating around 5-6 weeks...
angelkdz1 4 days ago
@angelkdz1 That's good for you, but don't try to be an authoritarian and tell other people what they should be doing with their bodies. I do not personally like police states.
WrathoftheGoddess 2 days ago
@bigfrotes9912 (con't) ...When I was pregnant, everything I did for my body was for the health of the baby, what I ate, didn't eat, how much I slept. When you become pregnant, you have to put the baby first and I know that is difficult in this selfish and self serving world we live in but it can be done. If you UNABLE to care for the baby, there is a better choice. The problem is, abortion is more often then not used as "birth control" when real contraceptives were not used.
angelkdz1 4 days ago
@bigfrotes9912 I was also going to mention that I saw a video on abort73, it was like 5 minutes and it does give a lot of facts regarding abortion...wouldn't hurt to watch, even if you think you already know all there is to know...at the risk of sounding condescending, you may learn something.
angelkdz1 4 days ago
@bigfrotes9912 Then close your legs and don't have sex till your ready. I don't see the big deal. Would a mother really be cruel enough to get an abortion and kill her own child? It's still hers! The rapist would obviously be punished for what he did but I feel like theres no need to kill the life!
NomNomIEatChu 4 days ago
@NomNomIEatChu Don't come at me with that bullshit. People have sex, that's the way it is. So according to you, one should only have sex to have a baby? If you are having protected sex then you are being responsible, but sometimes shit happens. And, women have the right to get an abortion if they feel the need to. If you don't want your kids or friends or whatever to get abortions than tell them, but you have no right telling others what they can do with their own bodies.
bigfrotes9912 4 days ago
@bigfrotes9912 its not just for a baby but you are coming up with the silliest things.If you truly are safe, nothing will happen. Besides you act as if sex is everything which its not.what happend to kissing, cuddling, besides It's a life thats at risk! Tbh idk how can you say you would get an abortion without your conscious saying maybe i shouldnt be killing my own child. lol. Im 15. And theres pregnant 16 year olds all over my school getting abortions. Thats not right, im sorry we dont agree.
NomNomIEatChu 4 days ago
@bigfrotes9912 and p.s im not telling what to do with your body. im not president or any higher person. I am just stating my opinion as you are stating yours.
NomNomIEatChu 4 days ago
@NomNomIEatChu Ok, well you are 15 telling me about being safe. BTW I'm a guy not a girl, just advocating for the rights of women. I never said sex is everything, but it is a part of life. Also, you apparently don't know what you are talking about, because even if you are being safe (contraceptives) you can still get pregnant. Then my last point, even if you were "president or any higher person" you still would have no right to tell others what to do with their body.
bigfrotes9912 4 days ago
@bigfrotes9912 It's a part of life-exactly. Why kill the life that comes from having sex? xD Okay then don't have sex, I REALLY do not see the issue. Theres different ways to have sex too without having to get pregnant or having any risk of pregnancy. You really don't make sense :/ Im not telling you what to do with your body. It's my opinion. And we live in the United Sates, where everyone can have their own opinion and where you cannot force your beliefs on others.
NomNomIEatChu 4 days ago 2
@bigfrotes9912 And just because im 15 does not make me inferior to you.
NomNomIEatChu 4 days ago
@NomNomIEatChu So if a father rapes his daughter, she should be forced to keep it or flood foster homes with unwanted children? Some women never want children but want to have sex. Pregnancy is a very dangerous thing & if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant- she shouldn't be forced to share her uterus. The so-called "rights" of a fetus should not usurp the rights of a grown, conscious woman.
AlexaInternational 2 days ago
@AlexaInternational because every father rapes his daughter? Most woman that have abortions I guarantee are not because of rape. Okay well don't have sex? Find other ways to interact with your partner. If she doesnt want to be pregnant she should think of her child before herself, especially since it is not the unoborn babies fault in the end, it was your fault. It's pretty much like murder if you ask me. And just because you are older does not give you any more rights than somebody younger
NomNomIEatChu 2 days ago
@NomNomIEatChu Chill. I never said you do not have a constitutional right to state your opinion, I am merely stating mine as well. An embryo the size of a seed is far less conscious than a fish or a bird and is not even close to resembling a human being. It has the potential of becoming one which is like resembling an acorn to a tree."
AlexaInternational 2 days ago
@AlexaInternational why are you comparing your baby to a fish or a bird? wth xD
NomNomIEatChu 2 days ago
@AlexaInternational tbh its not in my say what you do but I do have a Constitutional right to state my opinion
NomNomIEatChu 2 days ago
@ProphetOfTheTeapot According to planned parenthood, less than 7% are girls in their teens. The majority of abortions are done by women in their 20's.
angelkdz1 5 days ago
@angelkdz1 Quoted from Abort73. additionally, i am really growing quite tired of people throwing around their opinions as if they were fact. Abortionists have agreed that pain is felt at the least by 20 weeks which is in the 2nd trimester, halfway thru the pregnancy. abortionist's are required to offer women anesthesia to the baby to lessen its suffering. Now that, is a fact.
angelkdz1 5 days ago
@dudeonthasopha The fetal pain question is not at all central to the abortion debate. Whether the unborn child suffers pain during an abortion or not is secondary to the much bigger reality; the child is being killed. Quietly shooting someone in their sleep makes you no less guilty of murder than if you had stabbed them to death. Providing an unborn child with anesthesia so you can kill them "humanely" makes abortion no less heinous.
angelkdz1 5 days ago
Damn he's a clown... the thought that he could be President is almost as crazy as the people who think it.
VhUgGz 5 days ago
@VhUgGz You're a clown. Keep making a fool of yourself for our amusement.
SexedUpAtheist 5 days ago
I finally found something I disagree with that Ron Paul said
LeAmericain 6 days ago
@EvaneLunestra Just to clarify, the heart actually starts to beat around 5-6 weeks.
angelkdz1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL or WW3
watch?v=lUpZhhbKUBo
XPLANEFSX 6 days ago
this speech is very oxymoronic. and i thought he was libertarian? he is more like a half-assed libertarian, he wants a fully free market and no big government but he still wants to govern your morality with this abortion shit. fuck ron paul.
dudeonthasopha 6 days ago
@dudeonthasopha He wants to protect the life of the unborn, which shouldn't be governed by any one person's morality (or lack thereof). Stop being a tool, and think for yourself.
SexedUpAtheist 6 days ago
@SexedUpAtheist I am thinking for myself, I suppose you think because i dont believe what you believe i have no ability to form my own opinions on the subject. If we have the technology to do it who are you to say they cant? the silent scream theory is bs because pain receptors aren't developed until mid 3rd trimester. abortions have been performed since ancient egypt. they'll do it safely or get infected and die doing it themselves. either way people will always do it.
dudeonthasopha 5 days ago
@dudeonthasopha I don't care if you agree with me: I do care that you're being disingenuous.
Libertarians are just fine with small government making laws against such things as murder, rape, etc. If they happen to be pro-life, then they believe that laws should protect the unborn.
Your appeal to tradition means nothing to me: we used to keep slaves, and women used to have no rights. Also, people have always raped and murdered: doesn't mean they should be legal.
SexedUpAtheist 5 days ago
@SexedUpAtheist you dont understand libertarianism then. No government, no religious twist, no moral governing,Libertarians are basically anarchists that only approve the state for international protection.so i wouldnt call him a full libertarian, words lose their meaning when people don't understand them. its weird for an atheist to say that. im atheist too and i don't believe its "life" like many religious opinions do. its a dependent organism, and its the MOTHER'S body/choice
dudeonthasopha 5 days ago
@dudeonthasopha You should probably know more about what you're talking about before you talk about it. No government = anarchy. Libertarianism is not anarchy. Libertarians desire a small government institution whose sole purpose is to serve and protect all people. Ron Paul is a libertarian.
I don't care if you believe or not: human life begins at conception, it's a fact. It is dependent, but that's irrelevant. It is alive, and deserves the protection that society can give it.
SexedUpAtheist 5 days ago
@dudeonthasopha Why wouldn't he be a libertarian because he doesn't want to kill inoccent children? Why does having moral standards make him a fool.
tgurau 5 days ago
@tgurau if you knew what the libertarian theory was you wouldn't ask that. words lose their meaning when you dont know, the point of libertarianism is the government is out of EVERY aspect of your life. If you want an abortion the gov't can't say shit just like there are no federal taxes or basically ANY federal government. its an semi-anarchic state with a military, which is a legitimate philosophy, but not what ron paul presents.read up on political theory before you act like u know it
dudeonthasopha 5 days ago
@dudeonthasopha No, it isn't. Words don't lose their meaning at all: however, when you don't understand their meaning, then your arguments lose their meaning.
Libertarianism is not anarchism. Period. Please refer to a dictionary or other source of information to learn more about each, so that you may know the difference between them.
SexedUpAtheist 5 days ago
@SexedUpAtheist wow your fucking dumb. its ANARCHIC (you know what adjectives are, right?) not full blown anarchy, that was apparent when i said the state exists. i don't have to refer to a dictionary hahaha, i have 25-30 text books dealing with political theory, 2 are specifically on libertarianism as well as 4 years of study in politics. many political philosophies have elements of anarchy. libertarianism cannot be a part of America's religious right wing, its an oxymoron.
dudeonthasopha 5 days ago
@dudeonthasopha You dare to accuse me of being stupid, and ask me if I know what an adjective is, yet your sentence lacks proper capitalization and punctuation, and you even misplace an adjective (your) by using it in place of a conjunction (you're). Oh, the delicious irony!
Now, please: look up these words before you use them, so that you don't look like an idiot when you try to converse with others... top of the list should be "oxymoron".
Thank you.
SexedUpAtheist 4 days ago
@SexedUpAtheist drop the fuckin standard English argument. its hella annoying when people do that. welcome to the fucking internet hahaha. you should probably stop caring. we have 500 characters, im not going to waste a bunch on punctuation or bother to really proof read. i constantly overlook misspellings and punctuation from other people because there isn't much of a reason for me to give a shit, its the message that matters.
dudeonthasopha 4 days ago
@dudeonthasopha Nice try, but you can't play the "lol internet" card when you get snarky about adjectives, genius. Besides, that's a shit cop-out for lazy fucktards who can't be bothered to know how to communicate properly.
Also, it wasn't an argument: it was just a perceptive observation. Again, I suggest that you hit the fucking books so that you can stop mangling the English language. Thank you.
SexedUpAtheist 4 days ago
@dudeonthasopha It's not about a choice. He see's it as murder. If a man kills a pregnant woman and is convicted, he's convicted of murder on 2 counts, one for the mother and one for the child.
tgurau 5 days ago
It's a matter of stopping, not ending, one life to avoid ruining three lives, the baby's, mother's and father's.
ProphetOfTheTeapot 1 week ago
@ProphetOfTheTeapot I'm sure you're ruining a few lives, maybe those lives should kill you to make them feel better.
tgurau 6 days ago
@tgurau A fetus isn't developed enough to have any concept of life or reality. Bringing it into a home that is breaking down with abusive parents or drug addicts is a lot worse than simply ending it's life before it begins. That is just like saying, don't use condoms or masturbate because you are killing sperm or you have to have a baby every 9 months because otherwise the egg is dying. A fetus is not developed enough to be called living as we are, more as sperm, eggs, bacteria and things are.
ProphetOfTheTeapot 6 days ago
@ProphetOfTheTeapot Well a new born baby doesn't have that concept either. It's just as dependant on the mom as an embryo is, would you killing that too? It's nothing like killing killing sperm or bacteria because once the sperm inseminates the, it becomes an embryo. The said embryo has the DNA that it will live and die with decades after birth. Keeping someone from a broken home is no excuse for killing them. That's a lame arguement.
tgurau 5 days ago
@tgurau Broken home argument is one of the best arguments for abortion. I do foster caring and almost all the kids we deal with are from broken homes. The ones that get out early, thanks to the police, are the ones that grow up to be good, functioning members of society. Studies show that after 5, kids become almost unhelpable, as they have the mindset of hating the government, they haven't had a good education fro their parents and they are a lot more likely to become unhappy with their lives.
ProphetOfTheTeapot 5 days ago
Comment removed
tgurau 5 days ago
Comment removed
tgurau 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProphetOfTheTeapot You're view actually disgusts me. It's disgusting to think that instead of helping a child in a broken home, you would instead kill him or her. I know you're not saying to kill the child that's already in society, but you're basically wishing death upon these children. You shouldn't be doing foster care in any circumstance. Besides, most abortions aren't aborted because they're in a broken home, which is why your argument is invalid.
tgurau 5 days ago
@ProphetOfTheTeapot Most abortions happen because the baby is an inconvenience. The child wouldn't make the parent's life worse, they just don't want the child so they kill it.
tgurau 5 days ago
@tgurau That my friend, is wrong. Most abortions happen because there are children having children. If you want to lower abortion rates, which I do, then teach children about safe sex, rather than take the American "Catholic" approach and just say don't do it. Teach people to use condoms and take birth control pills, then we won't have so many abortions, but in a lot of cases, they are necessary. Also, if a person has no motor skills, look at what they have said earlier.
ProphetOfTheTeapot 5 days ago
@tgurau Why bring a baby into an already overpopulated world, into an abusive home that can't look after it properly and then they get moved around from home to home with no stability so they can when they grow up they can go in and out between a prison and a gutter?
ProphetOfTheTeapot 5 days ago
@tgurau Also, a new born does have a concept of reality, and is living, an embryo does not and is not. Also, old people who have no more incentive to keep on living I believe should have the option of euthanasia. If I become at the state where I can no longer do things for myself and need to rely on various machines, I will give my life up, as I hardly have one anymore, so money and time isn't wasted on me, when it could be used on more important things. I could die when I chose with my loved
ProphetOfTheTeapot 5 days ago
@tgurau one's around me. But that is just me, people deserve a choice at that age.
ProphetOfTheTeapot 5 days ago
@ProphetOfTheTeapot I wasn't talking about giving them the choice, I was talking about just doing it. The point is that they wouldn't be able to decide if given the choice because they're close to brain dead, incontenent, and barely in control of any motor function.
tgurau 5 days ago
@ProphetOfTheTeapot Why don't we just kill all the older people that can no longer take care of themselves and are no longer self aware due to some kind of condition in the brain. They wouldn't suck money from their family or the government (because lots of people become dependant on our tax $ through medicare/medicaid) and they wouldn't suffer anymore. They wouldn't know the difference.
tgurau 5 days ago
Imagine a cheeseburger and some fries right now
Heeenryy 1 week ago
@Heeenryy Wish I'd said that...
billybagbom 1 week ago
For the sake of arguing, why is it that life begins at conception? Conception by definition is the fertilization of the egg with the sperm. After a few days that fertilized egg either attaches to the uterus or is drained away by the normal period cycle. As explained in Planned Parenthood, half of the fertilized eggs usually don't attach to the uterus before implantation so it's lost. So why would we define life then when in normal circumstances it's already gone due to a normal period cycle?
EvaneLunestra 1 week ago
@EvaneLunestra This is the whole problem: people imagine they can "define" things that are already matters of established fact. Why not call a dog's tail its fifth leg? What if most people agree that we should? Why shouldn't two and two make five on every other Thursday? That would be good for business. Heck, Pluto used to be a planet, but then someone decided it wasn't. Pluto's still whatever it was before the "change," though, isn't it? And calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't a thing, does it?
billybagbom 1 week ago
@billybagbom Even though this isn't your main point and you were just using it as an example. Pluto is and always was a dwarf planet, it was just misclassified as a planet. I thought that needed to be clarified, sorry for changing the subject.
FantomL0rd 1 week ago
@billybagbom Fact? No. Definitions are subjective. We agree to call a dog's tail a tail, but it isn't objectively a tail any more than a dog is objectively a dog. They are both subjective definitions, agreed upon by general consensus.
The general consensus of biologists is that life begins at conception. If you believe otherwise, then you are deluding yourself. In fact, many who argue pro-choice concede this point, but consider it irrelevant. THEREIN lies the REAL cause for debate.
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist
Biologists like everyone is human. There are rights, wrongs, opinions, views, and other things that separate us. Just because they got a masters degree or PHD doesn't mean they are always right. A few months back, CERN scientists with subatomic particles broke the speed of light. Einstein's theory was proven wrong. In short, we are still growing, learning, and try to understand everything, but subjective to making mistakes because we're only human.
EvaneLunestra 1 week ago
@EvaneLunestra Einstein's theory has not yet been proven wrong beyond reasonable doubt, which is why more tests will be done to verify the results.
Still, for 105 years, we have maintained that this theory is true, and this is because there has been substantial evidence suggesting that it is true, while there has been no substantial evidence suggesting that it is not true.
The same holds true for when human life begins. Human doubt is not sufficient reason to ignore it.
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist
Once the results have been fully proven, then just that single test against the theory about the speed of light. That's all it takes for proofs is a single contradiction. I said nothing about human doubt. It is caused as human error or if thought out, technology error. Humans make mistakes and for technology, it takes a long time to advance to where other problems can be solved and facts confirmed. That's why science isn't set in stone. It's theoretical.
EvaneLunestra 1 week ago
@EvaneLunestra You have no idea what you're talking about: you're laboring furiously to make a valid point, and spectacularly failing to do so.
IF the results are fully proven. It could be that the tests were flawed in some fashion, and that the theory will remain true. However, it's irrelevant: we don't go around not accepting theories or scientific consensus just because they might possibly be proven incorrect someday.
Until proven otherwise, human life begins at conception.
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist
Laboring? Hardly.
Scientists don't base their finding experimentation off of theories and scientific consensus due to the possibility that it may be wrong. They go off of facts.
Anyways, as stated in my first post, why define it at conception? Even though an egg gets fertilized, it doesn't mean that it will automatically start growing right then. It has to attach to the uterus walls first, but that doesn't happen some times. So in your terms life is lost.
EvaneLunestra 1 week ago
@EvaneLunestra I am not going to argue theory with you, because you obviously lack understanding of its definition, or its place in the scientific method, and in any case it's irrelevant to our current topic of discussion: "life begins at conception" is a fact, not a theory.
There is a point of becoming an individual life form with the potential of becoming a fully developed complex organism, which occurs with the successful fertilization of an ovum. More specifically, (cont.)
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist
Those words. "Point of becoming" and "Potential". So it isn't a life form yet and once it is then it could be a complex organism? In your view that point of life form is at conception when all that has happened is two or possibly more germ cells come together to complete the 23 pairs of chromosomes and hasn't shaped itself into anything until it actually attaches to the uterus where it will take about eight weeks for the first organ to be formed. (cont.)
EvaneLunestra 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist
So it makes me wonder, would you be against people that take the Plan B (After Morning) Pill, Birth Control Pills, and other sterilization techniques? They haven't been declared as abortions but it does wipe away any fertilized egg that comes from the fallopian tube and keeps it from attaching from the walls of the uterus. In your terms stopping the life form from becoming an organism. Some even work just to kill sperm entering the uterus. Thoughts?
EvaneLunestra 1 week ago
@EvaneLunestra There are those who argue that emergency contraception pills are, in fact, an abortifacient, and that they can interrupt an actual pregnancy.
However, in my personal opinion, the fertilized egg that is unattached to the womb remains a potential, and studies show that many fertilized eggs fail to attach naturally: taking a pill that mimics that failure is, for me, an acceptable method of preventing pregnancy, and avoiding abortion when the potential is realized.
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist
Hooray we agree on something! Hooray for Birth Control! ^.^
In any case, I still believe in pro-choice. Though in my opinion I would rather keep the abortion time before the eight week mark when the heart is developed where it would be classified as an organism. However I would love to see a male put himself through what women go through in pregnancy (Back aches, big belly, sensitive nipples, sickness, etc.) for the full nine months more or less.
EvaneLunestra 1 week ago
@EvaneLunestra If people are educated, and responsible, and such methods as emergency contraceptives are made readily available, then it would be the rare occurrence where an abortion would be necessary beyond that point.
I don't like the implication that pro-life *isn't* pro-choice: I believe in choice, as well: I just see the choice as being necessary before potential becomes realized.
Also, I would love to have had the opportunity to experience pregnancy! No, seriously!
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist
Wow. Really? That's kinda crazy. Though I do wonder how much it really does hurt to get hit in the groin...
EvaneLunestra 6 days ago
@EvaneLunestra Pain is just weakness leaving the body, lol!
Seriously, though: I would accept all of the pain, the hormonal imbalance, all of it... my wife had a connection to my children through that experience that I will never have, or understand (other than academically).
SexedUpAtheist 6 days ago
@SexedUpAtheist
Lol true.
What you said does make sense. Mothers due tend to have the strongest connection to their children over the father due to being the one that is going through the pregnancy. However I admire fathers that drive to understand and also have that passion for their children. It's beautiful and I tip my hat to you (even though I don't wear hats but whatever) In any case, thank you for this discussion and I hope you live a wonderful life with your family.
EvaneLunestra 6 days ago
@EvaneLunestra (cont.) when the potential for cell division in the direction of full development as an organism has been activated.
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist I'm sorry. I wasn't talking about phonetic symbol systems when I spoke of "definitions." We may arbitrarily call anything whatever we want. We may invent a language that is shared by no one beyond ourselves. But if you want to communicate with others of your own kind and debate issues of life and death, it is dishonest to shift symbol systems in the middle of the discussion. Or would you also argue that morality is also a wax nose that we are free to twist into any shape we like?
billybagbom 1 week ago
@billybagbom Do you believe in objective morality? Do you have evidence of this objective morality? If so, please share it, because I am unaware of its existence at this point. To my knowledge, morality is just as subjective as the other things that I have described.
Are you implying that I have shifted symbol systems? If so, please refresh my memory: it is sometimes difficult to retain memory of multiple conversations, especially with this inferior format.
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist I'm sorry; I thought I was discussing something with someone who existed OUTSIDE my head.
billybagbom 1 week ago
@billybagbom Don't apologize: you are discussing something with someone who you think exists outside your head! Several someones, apparently.. or, at least, I think you are.
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist You are a nice atheist. We should do lunch sometime.
billybagbom 1 week ago
@billybagbom Thank you. However, I'm not an atheist. ;)
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@billybagbom
That's the foundation of language. We try to use words to describe something that we observe and use more words to try to define why, what, when, where, and other things about it. Being human, our observation may not be entirely accurate. That's why there are hundreds if not thousands of tests done to make sure something is purely fact. So deeming life at conception may be a troubling definition and not match to the actual fact. Possibility of human error.
EvaneLunestra 1 week ago
@billybagbom With all due respect, I must repeat: that human life commences at conception (for what else is meant by "conception"?) is a matter of scientifically established and verifiable fact. A "dwarf planet" is still a "planet"; somebody might arbitrarily move the marker that differentiates "dwarf" from "non-dwarf," but they have not changed the definition of "planet" in so doing. We can arbitrarily refer to "trimesters" to discuss when to protect human life, but redefinition is delusional.
billybagbom 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1) Ron Paul thinks the states have the right to make laws forbidding homosexuality
2) Ron Paul thinks abortions should be illegal all over america.
3) Ron Paul is against every form of healthcare. in his opinion the government should not help the people financially at all.
don't hate on me. look it up first. i just want you all to know who you are voting for. feel free to spread the word.
greennin 1 week ago
I have yet to find an issue on which I disagree with Dr. Paul.
MrDukeOfUSA 1 week ago
(cont.) it is largely inconceivable that an unwanted pregnancy should develop beyond the point where an embryo becomes a fetus.
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist Life starts at conception. This isn't a political statement being thrown around, it is a scientifically proven fact (look it up). Dr Paul is, afterall, an OBGYN, so he would know better about the process of pregnancy much better than you.
Now, you take a human life, it's called murder, you should get prosecuted and you go to jail. How old the life is shouldn't matter.
It's disgusting that animals have more rights than unborn babies.
tgurau 1 week ago
@tgurau Yeah, yeah, blah blah blah I don't particularly give a fuck, but that doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about, junior. I know when life starts: I also know that one must set realistic goals in order to achieve them. It would be much easier at this point to lower the bar to exclude fetuses from abortion than it would be to attempt to police every womb in America to make sure that the fertilized egg isn't swept from the womb by an emergency contraceptive.
Understand?
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist Sure, I understand. What you're saying is that we should lower the bar so we don't have to defend what's right. You're being lazy. If you illegalize abortion, you wouldn't have to police every womb in America, that's just stupid, junior. Besides, by your standards, we should legalize murder because we wouldnt have to police everyone in America, hell, let's just get rid of the law and the police and see where that takes us.
tgurau 6 days ago
@tgurau You don't understand anything. If you did, you wouldn't throw the word stupid around and then become a hypocrite by saying really stupid things.
How exactly do you expect to enforce life at conception, then? How are you going to prevent people from obtaining emergency contraceptive pills, or hell, just using regular household ingredients to make their own abortifact? Huh?
Also, it would help if you read previous posts to get a better understanding of where I stand on the issue.
SexedUpAtheist 6 days ago
@tgurau Life begins at conception. That's a fact. However, fully aware you'll see this as a slippery slope, I say we need to re-examine the nature of the "right to life." I have a right to life, and so do you--because we *experience* our own existence, and that gives our life value. An embryo or early fetus does not have this experience or any capability thereof; it is not metaphysically different from a nonliving thing in this regard. It's life, but it has no brain to support consciousness.
Megaritz 6 days ago
@tgurau (Part 2) At the same time, however, if you will argue that pro-choicers are being foolish to treat this as a "choice" issue, I'll agree. I've heard people say "If you don't like abortion, don't get one." I've had to tell my ignorant fellow pro-choicers (I hate that term, too) that to a pro-lifer this is like "If you don't like murder, don't murder." The key is to establish why abortion *isn't* murder, not to establish it as a choice or right of privacy.
Megaritz 6 days ago
@tgurau --"Now, you take a human life, it's called murder, you should get prosecuted and you go to jail."
Totally and unequivocally absurd. Under this definition, every time i scratch my arm, I am committing mass murder. The fact that something is a 'human life' does not, as a matter of rule, mean that that thing is a taxonomic 'person'.
--"Life starts at conception." This is not--in ANY possible sense--a scientific fact. Life began somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.8 billion years ago.
NiNj4xNUTZz 1 week ago 2
@NiNj4xNUTZz You're an idiot with a dictionary. Saying life starts at conception isn't a fact and then stating life began 3.8 billion years ago is pretty damn contradictory. I spent 2 months researching abortion and SCIENTISTS and DOCTORS say, that life starts at conception. This is something that has been observed. The observation of life beginning billions of years ago has not been observed so it's a "theory."
tgurau 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tgurau --"You're an idiot" Ad Hominem.
--"Saying life starts at conception...blah blah...is pretty damn contradictory" No. It's not. Demonstrate otherwise.
--"I spent 2 months researching abortion" Appeal to Authority.
--"SCIENTISTS and DOCTORS say that life starts at conception"
In what sense? In the special sense of a taxonomic PERSON who deserves protection under the law? How groundbreaking! Surely this/these scientist(s)/doctor(s) deserve(s) (a) Nobel Prize(s). Names? Peer reviewed works?
NiNj4xNUTZz 6 days ago
@NiNj4xNUTZz You're a child with a thesaurus.
tgurau 5 days ago
Don't get me wrong: I don't see eye to eye with Ron Paul on this.
Personally, I believe that abortion should only be allowed in (approximately) the first trimester (before the heart begins pumping the baby's unique blood through its system), but that a better sexual education system be established and implemented at the general point in which children become reproductively viable, and making alternate preventative measures more accessible (example: day-after pill).
In this day and age, (cont.)
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
RIGHT OR WRONG. WOMAN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET AN ABORTION. THOUGH IT SHOULD BE DONE WITH A DR CERTIFIED TO DO THE OPERATION IN A CLEAN STABLE SETTING. cHECK OUT TECH N9NE REAL KILLER.
BALLERCOLORADO 1 week ago
@BALLERCOLORADO No, they should not.
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@BALLERCOLORADO "Right or wrong"? In other words, moral considerations and consequences be damned, if I want to kill my unborn child, it's my business and not the government's, except that the government should insure my right to do it hygienically? No. That CAN'T be what you mean. What exactly DO you mean? cHECK OUT THE UNHAPPY OUTCOME OF SOCIETIES THAT HAVE SOUGHT SOLUTIONS TO THEIR PROBLEMS BY DEATH AND KILLING.COM Honestly: If your mother had killed you, would we be having this discussion?
billybagbom 1 week ago
So if a woman gets raped she would be forced to give birth to that child?
fannyfunk 1 week ago
@fannyfunk yes
santran 1 week ago
If someone want to say that "life begins at conception", then wouldn't you also have to say that "every sperm and egg wasted, is a potential life wasted"? I mean, are we gonna put people in jail for masturbating now?! It certainly isn't scienftific to say that life begins at conception, most scientists doesn't define an unborn baby to be "alive" until it has developed the nervous system, or until the brain and heart starts developing
KamasutraButterfly 1 week ago
@KamasutraButterfly Semantics. A single sperm or an unfertilized egg, left alone, will never be anything more than a sperm, or an egg. However, once a sperm fertilizes an egg and attaches to the womb, that fertilized egg will, if left alone, become a fully developed human.
Most biologists define a fetus as alive, because it is: most biologists define a fetus as human, because it is.
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist But every sperm is still a POTENTIAL human being, that was my point, so in a way masturbating is wasting thousands of potential human lifes for pure pleasure!! And yes, I would agree that a fetus is human, but a fetus doesn't start developing until about the 9th week after conception, and that's not the same thing as saying "life begins at conception". It's simply not the case that you can just walk in to a clinic after several weeks to get an abortion with no questions asked
KamasutraButterfly 1 week ago
@KamasutraButterfly Wow, you really believe that the "fetus doesn't start developing until about the 9th week after conception". You are seriously misinformed. I have two children and have read about everything possible on fetal development. Go to the babycenter website and educate yourself.
angelkdz1 1 week ago
@angelkdz1 Don't play stupid with me, please.... Of course the fetus STARTS to develop at the point of conception, but the whole point is that you can't talk about it as a living human being until several weeks after conception. In the same way you can't talk about a sperm or an egg as "living" in any sense. Do you get my point now?
KamasutraButterfly 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KamasutraButterfly Do you realize that when you use phrases such as "Don't play stupid with me, please" and "Do you get my point now?" that you come off extremely immature and lack the ability to have an adult conversation in a respectful manner. If you do and don't care, then I don't care to continue conversing. Do you have children?
angelkdz1 1 week ago
@KamasutraButterfly You don't have a point, or at least not a valid point.
Human life begins at conception. Period. This is true no matter how you attempt to deny it through semantics or other disingenuous means. Human life doesn't begin as a fetus, because that's just one stage in the development of human life. The first stage is the fertilized egg.
You ask that people "don't play stupid": what do you call blathering about sperm and eggs? That's playing stupid, as you say.
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist I don't have a point? So.... you don't think that every sperm can potentially become a human being? So where do you think human beings come from? My sperms are a part of me, and I am living, so in that sense the sperm is also alive as a part of my physical body. And in that sense POTENTIAL human life begins even BEFORE conception. If you disagree with that, I would like to know why?
KamasutraButterfly 1 week ago
@KamasutraButterfly Youre a total moron.
The sperm meets with the egg - then Together this creates a human being - At Conception.
Its a simple fact that you cant seem to get your head around (>_>)
emilyrl 1 week ago 2
@emilyrl I'm just gonna hop in on this argument here.... Are you saying that we should allow a fully-fledged, mentally alert human being with muscular dystrophy suffer for years and years just to spare a small bundle of cells that has no hopes, dreams, aspirations, or mind yet? Because by outlawing abortion, you would basically stop embryonic stem cell research, which has the potential to cure chronic diseases like that for thousands and thousands of people.
HoraceTheClown 1 week ago
@HoraceTheClown You don't need dead fetuses to do stem cell research. It's true that most stem cells are taken from dead fetuses. However, the same can be done with adult stem cells.
PraiseandadoreHim 1 week ago
@emilyrl Some people don't view it that way, why does that mean I'm a moron? It's not that black and white, it's not just about "saving the unborn", you have to take the mother's situation into account aswell. If for example a teenager gets pregnant and has no means whatsoever to care for the child, don't you think the best thing to do is to have an abortion, instead of letting the child grow up to be a miserable, poor and unhappy baby? How in the world is that good for the child?!
KamasutraButterfly 1 week ago
@KamasutraButterfly You still don't have a point. The potential is irrelevant: once sperm and egg meet, they become the very first stage of human life.
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist I don't see how that is irrelevant? The potential for human life is there, right? So wouldn't it by your logic be immoral to waste it? Let me ask you this: would you be against abortion even if the baby was the product of rape or incest, or if it for example was missing half of it's brain?
KamasutraButterfly 1 week ago
@KamasutraButterfly I understand that you're attempting to draw a correlation between a sperm and a fertilized egg attached to the womb, but I assure you that they are two very different things. A sperm is potential, while a fertilized egg in utero is no longer potential: it is actual.
You attempt to set a dangerous precedence when you do this. For example: a newborn is far less developed than an adult: do we, then, give the newborn's life less consideration than the adult?
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist Actually, even a fertilized egg can be viewd as "potential life", since they sometimes get "naturally aborted" so to speak. So I think my point still stands.
And you didn't answer my question: would you be against abortion even if the baby was the product of rape or incest, or if it for example was missing half of it's brain? Is it all about saving the unborn baby's life at whatever the cost, or do you take other factors into account aswell such as the mother's situation?
KamasutraButterfly 6 days ago
@KamasutraButterfly @_@ Are you and tgurau the same person? If not, it would really help if you stopped responding to posts that I make addressing him/her as if I were addressing you, because it becomes really confusing.
I did answer your question, though: in the case of rape or incest, an emergency contraceptive would be an effective preventative measure if a pregnancy were undesirable. I do believe that, in all things, each case should be evaluated on an individual basis.
SexedUpAtheist 6 days ago
@SexedUpAtheist What? I don't think I ever did that..... but I agree, when your responding to several posts at a time it can get confusing, so I'm gonna leave it here
KamasutraButterfly 5 days ago
@SexedUpAtheist (continued) No, I would not give the newborn less consideration than an adult, and I am AGAINST abortion after a certain amount of weeks. I couldn't poissibly view a fertilized egg as "human" in any way, but when the fetus starts developing actual organs and limbs and such, then I think we can start talking about a human being.
KamasutraButterfly 6 days ago
@KamasutraButterfly If a fetus is a human being why don't women who have pro life ideals have funerals? Why is it when its a human its abortion and when its a chicken its an omelet?
tivoguyis44 6 days ago
@tivoguyis44 Uhm, how am I supposed to know? I'm not a woman with pro-life ideals....
KamasutraButterfly 6 days ago
@KamasutraButterfly ... No -- never mind.
billybagbom 1 week ago
I really like this guy on this topic. Babies have rights and are just alive as anyone else. Just because they have not been born yet, does not mean you can and should kill a baby. What is wrong with you people that are for and do abortion? "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born" Ronald Reagan
AvengedSevenfoldRok 1 week ago
It's disgusting that this man thinks a group of cells that has scientifically been defined as CELLS, and not a LIFE, has more right to my body than I do. My body, my choice. Don't want an abortion? Don't get one. How dare a man tell me what I can and can't do with my body.
heythereXkerin 1 week ago
@heythereXkerin shut up bitch. its disgusting that you dont get on birth control instead of using abortion as a means of contraception
badfish4311 1 week ago
@heythereXkerin You waived your rights the moment you spread your legs, knowing that you could get knocked up. Don't want a baby? Don't fuck! How dare you turn your womb into a slaughterhouse?
Scientifically defined as cells, which aren't alive? That's not science: that's stupid. You're stupid. Please don't breed. Thank you. Signed, Humanity.
SexedUpAtheist 1 week ago
@SexedUpAtheist I absolutely agree :D
ChattyPebbles 1 week ago
@heythereXkerin please dont reproduce. at least come up with an actual argument
Devourered 1 week ago