The RCC strongly believes in contraception as long as it is natural and sexual intimacy is relegated to a woman's non-fertile days if a child is not desired. When an artificial means of contraception is used and frustrates or impedes the natural end of a sperm fertilizing an egg, that's when this particular issue is deemed an immoral one. Women are not fertile 100% of the time like men. Therefore, it is up to them to reclaim the reproductive control they conceded to a pill.
@Sirafrican Lol he isn't going to be elected. Sorry to break it to you. His views are fucked. He thinks that if you can't afford Health Insurance that you shouldn't be able to get Emergency attention. Fuck that, my dad would be dead if that was the case. Also, he wants to get rid of Federal/State Income Tax (he wouldn't have the power to do that in the first place), but are you fucking kidding me? The Economy would go to s*it if that ever happened. Study politics a bit more. Obama 2012.
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
no woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to the point where the child can exist without the support of her body. up to that point it should be up to a woman to choose abortion, being informed by her doctor, the father, or the council of whomever she chooses. it's not up to anyone else. it's that simple.
men, worry about your own bodies. want to stop abortion? then keep your zipper shut & if you can''t do that then keep your mouth shut unless you're asked by the mother for your opinion.
Balls of cells are not human beings. I don't care what their DNA says they are. After a sex change/hormone treatment transsexuals are regarded as a different gender than before, despite the human XX or XY chromosomes. DNA doesn't define people. The cerebrum doesn't even develop until late in the pregnancy. A seemingly healthy embryo can for no apparent reason later fail to grow a brain. I don't equate that thing to me. It's not human. Neither are balls of cells.
@Hatrimn No need for ad-hominem. The thing about DNA defining people is that the difference between a parasite and an embryo is that the embryo shares human DNA. Pro-Lifers will say that they don't care about the health and wishes of the mother in regards to pregnancy with a healthy embryo, but they are wrong to equate the embryo to a fully formed human being with history and agency. They don't have brains. It is the host organism that takes all precedence.
@PlaguedByEarth What is wrong with being parasitic? And having human DNA isn't a trivial difference.
I don't know of anyone who equates an embryo with an adult human being. Nobody does that with newborns either, but newborns are considered people with the right to life.
You didn't answer how developed the brain must be. How many neurons, glial cells, and electrical fluctuations before you think it is a person? Is an unconscious person any less of a human being?
@Hatrimn The being parasitic part is the reason why people want abortion in the first place. The host wants to avoid the harm from the parasite, the host removes the parasite.
The question "what makes is personhood?" is a very difficult one, and has been debated for centuries. The only reason infants have it is mercy. Persons have agency, self awareness, etc.
When, to you, does personhood start? End of first trimester, as soon as chemical reactions start, when the guy blows his load?
@PlaguedByEarth So what are you saying exactly, human parasites don't have the right to life? What about socially parasitic humans? The disadvantaged who are unable to sustain their own lives due to being disabled or undeveloped, can we allow them to die?
Personhood starts when a distinguishable H. sapien organism emerges. I see no reason to speculate beyond that.
@Hatrimn you ask the wrong question. it's an interesting question but one science cannot definitively answer so the important question is who makes choices about our bodies? you? doctors? insurance companies? government? it is UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL WOMAN (informed by society's norms, science, religion or whatever she chooses to consider). you believe that life begins in the zygote phase. fine, then don't abort, but then you are not a woman are you? so what woman cares what you think? talk to her.
@canteluna That's like asking "who makes choices about our property?" Well, when the choices we make detrimentally impact the well-being of another party, then it is the government's duty to protect that party from such choices. Simple.
You are not truly free, and your property is not fully owned by you. If you wish to partake in society, then you submit yourself to communal responsibilities.
@Hatrimn it's laughable to equate owning property to the autonomy of one's body & reveals your value system. but your argument fails because your premise assumes that a zygote or some questionable stage of a fetus is "another party." i've already dispensed with that premise. it's on you to prove otherwise. you can't. argument over. take up another hobby. how about advocating against the death penalty or protecting animal rights since you claim to love the life of other parties so much.
To lower unwanted pregnancy rates simply outlaw abortion, birth control pills, condoms, and all other contraception methods. To raise rates, make abortion, and all the rest free - and maybe award "cutest MOM and baby" prize in high school yearbooks.
AIDS prevalence and homosexual promiscuity declined rapidly in San Francisco prior to the discovery of AIDS drugs ------ AIDS and promiscuity rose sharply after people became aware of treatment.
Why have unwanted pregnancies increased among lower socioeconomic women since abortion and birth control were introduced? Increased dramatically actually. Is it possible that nomalizing and justifying a behavior (sex for sport) while removing the punishment (pregnant and no way out of it) and stigma could possibly increase its prevalence?
Before answering, look into AIDS rate among San Fran gays before and after AIDS drugs were introduced - hint: falling fast then rising quickly
Abortion is a simple matter for me and I remain amazed at the permanency of the debate. Speaking as a atheist: the fetus is a life and therefor cannot be killed except in the rare occasion of a tubal pregnacy, cardiac issues, etc.. With all other "life of the mother" scenarios, the fetus can be taken to viability and delivered by c-section. Abortion when the child is unwanted or when the mother is "not ready" is murder. A fertilized egg is a life.
@GTBeauregard The question really boils down to how one feels about murder. Humanists have pigeonholed themselves by labeling murder as always immoral.
@GTBeauregard Depending on how murder is defined "the killing of an innocent person" one could say it is generally immoral. I don't think any humanist would say killing is always immoral.
@crzyprplmnky But murder is not always immoral: killing an enemy who has not fired on you in war; euthanizing a suffering human; euthanizing a severley deformed fetus. Yet, pro-abortionist argue that abortion is OK because the fetus is not a human yet and hence, abortion is OK as birth control- a false premise. The same people argue against eugenics on moral grounds- but abortion? that's fine. Humanism seems to be Christianity minus God and without the logos to make it work.
@GTBeauregard Okay, I'm not sure exactly where you've gotten your ideas about what "humanists" believe. I'm sure there are some humanists who feel that way. I've never seriously say that a fetus is not a human. Each of our cells is "a human" in a way. The question is whether a fetus is a person in the sense that we would say we are people. We think, we interact, we abstract about our world and build relationships. The Christian god orders the murder of thousands of infants, but that's okay.
@crzyprplmnky I stated my atheism, why bring up God? For me, I see no merit in determining some arbitrary status of "person". Is a person who is in locked-in syndrome and has been for 5 years a person? A severely mentally retarded person? A homicidal maniac? This better approach is one of utility - which one has potential? Those listed above have basically zero potential yet you would probably fret over their euthanasia. Yet, you are fine with killing a fully-potential fetus.
@GTBeauregard I'm saying that "a life" is not something we hold as precious. We "murder" billions of bacteria's lives a day and feel good it. There is something specific about a sentient being that we hold dear. And while a lump of cells could way day become that: a seed is not a redwood, an egg is not a chicken, etc etc etc.
@crzyprplmnky Do you have moral qualms over cutting down a tree? Of course not, the taking of life per se is not immoral. On the other hand, killing your co-worker because she has rejected your advances is wrong - is it hard for you to see the disparity? No, I don't believe it is so lets end this tangent here.
@crzyprplmnky To clarify, it is not wrong to kill a redwood seed nor a redwood tree. The analogy of redwood and human is false. And you are right, human life is not precious yet we do not euthanize child rapists only homicidal maniacs and fetuses - seem at least inconsistent?
@crzyprplmnky "There is something specific about a sentient being that we hold dear. And while a lump of cells could way day become that: a seed is not a redwood, an egg is not a chicken..."
So if anyone loses sentience, even if momentarily, then they are fucked? It isn't so tragic to kill that person? And babies are no more sentient than your common variety mammal, so infanticide must be on par with putting down a dog? Brilliant.
I absolutely love hitch so I am assuming I missed the explanation but does he agree with abortion? I think that was the real question. Also, If he agrees with abortion but believes a fetus is a person with the right to life then how does he agree? I am for abortion but I don't agree that a fetus is a person yet. However, I am curious how he could believe a fetus to be a person and still find abortion acceptible. Any explaination is appreciated.
@DanceDiggy There are pro-choice advocates who view abortion as an exercise in one human's right to remove another human from their body. They believe that nobody is entitled to leech off of someone else, and so abortion is an unfortunate but permissible act.
They proclaim such rubbish while ignoring the fact that the undeveloped or disadvantaged ARE entitled to sustenance and support in a civilized first world society, effectively leeching off of everyone.
Hitches seems to be saying that abortion is a difficult question. He mostly is approaching from both the biological standpoint and the social one. I think his answer might be something like, abortion is a women/society's right, and the case could go one way or the other, as far as morality goes. I also think he's saying that the morality of abortion is, again, difficult...unlike the insane immorality of things like the Old Testament. Something like that?
@PeregrineDive And if the baby then died because of the condition it was in, and couldnt be sustained by machinery anymore? You dont think that would be worse than a fetus (this is how you correctly spell it: F-E-T-U-S) "dying"?
Lol turek keeps asking the same question over and over because he doesn't understand that hitchens already answered it. Then proceeds to act like he's "got him" lol re re
@Jamespot24 As far as when abortion is acceptable, certainly in the two cases you mentioned, and probably in many more that I haven't heard of or considered. I don't like the idea of making "blanket rules", because every case is unique and I certainly don't have all the answers. However, I don't like the idea of abortion being used as an "out" when, let's say, a woman knowingly has sex without contraception and conceives. She should take responsibility for her actions. Your thoughts?
@TechnicallyTechnical Well if it were up to me Id prefer if there were no abortion clinics at all. However I can see the points of if a womans life is threatened by the baby, and i mean like she could die, not like ``mental health`` or because shes depressed that shouldn't `t be put on the same level at all.
And I can see with Rape that would be very difficult on a woman.
@TechnicallyTechnical If you actually do some research on the subject it turns out that Rape and Life is threatened actually account for less than 1% each, birth defects are maybe 2% I think
That means the remaining 96% are healthy pregnancies that were conceived consensually. And while the ``what if shes raped`` line is whats used politically, it`s hard to justify ending a life purely for convenience.
@Jamespot24 Yeah, I figured the numbers would be somewhere in that vicinity. Like I said, abortion should be the last resort, not the first choice or the default. People need to be responsible with human life, not treat it like it's the annoying side effect of a fun night out. A developing fetus may not be fully human in the same sense we are, but it will be one day. I'm sure him/her would like the chance to live their lives.
@TechnicallyTechnical Yeah the debate has become too politicized getting rid of abortion 100% or allowing it for any reason.
When in reality most people want it available but think that it should be restricted unless in extreme cases like Rape or if the mothers life is endangered.
Anyways nice to know there are some smart people out there that are willing to think it through.
makes me wonder when i show up to a girls house to 'play' and i tell her i got a condom and her eyes light up like the thought never crossed her fucking mind. women and people in general have shit for brains when it comes to forethought and damage control. most kids i see were accidents and all 4+ of the abortions were because both involved didn't like wearing condoms. stupidity
people sud b free to pick tho i personaly dont think abortion is right coz its unnatural but its not my chioce to inforce that on sum1 else the truth allways lay sumwear in the middle
@kingpharaohtsar No, the truth never lays "somewhere in the middle". When the life of a mother depends on it, then the truth is that an abortion is justified. Truth is not just based on opinion; every situation has its own truth, that may not be the same for another situation. With such complicated issues, you can't just say "I'm for it" or "I'm against it". And that is also part of Hitchens' reasoning, if I understand him well.
Personally I don't see abortion as murder, nor do I see it as an action a woman should feel ashamed of or belittled because. I believe as part of a civilized species a woman should have the right to choose if she wants to have a child or if she wants to abort it. If a woman feels she cannot take care of the child or has ambitions of her own then she absolutely has the right not to have that child.
@WLYBEE Very well said. That's my feelings as well. Most abortions happen around the 6-7th week of pregnancy. At that point the embryo is about the size of a lentil, is nonviable, has no consciousness, no sentience, no awareness, and no sense of pain. It makes no difference to it at that point whether it will grow or be terminated. Compared to the mother, a fully grown human being who has all those things...it begs the question, why is this even an ethical issue?
@WLYBEE I agree. Taking that right away is a violation of the human body's integrity. I mean, even if a woman can give the child away after birth, all the things her body and mind have to go through during the (obviously unwanted) pregnancy can be traumatizing, even crippling, and nobody should be forced into it.
And before some idiot gives me the asking-for-it "argument" let me say I don't think we should refuse treatment to lung cancer patients who have been lifelong smokers, either.
@DNAisDestiny If it doesn't have a proper nervous system yet, it's physically unable to feel. The other person that replied to WLYBEE (the user longtail4711) has explained it pretty well. I'm not advocating for torturing/killing creatures that can suffer, and I even extend this approach to animals, which are very often being treated like things.
@ListenerOfShadows On top of the bad things women go through who have unwanted pregnancies, let's not forget about the children. If a woman doesn't want a child, it's safe to assume she isn't really in a position to raise one. The child could go through horrible things, much worse than death, if it was brought up in a world where their mother and father didn't want it or if it was given away to some unknown source.
@GTBeauregard How would that give them a chance not to die? I can see you went to med school. Anyway, I don't think a fetus in the first trimester is truly alive anyway. Until it develops actual signs of individual life, it is not its own living entity. On top of this, "murder" is not always wrong. Would you call killing in self-defense immoral? Removing something that isn't even alive, but can be potentially dangerous to one's health, is not immoral.
@ilov3hotsaucexxx The mother would have a chance to reconsider her death sentence. Signs of life- heart beat, brain function, what do you need? The point being it will become life; Terry Shivo had zero potential, a fetus is 100% potential. Self defense murder? Of course not but abortion is not self defense. Abortion is more akin to killing your wife because you no longer want the burden of marriage. "Potentially dangerous" does not justify murder unless you're a Neocon.
@ListenerOfShadows "I don't think we should refuse treatment to lung cancer patients who have been lifelong smokers, either."
So basically, any human who makes poor decisions and is capable of bitching about it is fine and should be assisted, but innocent unborn humans can fuck off? I suppose if they could protest from the womb, that would be the game changer and women would lose their right to kill their offspring?
@Hatrimn A zygote is not a human being (until a certain point, at least), and 'killing' them before they even have a nervous system is the lesser evil compared to all the shit the woman/girl would be forced to go through. So, yes, zygotes can fuck off, and your failure of an argument right with them. :D
@ListenerOfShadows A zygote is a genetically complete self actualizing human organism. It is a human being, it isn't any other animal, vegetable, or mineral.
"Until a certain point"? LOL, and what would that unsubstantiated point be? You must be the first nobody to have discovered it!
Why does a lack in functionality make the killing a lesser evil? Should killing comatose or unconscious people be anything less than a murder charge?
@Hatrimn If a zygote is a self actualizing human organism, it has no right to leech of its mother and should be criminally charged for doing so against the mother's will. We don't force people into organ donations, so there's no sense in forcing one human to provide another with a place to stay inside their body against their will. :P
Comatose patients are human beings. Zygotes are not.
@ListenerOfShadows A zygote is innocent of any wrongdoing. It didn't choose to be in another person, nor did it do anything to inadvertently be inside another person. It has no other option but to be there, and it should be cared for while it is there like any other young human should be cared for regardless of where they are.
We also don't force organ recipients into returning an organ at the cost of their life. The recipient didn't steal it, and the unborn don't invade the womb.
@Hatrimn Also, in your former comment you basically implied that cancer patients are "whining" about cancer. They're not whining. They're suffering; and it seems you seriously need to learn a thing or two about both compassion and rationality...
@ListenerOfShadows Zygotes are human beings. Nascent humans are still humans, they aren't anything else.
No, I was implying that people who actively fuck up their own lives in any multitude of ways deserve your sympathy and assistance, while young humans who are innocent of any wrongdoing are fair game, and why? Because you don't hear any cries or begging? LOL, yea let me get right on that lesson in compassion.
@Hatrimn No nervous system means no capability whatsoever to suffer. The principles of biology really aren't that complicated, even you should be able to understand them.
@ListenerOfShadows 'No nervous system means no capability whatsoever to suffer."
So if I heavily sedate you and kill you "humanely", then it isn't really a serious offense? You wouldn't suffer or demonstrate any interest in living, so it must not be any worse than putting down an animal, is that right?
@Hatrimn So you're not only an idiot, but a psychopath, too? Shit, I've gotta stop commenting on stuff that gets control-freaks' panties in a twist...
Look, retard, that disgusting fantasy of yours would be violating my human rights. You can't seriously be comparing a bundle of cells to a human being. I already demonstrated where that would lead - it wouldn't even be an argument against abortion, but could be used as one *for* abortion.
@ListenerOfShadows Violating your human rights? Haha, if you are heavily sedated, then you are incapable of suffering, and so you have no right to life (according to your twisted argument). We are all a bundle of cells, but you seem to think (erroneously I might add) that personhood hinges on sentience, so the size of the bundle is irrelevant. If you don't like the parallel I have drawn, then you need to think more critically about this subject and modify your bullshit opinion.
@Hatrimn You not only fail to address anything I've said with an argument, but also manage to twist it to shift your cruelty onto me. It's almost if you were religious, lol. Everybody has a right to live, but a bunch of cells that aren't human aren't a person. The woman carrying them is a person and her body's integrity goes above the cell-bundle's right to become a human being.
@WLYBEE Would killing the child 1 second after birth be murder? Of course abortion is murder. We are killing children because sex is now entertainment. Religion was not all bad.
@GTBeauregard There is a huge difference that a foetus goes through during the time that it is legally allowed to be aborted and when it is born. People have different opinions but the fact that so many studies have shown that foetus are not aware nor feel pain is the reason why abortion is allowed in so many countries. Thus, you are not killing a child, rather the prerequisite. You can call it murder if you like. I see it the same as removing a tumour or some other unwanted infliction.
@WLYBEE The brain and all other organs are developed at 8 weeks. Regardless, you seem to be saying that murder is ok if 1) the person feels no pain and 2) the person is unaware of his death. That's not really much of a morality.
@GTBeauregard The actual organs may be developing but that does not, however, constitute self-awareness and pain. Self-awareness is the main issue here, much like someone who has been in an accident and is in a comatose vegetative state, LSM may be removed then with no moral issues. I bet you are against euthanasia as well.
@WLYBEE Not against euthanasia, against killing a fully potential human. Euthanasia is killing a person who lacks all potential. No moral inconsistencies here, how bout you? How do you justify this murder? Killing a kid to make his mom's life easier (98%) is pretty warped - unless, it seems, he is anesthetized and rendered unaware and pain free!
Your only argument is that you "FEEL" the fetus is not a human, how convenient. Just admit it, murder is OK if the kid's small enough.
@GTBeauregard I have absolutely no moral issues with abortion. It is not murder in my opinion. Just because you keep trying to tell me is it, will not sway my opinion. It is the extermination of an undeveloped, unborn, uncomprehending lump of flesh. Government studies have shown that the foetus feels no pain with absolutely no self-awareness due to lack of brain development. The cerebral cortex has only developed 8 layers by 38 weeks, which is long past the legal abortion period.
@WLYBEE You are rationalizing - this lump of flesh will become a baby; why does it matter so much if he is aware or can feel pain? Why does that give you the right to kill it?
@GTBeauregard It could become a baby, yes, but at the time of abortion it is not. It is simply the prerequisite, which you have now admitted. It is not a separate entity yet, it cannot sustain life outside of the mothers womb, it still relies on the safety of the womb and the umbilical chord, it is a part of the woman's body that she wants to remove, and it's her choice to do so.
@WLYBEE Those are completely arbitrary reasons you are giving for a human being - it makes you, and all the other head in the sand abortion folks, feel better. Next you'll tell me the fetus has to smile, its ridiculous.
A term fetus cannot survive outside the mother's womb either. Or are you hedging? Abortions only for <20 week fetuses perhaps? Then your brain argument is all screwed because you told me its not fully developed until 38 weeks so it sounds like its ok to abort 37 week fetuses.
@GTBeauregardThe law in the United Kingdom is that a foetus can be aborted during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. Even by 38 weeks the foetus brain still hasn't fully developed and self-awareness nor pain is felt or achieved. I have made myself perfectly clear on this. You are making arguments that have no substance, nor have I contradicted myself in any way. It is not ok to abort 37 week foetuses, I referred to 38 weeks because I was talking about the development of the brain.
@WLYBEE You said awareness and pain were paramount. You state above "Even by 38 weeks the foetus brain still hasn't fully developed and self-awareness nor pain is felt or achieved" - maybe I can't understand the Queen's English but that sure sounds like you're saying a 37 week fetus has not developed awareness and cannot feel pain! SO WHY NOT ABORT A 37 WEEK FETUS?
@GTBeauregard It's hypocritical of you to allow euthanasia based on a quality of life aspect for a person already alive and aware, but not for an undeveloped prerequisite. Most abortions are because conception was unplanned and the single-mother cannot provide for the child. Without abortion not only would a child be born into a low standard of living and struggle, but also lower the mothers quality of life. There are also economic issues that are evident and associated with single-parents.
@WLYBEE One person has his entire life in front of him, the other has zero - surely you can see the vast difference. Shall we kill all the kids who are now living in low standards or who's mother's are burdened by them? Why not? Euthanize them, making sure to take away awareness and pain. Try following your own logic.
@GTBeauregard This is the problem with people like you on the internet, you are so militant with your own arguments that you take everyone else's out of context. I CLEARLY wrote, that how can you justify the killing of a person aware, if it prevents them from having a low quality of life, yet against the killing of an unaware foetus, when you are preventing them from having a low quality of life. I never said euthanize children with zero quality of life, but we can prevent it from happening.
@WLYBEE Prevent it how? By killing them. My solution is no different than yours - I said make them unaware and pain free - your prerequisites. You claim to place no value in the fetus until the third trimester (I assume). Is that true, do you give any value to a first or second trimester fetus?
@GTBeauregard By the method we have been discussing for days. By aborting the foetus you are preventing a child eventually being born into a low standard of living as well as allowing the female to continue her life with the goals and objectives set. Why should she be burdened with having to go through childbirth and parenthood when she can prevent it by removing an undeveloped foetus, unaware of it's existence or pain. No-one is harmed, except the morals of people who have nothing to do with it
@GTBeauregard If you don't see a difference between aborting an undeveloped foetus and killing a 5 year old then I'm afraid you are an idiot, and the health services, the doctors association and both Governments agree.
@WLYBEE "Difference" - of course there's a difference you moron. The point was that your prerequisites for non-human can be duplicated on a 5 year old. But potential cannot be duplicated. You think someone is not human because they haven't reached your arbitrary cut-off and so you can kill them - all so you can have orgasms with random people. Who's sick here?
@GTBeauregard In any event, it's quite clear that you are not willing to have a rational debate without the need to take me out of context. I've made my point and in my opinion they greatly out-way your argument. You will not be changing my mind, which is clearly your objective. I am not trying to change your mind, because I simply don't care what you think. I won't be responding to any more of your nonsensical rhetoric because you simply don't have an argument valid enough for me to bother with
@WLYBEE HAHA, sure thing. Your argument is that the fetus cannot feel pain and is unaware - I can duplicate those conditions in an OR on a 5 year old. Therefor, your argument has just been rendered shit.
You then make arbitrary claims about a lack of umbilical cords being a a pre req for you bestowing personhood - wow. Pretty flimsy stuff.
Your problem is that you cannot follow your own logic to its logical conclusions.
@GTBeauregard Let's not forget either, that pregnancy can occur even when a method of contraception has been employed. Responsible people who have taken measures to ensure that conception is not achieved. In the current financial situation it is already difficult enough for most people to sustain an acceptable standard of living without the financial burden of parenthood. Not only is it a strain on personal finances but also that of Government funds for child benefits, housing and medical funds.
@WLYBEE So the answer is to kill? How about we look at the real problem? Why are there so many unwanted pregnancies? Why this great need for abortion? Figure out why between 1930 and1990, the total proportion of first births which were either premaritally born or premaritally conceived to women 15-19 increased from 29 percent to 89 percent. Or should we just increase abortions?
@GTBeauregard There are so many unwanted pregnancies because the societal norms, values and morals have shifted, like in any environment. The reason there is an increase in premarital conception is because of the translocation from the focus of marriage via the lesser reliance on religion to financial security and responsibility, which isn't exactly a bad thing. There is also an increase in abortion because of sociological shifts such as greater rights and independence for women.
@WLYBEE How does not marrying make one more financially secure? You actually think people in 1930 were not having sex because of religion? Let's be realistic - people weren't having sex because they were afraid of the dire consequences (Hell not being one of them). What happened to those consequences? Taken away by abortion and the pill. Sport sex and orgasms have taken precedence over the creation of life; its done wonders for the black community, they thank you. Keep up the good work.
@crzyprplmnky No, its now percieved as entertainment by the masses, this is new. Your comparison is similar to this:
I say - Porn has become mainstream.
Your retort - porn has been around since ancient Egypt.
True, but my point still stands; porn is at the fingertips of children, its stars are talked about in the media, the stars model mainstream fashion and appear in movies, etc.. Did this happen even 30 years ago? No. Same for the changing mores of sexuality.
the question posed is a good one but it is too general and assumes too much. the questions should be: at what point do we as a society (informed by science as well as the religious) decide when a human life exists and, at what point do we have a right to terminate this life or potential life?
scientists, humanists and those informed by religion often disagree about what constitutes a human life. personally i dismiss the religious argument & consider the other two.
@canteluna for me the question is not answered on absolutist terms of when some level of life exists (hence the handjob remark). the question & answer should be consistent with how a society values human life. many of us believe in euthanasia in some circumstances. usually we equate personhood with a certain level of brain function & self awareness. the fetus does not meet this standard in the first few months of life. so the question is who decides to end a life. the government or the mother?
@canteluna an abortion is a sacrifice. humans make them all the time. we have no problem sending 18 year olds to fight the wars they had nothing to do with so that, ostensibly, the rest of us can live a higher quality life. a woman makes a similar choice when deciding to abort a fetus.
china took the responsibility to mandate a one child program in order to help improve the quality of life for their society & the rest of us on the planet. this was an extreme but understandable measure.
@canteluna There are much better ways to lower birth rates than abortion. In fact, since abortion, unwanted pregnancies have risen in the U.S.. Why, since the introduction of birth control and abortion, has the prevalence of unwanted pregnancies risen?
In euthanasia, the person has no potential for regaining human life, not so in a fetus. It seems your argument is flawed.
@GTBeauregard Its the same pattern repeating. Why is education failing? The schools suck right? Why is unwanted pregnancy rising? Lack of birth control and abortion right? Why is black culture deteriorating? Lack of funding and racism. In all of them, the mainstream thinking is wrong. The problems are worsening because the people are worsening; it is internal not external.
@GTBeauregard Clarification: unwanted pregnancies increased/increasing dramatically in lower socioeconomic strata - the strata that has always been the problem and for which birth control/abortion is supposedly the godsend.
@GTBeauregard my argument wasn't centered on abortion as a solution to lowering birth rates so you're creating and arguing with a straw man. there are various reasons for abortion.
as to the issue of rising unwanted pregnancies, for me, it's up to women to decide what to do with their bodies, not men.
all societies kill for one reason or another. my preference is to avoid causing suffering to all sentient beings & to consider the quality for all existing life & planetary well being.
@canteluna Not maliciously. Now we can talk about important things like - why don't we euthanize all rapists, molesters, violent criminals, etc.? Now we're talking about making society a better place. I mean, since murder is OK depending on the end.
But abortion in itself makes society worse so you're wrong. By legetamizing sport sex and delegitamizing sex for family we have created generations of children raised in poor environments, usually without a dad, who become flawed individuals.
@GTBeauregard you ask why "WE don't euthanize rapists..." because WE are a society that tends to be a secular democracy & the penal codes are what our society deems fair. You & I might disagree but we are not dictators.
As for what makes our society better, i just happen to agree with the majority that abortion when safe and legal is better than the alternative. there will be negative consequences to abortion being legal or not. as a society we've made an informed decision.
@canteluna " the penal codes are what our society deems fair. " that was my point. Why this strange morality where innocent life is taken to ease the burdens of females while sociopaths are allowed to live. Saying "that's just how it is" is one response I guess.
@GTBeauregard once a fetus can exist outside the womb without the support of the mother then i'll agree it's an autonomous life with rights to protect. until then it's the right of the woman to do with her body as she likes including abort. just because a zygote is a potential human life doesn't give it rights. why can't so many men in particular accept this? get a different hobby, try wood working or making ice sculptures. please don't kill abortion doctors.
@canteluna Please don't kill babies; wait, you already do. A term baby cannot live outside the womb without its mother - go back to the drawing board.
@GTBeauregard as i said, don't define a zygote or non-sustainable fetus as a baby. we're not going to convince each other on that issue. but obviously a term baby can live without its mother though it's not preferable. but if a woman chooses to bring a pregnancy to term she will likely care for it.
@GTBeauregard btw the reason i have no problem with a woman deciding to abort the life inside her (yes, it is a form of life but most things are) is because it is not a sentient being. anyway it is not my body. i am a man & have no say about other people's bodies unless they harm someone else. again, i don't see the harm by abortion to a non sentient being. i care more about animals being tortured who clearly do suffer & live miserable lives just so we can eat them.
@canteluna "i care more about animals being tortured who clearly do suffer.."
Logical conclusion: It is morally permissible to kill someone in a way that they do not suffer (ie sedation).
Inevitable response: Nuh uh! They have had experiences and stuff, which magically endows them with personhood forever even if they aren't suffering. Plus they have the physiological structures which enable them to suffer, even though those structures are useless meat while sedated or unconscious.
@Hatrimn if that's the best you can come up with let's not waste each other's time.
a sedated person has rights because he/she otherwise lives autonomously outside the womb. in the case where the person is likely to remain in a "meat" or "vegetable" state, their life can be ended.
as to "magically endows them with personhood" really? that's the best you can come up with? find someone else to foist your ridiculous arguments on.
@canteluna "..lives autonomously outside the womb. "
So anyone who requires life support or organ transplants is not deserving of the right to life? Nope. Physiological dependency does not strip someone of the right to life.
"..the person is likely to remain in a "meat" state.."
So it is wrong to kill someone who shows potential in regaining sentience, but the unborn who show potential in obtaining sentience are fucked? LOL, nice reasoning.
@Hatrimn "physiological dependency does not strip someone of the right to life." in theory you are wrong. it depends on what is involved in the dependency. but the entire point here is who makes the decision. you, as a man, should have nothing but hot air (which you have plenty of) to contribute to the decision of a woman deciding what to do about her pregnancy. get it? get yourself another hobby.
@Hatrimn "potential sentience" is your phrase. don't put words in my mouth. a potential life doesn't warrant rights. if you, as the partial contributor to a pregnancy don't want to abort the potential life, then ask the woman upon whom the potential life is dependent. it's up to her if she wants to consider your request.
you & rick santorum should mind your own business & just fuck each other, that way you won't have to worry about abortion.
@GTBeauregard your argument that abortion makes society worse is simply your opinion. i believe self righteous fake christians make society worse. that is my opinion. anyway it is not up to either of us to be involved in anyone's sex life unless we are invited or as a guardian protecting a child. get it? it's that simple.
@canteluna who are you to decide who is a "flawed individual?" you seem flawed enough to me. but who isn't?
if you're views are informed by christianity then i say go back to the new testament & learn to consider society & your fellow man as christ did, not with petty resentment but with compassion. if christ is not about reminding us of the necessity of acceptance forgiveness & love & if the bible is only a book of prescriptions & proscriptions, then forget him & burn the bible.
@canteluna Christ was just a man with dumb ideas who spoke in allegory to mask his simple slave relgion and pretend to be a god. You call me flawed; I wonder what you'd call a rapist or one who delights in arbirary violence agains the innocent - just a nuicance we must deal with in egalitarian society? Since abortion and birth control, unwanted pregnancies and fatherless children have increased dramatically among the poor; most in prison come from these. Ignore that if you wish
@GTBeauregard most people as "pro life" (hate that term it's such a misnomer) as you tend to be christians or muslims. i wanted to see how you would react when i brought religion into the issue.
i don't agree with your simplistic & uniformed view of christ. i am not religious but there is plenty to admire about christianity & jesus (though also plenty to criticize).
i don't know you so my calling you "flawed" is just my way of reminding you that we all are, especially hypocrites.
@GTBeauregard we don't live in an egalitarian society. we live in a market system with some social programs such as the education system & medicare & social security & others. the soviet system was arguably egalitaran. like it or not we have inherited a judeo christian religion & culture.
all economic systems are artificial. it depends on your values & yo self interest which one you prefer. there are problems with all of them.
@GTBeauregard why so upset about abortion & criminals? angry you have to pay taxes for prisons?
look at europe, they have liberal abortion laws but with few of the consequences you allude to. that tells you the cause is not abortion & promiscuity.
yes people in prison tend to be from broken homes, so what, so was i. the real issue is whether people are valued & nourished. in europe young men aren't abandoned, there are opportunities such as vocational school or university.
@canteluna Europe has the same consequences but to a lesser degree. Most likely, this has to do with their low black and Hispanic populations. Whites and Muslims tend to have less abortions (I know, Muslim isn't a race and race doesn't exist).
England has a higher violent crime rate than the U.S.. - just a lower homicide rate. No, the correlation with fatherless children and violent crime is there.
@GTBeauregard Additionally, Whites and Muslims tend to have less abortions AND have a much smaller percentage of fatherless children - blacks have a single parent rate of 80%.
@GTBeauregard whites are catching up with blacks in the areaof single parent families.
muslims are another issue because muslim women are often considered little more than chattle in observant societies & have no choice.
so with your logic we should all become mulims or religious or patriarchal. choose your poison.
the statistics may be disturbing but to simply put yourself in a position of moral superiority is useless. engage with people you are concerned about.
@canteluna My poinjt stands - fatherless children commit the crime. You may not like how address the problem but you must first look at the world realistically - which you are not doing.
By my logic, all programs that enable the trend of fatherless children should be ended. There is no helping these kids; the root of the problem must be addressed.
@GTBeauregard my point also stands, when societies provide real opportunities for its youth they are less likely to go into crime. do you know how much it costs to incarcerate someone? i would rather spend the $ on them in childhood, making sure their needs are met & offer free vocational training for young adults (as they do in europe), than spend $ later on incarcerating them after they've victimized someone. people act based on incentives, provide worthy ones or they will act selfishly.
@GTBeauregard i live in a fairly large city that has one of the highest murder rates in the country. i don't like my wife going out alone in the evening.
i make no excuses for predators whether they're white collar or common thugs. they're the product of our system. to trace their source to one part of the system is simplistic. an egalitarian system which, if we had one, would be a great disicentve to crime. europe is more egalitarian & they have much less crime, fewer guns too.
@GTBeauregard anyway, why not exorcise what's bugging you about abortion & criminals & get involved with some of these people instead of bitching on youtube from an armchair. you might find that when you get to know them, instead of looking down at them from a distance, some might be worth your effort.
compassion is the answer to almost every human problem. that's the only thing in any religion that is worthy of anyone's time. the rest is platitudes & idolatry.
@canteluna Just because you see the world as gay and I don't does not mean I have get involved with criminals. My world is my family and neighborhood; I don't believe in the global citizen ploy nor do I believe that much can be done for these kids - they enjoy crime. I would prefer to handle this by removing the social engineering that was caste by the Left and which perpetuates the problem - a problem virtually nonexistent 50 years ago.
@GTBeauregard who are you to decide who's a "flawed individual?" you seem flawed enough to me. but who isn't? if your views are informed by christianity then i say go back to the new testament & learn to consider society & your fellow man as christ did, not with petty resentment but with compassion. if christ is not about reminding us of the necessity of acceptance forgiveness & love & if the bible is only a book of prescriptions & proscriptions, then forget him & burn the bible.
wait wait wait. can someone please explain this to me. So we commit genocide when we get a hand job ? and if so does this mean , god has the right to kill us ? since he is so infinite and what not and we are merely humans ?
If you ban contraception because you think it is the equivalent of abortion, all you are doing is creating more unwanted fetuses, thus more abortions.
If aborted fetuses are indeed children, and aborting them sends them straight into heaven... isn't aborting your child just about the most infinitely kind thing you can do for it?
I mean, the Westboro Baptist Church celebrates aborted fetuses because they believe this shit.
Generalizing tends to be dangerous, if you haven't noticed.
"Absolute truths" are rarely absolute and even more rarely moral.
Beautifully said on the part of Hitch, as always. They asked a rather ridiculous question and he put it in perspective. Sadly, people just didn't get it his answer because people think too hard on abortion as a black and white issue. Actually, people think too hard about abortion in general when all that vehement energy could be used in solving societal issues to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
@aaa333ify "Sleeping Around" implies frequent multiple intercourse partners, which I can assure you is NOT the source of the majority of unwanted pregnancies. Also I do believe you've forgotten to mention: 3) Girls need to stop raping guys. That shit actually does happen.
I live in Asia. In places where I live, in a third world country where there are tons of squatters and hungry people, in places like these with crimes like rape, murder, where sex and prostitution is rampant, I must say that abortion is a right of the woman. Besides, usually the preggos in my country are poor, so I believe that it is pro-life to do abortion in places like mine. The mothers would let their baby out only to have them starve and die slowly. In first world countries however, no.
The RCC strongly believes in contraception as long as it is natural and sexual intimacy is relegated to a woman's non-fertile days if a child is not desired. When an artificial means of contraception is used and frustrates or impedes the natural end of a sperm fertilizing an egg, that's when this particular issue is deemed an immoral one. Women are not fertile 100% of the time like men. Therefore, it is up to them to reclaim the reproductive control they conceded to a pill.
LatinRiteChristian 23 hours ago
The idea of a knowing God is ridiculous, but it's a "brute face" that "nature knows"... Hmm... God (an I mean this) bless his soul...
hilaryhoe 1 week ago
Pro Life! Ron Paul 2012!
Sirafrican 1 week ago
@Sirafrican Pro-Choice and fuck Ron Paul.
NoLifeAfterDeath1991 1 day ago
@NoLifeAfterDeath1991 RON PAUL 2012!
Sirafrican 1 day ago
@Sirafrican Lol he isn't going to be elected. Sorry to break it to you. His views are fucked. He thinks that if you can't afford Health Insurance that you shouldn't be able to get Emergency attention. Fuck that, my dad would be dead if that was the case. Also, he wants to get rid of Federal/State Income Tax (he wouldn't have the power to do that in the first place), but are you fucking kidding me? The Economy would go to s*it if that ever happened. Study politics a bit more. Obama 2012.
NoLifeAfterDeath1991 14 hours ago
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 1 week ago
no woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to the point where the child can exist without the support of her body. up to that point it should be up to a woman to choose abortion, being informed by her doctor, the father, or the council of whomever she chooses. it's not up to anyone else. it's that simple.
men, worry about your own bodies. want to stop abortion? then keep your zipper shut & if you can''t do that then keep your mouth shut unless you're asked by the mother for your opinion.
canteluna 1 week ago
Balls of cells are not human beings. I don't care what their DNA says they are. After a sex change/hormone treatment transsexuals are regarded as a different gender than before, despite the human XX or XY chromosomes. DNA doesn't define people. The cerebrum doesn't even develop until late in the pregnancy. A seemingly healthy embryo can for no apparent reason later fail to grow a brain. I don't equate that thing to me. It's not human. Neither are balls of cells.
PlaguedByEarth 1 week ago
@PlaguedByEarth "Balls of cells are not human beings. I don't care what their DNA says they are."
Then you are an unscientific irrational person.
Transexuals are regarded as the sex of their choosing out of a social courtesy.
Nobody suggested that DNA "defines" people... wtf? It does signify the species of an organism though.
Exactly how many neurons and glial cells are required in order for you to equate the unborn with human beings?
Hatrimn 1 week ago
@Hatrimn No need for ad-hominem. The thing about DNA defining people is that the difference between a parasite and an embryo is that the embryo shares human DNA. Pro-Lifers will say that they don't care about the health and wishes of the mother in regards to pregnancy with a healthy embryo, but they are wrong to equate the embryo to a fully formed human being with history and agency. They don't have brains. It is the host organism that takes all precedence.
PlaguedByEarth 1 week ago
@PlaguedByEarth What is wrong with being parasitic? And having human DNA isn't a trivial difference.
I don't know of anyone who equates an embryo with an adult human being. Nobody does that with newborns either, but newborns are considered people with the right to life.
You didn't answer how developed the brain must be. How many neurons, glial cells, and electrical fluctuations before you think it is a person? Is an unconscious person any less of a human being?
Hatrimn 1 week ago
@Hatrimn The being parasitic part is the reason why people want abortion in the first place. The host wants to avoid the harm from the parasite, the host removes the parasite.
The question "what makes is personhood?" is a very difficult one, and has been debated for centuries. The only reason infants have it is mercy. Persons have agency, self awareness, etc.
When, to you, does personhood start? End of first trimester, as soon as chemical reactions start, when the guy blows his load?
PlaguedByEarth 1 week ago
@PlaguedByEarth So what are you saying exactly, human parasites don't have the right to life? What about socially parasitic humans? The disadvantaged who are unable to sustain their own lives due to being disabled or undeveloped, can we allow them to die?
Personhood starts when a distinguishable H. sapien organism emerges. I see no reason to speculate beyond that.
Hatrimn 1 week ago
@Hatrimn you ask the wrong question. it's an interesting question but one science cannot definitively answer so the important question is who makes choices about our bodies? you? doctors? insurance companies? government? it is UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL WOMAN (informed by society's norms, science, religion or whatever she chooses to consider). you believe that life begins in the zygote phase. fine, then don't abort, but then you are not a woman are you? so what woman cares what you think? talk to her.
canteluna 1 week ago
@canteluna That's like asking "who makes choices about our property?" Well, when the choices we make detrimentally impact the well-being of another party, then it is the government's duty to protect that party from such choices. Simple.
You are not truly free, and your property is not fully owned by you. If you wish to partake in society, then you submit yourself to communal responsibilities.
Hatrimn 1 week ago
@Hatrimn it's laughable to equate owning property to the autonomy of one's body & reveals your value system. but your argument fails because your premise assumes that a zygote or some questionable stage of a fetus is "another party." i've already dispensed with that premise. it's on you to prove otherwise. you can't. argument over. take up another hobby. how about advocating against the death penalty or protecting animal rights since you claim to love the life of other parties so much.
canteluna 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@canteluna "it's laughable to equate owning property to the autonomy of one's body.."
Your weird sense of humor aside, that doesn't make it any less accurate.
"it's on you to prove otherwise."
Easily done. A fetus is an individual human organism, therefore it qualifies as a party or person.
"you can't. argument over."
You are mistaken.
"how about advocating against the death penalty or protecting animal rights.."
Yes, those are good causes as well.
Hatrimn 1 week ago
To lower unwanted pregnancy rates simply outlaw abortion, birth control pills, condoms, and all other contraception methods. To raise rates, make abortion, and all the rest free - and maybe award "cutest MOM and baby" prize in high school yearbooks.
AIDS prevalence and homosexual promiscuity declined rapidly in San Francisco prior to the discovery of AIDS drugs ------ AIDS and promiscuity rose sharply after people became aware of treatment.
Get it?
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
Why have unwanted pregnancies increased among lower socioeconomic women since abortion and birth control were introduced? Increased dramatically actually. Is it possible that nomalizing and justifying a behavior (sex for sport) while removing the punishment (pregnant and no way out of it) and stigma could possibly increase its prevalence?
Before answering, look into AIDS rate among San Fran gays before and after AIDS drugs were introduced - hint: falling fast then rising quickly
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
Abortion is a simple matter for me and I remain amazed at the permanency of the debate. Speaking as a atheist: the fetus is a life and therefor cannot be killed except in the rare occasion of a tubal pregnacy, cardiac issues, etc.. With all other "life of the mother" scenarios, the fetus can be taken to viability and delivered by c-section. Abortion when the child is unwanted or when the mother is "not ready" is murder. A fertilized egg is a life.
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
@GTBeauregard The question really boils down to how one feels about murder. Humanists have pigeonholed themselves by labeling murder as always immoral.
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
@GTBeauregard Depending on how murder is defined "the killing of an innocent person" one could say it is generally immoral. I don't think any humanist would say killing is always immoral.
crzyprplmnky 2 weeks ago
@crzyprplmnky But murder is not always immoral: killing an enemy who has not fired on you in war; euthanizing a suffering human; euthanizing a severley deformed fetus. Yet, pro-abortionist argue that abortion is OK because the fetus is not a human yet and hence, abortion is OK as birth control- a false premise. The same people argue against eugenics on moral grounds- but abortion? that's fine. Humanism seems to be Christianity minus God and without the logos to make it work.
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
@GTBeauregard In those three examples, the victim is innocent.
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
@GTBeauregard Okay, I'm not sure exactly where you've gotten your ideas about what "humanists" believe. I'm sure there are some humanists who feel that way. I've never seriously say that a fetus is not a human. Each of our cells is "a human" in a way. The question is whether a fetus is a person in the sense that we would say we are people. We think, we interact, we abstract about our world and build relationships. The Christian god orders the murder of thousands of infants, but that's okay.
crzyprplmnky 2 weeks ago
@crzyprplmnky I stated my atheism, why bring up God? For me, I see no merit in determining some arbitrary status of "person". Is a person who is in locked-in syndrome and has been for 5 years a person? A severely mentally retarded person? A homicidal maniac? This better approach is one of utility - which one has potential? Those listed above have basically zero potential yet you would probably fret over their euthanasia. Yet, you are fine with killing a fully-potential fetus.
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
@GTBeauregard As is a fertilized chicken egg...that doesn't make eggs benedict murder.
crzyprplmnky 2 weeks ago
@crzyprplmnky Are you implying that killing an adult chicken is murder? Not sure how that helps the discussion regardless.
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
@GTBeauregard I'm saying that "a life" is not something we hold as precious. We "murder" billions of bacteria's lives a day and feel good it. There is something specific about a sentient being that we hold dear. And while a lump of cells could way day become that: a seed is not a redwood, an egg is not a chicken, etc etc etc.
crzyprplmnky 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crzyprplmnky Do you have moral qualms over cutting down a tree? Of course not, the taking of life per se is not immoral. On the other hand, killing your co-worker because she has rejected your advances is wrong - is it hard for you to see the disparity? No, I don't believe it is so lets end this tangent here.
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
@crzyprplmnky To clarify, it is not wrong to kill a redwood seed nor a redwood tree. The analogy of redwood and human is false. And you are right, human life is not precious yet we do not euthanize child rapists only homicidal maniacs and fetuses - seem at least inconsistent?
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crzyprplmnky "There is something specific about a sentient being that we hold dear. And while a lump of cells could way day become that: a seed is not a redwood, an egg is not a chicken..."
So if anyone loses sentience, even if momentarily, then they are fucked? It isn't so tragic to kill that person? And babies are no more sentient than your common variety mammal, so infanticide must be on par with putting down a dog? Brilliant.
Hatrimn 1 week ago
I absolutely love hitch so I am assuming I missed the explanation but does he agree with abortion? I think that was the real question. Also, If he agrees with abortion but believes a fetus is a person with the right to life then how does he agree? I am for abortion but I don't agree that a fetus is a person yet. However, I am curious how he could believe a fetus to be a person and still find abortion acceptible. Any explaination is appreciated.
DanceDiggy 3 weeks ago
@DanceDiggy There are pro-choice advocates who view abortion as an exercise in one human's right to remove another human from their body. They believe that nobody is entitled to leech off of someone else, and so abortion is an unfortunate but permissible act.
They proclaim such rubbish while ignoring the fact that the undeveloped or disadvantaged ARE entitled to sustenance and support in a civilized first world society, effectively leeching off of everyone.
Hatrimn 2 weeks ago
@Hatrimn Yes, the parasite argumet is quite sick - feminists.
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
@DanceDiggy
Hitches seems to be saying that abortion is a difficult question. He mostly is approaching from both the biological standpoint and the social one. I think his answer might be something like, abortion is a women/society's right, and the case could go one way or the other, as far as morality goes. I also think he's saying that the morality of abortion is, again, difficult...unlike the insane immorality of things like the Old Testament. Something like that?
xLordOfTheFliesx 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
PeregrineDive 3 weeks ago
@PeregrineDive And if the baby then died because of the condition it was in, and couldnt be sustained by machinery anymore? You dont think that would be worse than a fetus (this is how you correctly spell it: F-E-T-U-S) "dying"?
sephiroththewise 3 weeks ago
@sephiroththewise A fetus (pronounced /ˈfiːtəs/; also spelled foetus, fœtus)
check wiki
PeregrineDive 3 weeks ago
Lol turek keeps asking the same question over and over because he doesn't understand that hitchens already answered it. Then proceeds to act like he's "got him" lol re re
TriviumCrusader17 1 month ago
Turek is clueless, Hitch keeps saying his answer but it just doesnt go in...
ceclovitch 1 month ago
Abortion shouldn't be illegal but I think it should used as a last resort or in cases where there is no other viable option.
TechnicallyTechnical 1 month ago
@TechnicallyTechnical Like only in cases of rape or when the mothers life is threatened?
Do you think it should be legal or all reasons or no reason at all, or should there be restrictions.
Jamespot24 1 month ago
@Jamespot24 As far as when abortion is acceptable, certainly in the two cases you mentioned, and probably in many more that I haven't heard of or considered. I don't like the idea of making "blanket rules", because every case is unique and I certainly don't have all the answers. However, I don't like the idea of abortion being used as an "out" when, let's say, a woman knowingly has sex without contraception and conceives. She should take responsibility for her actions. Your thoughts?
TechnicallyTechnical 1 month ago
@TechnicallyTechnical Well if it were up to me Id prefer if there were no abortion clinics at all. However I can see the points of if a womans life is threatened by the baby, and i mean like she could die, not like ``mental health`` or because shes depressed that shouldn't `t be put on the same level at all.
And I can see with Rape that would be very difficult on a woman.
Jamespot24 1 month ago
@TechnicallyTechnical If you actually do some research on the subject it turns out that Rape and Life is threatened actually account for less than 1% each, birth defects are maybe 2% I think
That means the remaining 96% are healthy pregnancies that were conceived consensually. And while the ``what if shes raped`` line is whats used politically, it`s hard to justify ending a life purely for convenience.
Jamespot24 1 month ago
@Jamespot24 Yeah, I figured the numbers would be somewhere in that vicinity. Like I said, abortion should be the last resort, not the first choice or the default. People need to be responsible with human life, not treat it like it's the annoying side effect of a fun night out. A developing fetus may not be fully human in the same sense we are, but it will be one day. I'm sure him/her would like the chance to live their lives.
TechnicallyTechnical 1 month ago
@TechnicallyTechnical Yeah the debate has become too politicized getting rid of abortion 100% or allowing it for any reason.
When in reality most people want it available but think that it should be restricted unless in extreme cases like Rape or if the mothers life is endangered.
Anyways nice to know there are some smart people out there that are willing to think it through.
Cheers
Jamespot24 1 month ago
ok so, i think the ultimate question is:
Does Christopher Hitchens take an stance against abortion? Does he believe that it should illegal or what?
Freethinker12341 1 month ago
makes me wonder when i show up to a girls house to 'play' and i tell her i got a condom and her eyes light up like the thought never crossed her fucking mind. women and people in general have shit for brains when it comes to forethought and damage control. most kids i see were accidents and all 4+ of the abortions were because both involved didn't like wearing condoms. stupidity
GabrielMynd 1 month ago
people sud b free to pick tho i personaly dont think abortion is right coz its unnatural but its not my chioce to inforce that on sum1 else the truth allways lay sumwear in the middle
kingpharaohtsar 1 month ago
@kingpharaohtsar No, the truth never lays "somewhere in the middle". When the life of a mother depends on it, then the truth is that an abortion is justified. Truth is not just based on opinion; every situation has its own truth, that may not be the same for another situation. With such complicated issues, you can't just say "I'm for it" or "I'm against it". And that is also part of Hitchens' reasoning, if I understand him well.
calogria 1 month ago
@calogria i take it ur triing to get me to pick a side well as i said its not my place to do so as as to 1 there own chioce
kingpharaohtsar 1 month ago
@kingpharaohtsar On the contrary, I'm trying to say that it's useless to pick a side!
calogria 1 month ago
@calogria then the truth for u lay sumwear in the middle too
kingpharaohtsar 1 month ago
Personally I don't see abortion as murder, nor do I see it as an action a woman should feel ashamed of or belittled because. I believe as part of a civilized species a woman should have the right to choose if she wants to have a child or if she wants to abort it. If a woman feels she cannot take care of the child or has ambitions of her own then she absolutely has the right not to have that child.
WLYBEE 1 month ago
@WLYBEE Very well said. That's my feelings as well. Most abortions happen around the 6-7th week of pregnancy. At that point the embryo is about the size of a lentil, is nonviable, has no consciousness, no sentience, no awareness, and no sense of pain. It makes no difference to it at that point whether it will grow or be terminated. Compared to the mother, a fully grown human being who has all those things...it begs the question, why is this even an ethical issue?
longtail4711 1 month ago
@WLYBEE I agree. Taking that right away is a violation of the human body's integrity. I mean, even if a woman can give the child away after birth, all the things her body and mind have to go through during the (obviously unwanted) pregnancy can be traumatizing, even crippling, and nobody should be forced into it.
And before some idiot gives me the asking-for-it "argument" let me say I don't think we should refuse treatment to lung cancer patients who have been lifelong smokers, either.
ListenerOfShadows 1 month ago 11
@ListenerOfShadows
Abortion is REALLY traumatizing for the innocent pre-born baby being willfully murdered by the mother.
"Maternal Instinct" is a MYTH.
DNAisDestiny 1 month ago
@DNAisDestiny If it doesn't have a proper nervous system yet, it's physically unable to feel. The other person that replied to WLYBEE (the user longtail4711) has explained it pretty well. I'm not advocating for torturing/killing creatures that can suffer, and I even extend this approach to animals, which are very often being treated like things.
ListenerOfShadows 1 month ago
@ListenerOfShadows On top of the bad things women go through who have unwanted pregnancies, let's not forget about the children. If a woman doesn't want a child, it's safe to assume she isn't really in a position to raise one. The child could go through horrible things, much worse than death, if it was brought up in a world where their mother and father didn't want it or if it was given away to some unknown source.
ilov3hotsaucexxx 1 month ago
@ilov3hotsaucexxx Why not kill them after birth? That would give the kid more of a chance not to die.
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
@GTBeauregard How would that give them a chance not to die? I can see you went to med school. Anyway, I don't think a fetus in the first trimester is truly alive anyway. Until it develops actual signs of individual life, it is not its own living entity. On top of this, "murder" is not always wrong. Would you call killing in self-defense immoral? Removing something that isn't even alive, but can be potentially dangerous to one's health, is not immoral.
ilov3hotsaucexxx 2 weeks ago
@ilov3hotsaucexxx The mother would have a chance to reconsider her death sentence. Signs of life- heart beat, brain function, what do you need? The point being it will become life; Terry Shivo had zero potential, a fetus is 100% potential. Self defense murder? Of course not but abortion is not self defense. Abortion is more akin to killing your wife because you no longer want the burden of marriage. "Potentially dangerous" does not justify murder unless you're a Neocon.
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
@ListenerOfShadows "I don't think we should refuse treatment to lung cancer patients who have been lifelong smokers, either."
So basically, any human who makes poor decisions and is capable of bitching about it is fine and should be assisted, but innocent unborn humans can fuck off? I suppose if they could protest from the womb, that would be the game changer and women would lose their right to kill their offspring?
Hatrimn 1 week ago
@Hatrimn A zygote is not a human being (until a certain point, at least), and 'killing' them before they even have a nervous system is the lesser evil compared to all the shit the woman/girl would be forced to go through. So, yes, zygotes can fuck off, and your failure of an argument right with them. :D
ListenerOfShadows 1 week ago
@ListenerOfShadows A zygote is a genetically complete self actualizing human organism. It is a human being, it isn't any other animal, vegetable, or mineral.
"Until a certain point"? LOL, and what would that unsubstantiated point be? You must be the first nobody to have discovered it!
Why does a lack in functionality make the killing a lesser evil? Should killing comatose or unconscious people be anything less than a murder charge?
Hatrimn 1 week ago
@Hatrimn If a zygote is a self actualizing human organism, it has no right to leech of its mother and should be criminally charged for doing so against the mother's will. We don't force people into organ donations, so there's no sense in forcing one human to provide another with a place to stay inside their body against their will. :P
Comatose patients are human beings. Zygotes are not.
ListenerOfShadows 1 week ago
@ListenerOfShadows A zygote is innocent of any wrongdoing. It didn't choose to be in another person, nor did it do anything to inadvertently be inside another person. It has no other option but to be there, and it should be cared for while it is there like any other young human should be cared for regardless of where they are.
We also don't force organ recipients into returning an organ at the cost of their life. The recipient didn't steal it, and the unborn don't invade the womb.
Hatrimn 1 week ago
@Hatrimn Also, in your former comment you basically implied that cancer patients are "whining" about cancer. They're not whining. They're suffering; and it seems you seriously need to learn a thing or two about both compassion and rationality...
ListenerOfShadows 1 week ago
@ListenerOfShadows Zygotes are human beings. Nascent humans are still humans, they aren't anything else.
No, I was implying that people who actively fuck up their own lives in any multitude of ways deserve your sympathy and assistance, while young humans who are innocent of any wrongdoing are fair game, and why? Because you don't hear any cries or begging? LOL, yea let me get right on that lesson in compassion.
Hatrimn 1 week ago
@Hatrimn No nervous system means no capability whatsoever to suffer. The principles of biology really aren't that complicated, even you should be able to understand them.
ListenerOfShadows 1 week ago
@ListenerOfShadows 'No nervous system means no capability whatsoever to suffer."
So if I heavily sedate you and kill you "humanely", then it isn't really a serious offense? You wouldn't suffer or demonstrate any interest in living, so it must not be any worse than putting down an animal, is that right?
Hatrimn 1 week ago
@Hatrimn So you're not only an idiot, but a psychopath, too? Shit, I've gotta stop commenting on stuff that gets control-freaks' panties in a twist...
Look, retard, that disgusting fantasy of yours would be violating my human rights. You can't seriously be comparing a bundle of cells to a human being. I already demonstrated where that would lead - it wouldn't even be an argument against abortion, but could be used as one *for* abortion.
ListenerOfShadows 1 week ago
@ListenerOfShadows Violating your human rights? Haha, if you are heavily sedated, then you are incapable of suffering, and so you have no right to life (according to your twisted argument). We are all a bundle of cells, but you seem to think (erroneously I might add) that personhood hinges on sentience, so the size of the bundle is irrelevant. If you don't like the parallel I have drawn, then you need to think more critically about this subject and modify your bullshit opinion.
Hatrimn 1 week ago
@Hatrimn You not only fail to address anything I've said with an argument, but also manage to twist it to shift your cruelty onto me. It's almost if you were religious, lol. Everybody has a right to live, but a bunch of cells that aren't human aren't a person. The woman carrying them is a person and her body's integrity goes above the cell-bundle's right to become a human being.
ListenerOfShadows 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ListenerOfShadows I addressed everything you said with an argument, and I didn't twist anything.
"but a bunch of cells that aren't human aren't a person."
Yea, keep thinking that a human organism "isn't a human". I'm sure ignoring science will benefit you greatly in life...
Hatrimn 1 week ago
@WLYBEE Would killing the child 1 second after birth be murder? Of course abortion is murder. We are killing children because sex is now entertainment. Religion was not all bad.
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
@GTBeauregard There is a huge difference that a foetus goes through during the time that it is legally allowed to be aborted and when it is born. People have different opinions but the fact that so many studies have shown that foetus are not aware nor feel pain is the reason why abortion is allowed in so many countries. Thus, you are not killing a child, rather the prerequisite. You can call it murder if you like. I see it the same as removing a tumour or some other unwanted infliction.
WLYBEE 2 weeks ago
@WLYBEE The brain and all other organs are developed at 8 weeks. Regardless, you seem to be saying that murder is ok if 1) the person feels no pain and 2) the person is unaware of his death. That's not really much of a morality.
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
@GTBeauregard The actual organs may be developing but that does not, however, constitute self-awareness and pain. Self-awareness is the main issue here, much like someone who has been in an accident and is in a comatose vegetative state, LSM may be removed then with no moral issues. I bet you are against euthanasia as well.
WLYBEE 2 weeks ago
@WLYBEE Not against euthanasia, against killing a fully potential human. Euthanasia is killing a person who lacks all potential. No moral inconsistencies here, how bout you? How do you justify this murder? Killing a kid to make his mom's life easier (98%) is pretty warped - unless, it seems, he is anesthetized and rendered unaware and pain free!
Your only argument is that you "FEEL" the fetus is not a human, how convenient. Just admit it, murder is OK if the kid's small enough.
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard I have absolutely no moral issues with abortion. It is not murder in my opinion. Just because you keep trying to tell me is it, will not sway my opinion. It is the extermination of an undeveloped, unborn, uncomprehending lump of flesh. Government studies have shown that the foetus feels no pain with absolutely no self-awareness due to lack of brain development. The cerebral cortex has only developed 8 layers by 38 weeks, which is long past the legal abortion period.
WLYBEE 1 week ago
@WLYBEE You are rationalizing - this lump of flesh will become a baby; why does it matter so much if he is aware or can feel pain? Why does that give you the right to kill it?
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard It could become a baby, yes, but at the time of abortion it is not. It is simply the prerequisite, which you have now admitted. It is not a separate entity yet, it cannot sustain life outside of the mothers womb, it still relies on the safety of the womb and the umbilical chord, it is a part of the woman's body that she wants to remove, and it's her choice to do so.
WLYBEE 1 week ago
@WLYBEE Those are completely arbitrary reasons you are giving for a human being - it makes you, and all the other head in the sand abortion folks, feel better. Next you'll tell me the fetus has to smile, its ridiculous.
A term fetus cannot survive outside the mother's womb either. Or are you hedging? Abortions only for <20 week fetuses perhaps? Then your brain argument is all screwed because you told me its not fully developed until 38 weeks so it sounds like its ok to abort 37 week fetuses.
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregardThe law in the United Kingdom is that a foetus can be aborted during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. Even by 38 weeks the foetus brain still hasn't fully developed and self-awareness nor pain is felt or achieved. I have made myself perfectly clear on this. You are making arguments that have no substance, nor have I contradicted myself in any way. It is not ok to abort 37 week foetuses, I referred to 38 weeks because I was talking about the development of the brain.
WLYBEE 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WLYBEE You said awareness and pain were paramount. You state above "Even by 38 weeks the foetus brain still hasn't fully developed and self-awareness nor pain is felt or achieved" - maybe I can't understand the Queen's English but that sure sounds like you're saying a 37 week fetus has not developed awareness and cannot feel pain! SO WHY NOT ABORT A 37 WEEK FETUS?
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard It's hypocritical of you to allow euthanasia based on a quality of life aspect for a person already alive and aware, but not for an undeveloped prerequisite. Most abortions are because conception was unplanned and the single-mother cannot provide for the child. Without abortion not only would a child be born into a low standard of living and struggle, but also lower the mothers quality of life. There are also economic issues that are evident and associated with single-parents.
WLYBEE 1 week ago
@WLYBEE One person has his entire life in front of him, the other has zero - surely you can see the vast difference. Shall we kill all the kids who are now living in low standards or who's mother's are burdened by them? Why not? Euthanize them, making sure to take away awareness and pain. Try following your own logic.
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard This is the problem with people like you on the internet, you are so militant with your own arguments that you take everyone else's out of context. I CLEARLY wrote, that how can you justify the killing of a person aware, if it prevents them from having a low quality of life, yet against the killing of an unaware foetus, when you are preventing them from having a low quality of life. I never said euthanize children with zero quality of life, but we can prevent it from happening.
WLYBEE 1 week ago
@WLYBEE Prevent it how? By killing them. My solution is no different than yours - I said make them unaware and pain free - your prerequisites. You claim to place no value in the fetus until the third trimester (I assume). Is that true, do you give any value to a first or second trimester fetus?
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard By the method we have been discussing for days. By aborting the foetus you are preventing a child eventually being born into a low standard of living as well as allowing the female to continue her life with the goals and objectives set. Why should she be burdened with having to go through childbirth and parenthood when she can prevent it by removing an undeveloped foetus, unaware of it's existence or pain. No-one is harmed, except the morals of people who have nothing to do with it
WLYBEE 1 week ago
@WLYBEE No different than killing a 5 year old under anesthesia. Address your equivocations.
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard If you don't see a difference between aborting an undeveloped foetus and killing a 5 year old then I'm afraid you are an idiot, and the health services, the doctors association and both Governments agree.
WLYBEE 1 week ago
@WLYBEE "Difference" - of course there's a difference you moron. The point was that your prerequisites for non-human can be duplicated on a 5 year old. But potential cannot be duplicated. You think someone is not human because they haven't reached your arbitrary cut-off and so you can kill them - all so you can have orgasms with random people. Who's sick here?
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard In any event, it's quite clear that you are not willing to have a rational debate without the need to take me out of context. I've made my point and in my opinion they greatly out-way your argument. You will not be changing my mind, which is clearly your objective. I am not trying to change your mind, because I simply don't care what you think. I won't be responding to any more of your nonsensical rhetoric because you simply don't have an argument valid enough for me to bother with
WLYBEE 1 week ago
@WLYBEE HAHA, sure thing. Your argument is that the fetus cannot feel pain and is unaware - I can duplicate those conditions in an OR on a 5 year old. Therefor, your argument has just been rendered shit.
You then make arbitrary claims about a lack of umbilical cords being a a pre req for you bestowing personhood - wow. Pretty flimsy stuff.
Your problem is that you cannot follow your own logic to its logical conclusions.
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard Let's not forget either, that pregnancy can occur even when a method of contraception has been employed. Responsible people who have taken measures to ensure that conception is not achieved. In the current financial situation it is already difficult enough for most people to sustain an acceptable standard of living without the financial burden of parenthood. Not only is it a strain on personal finances but also that of Government funds for child benefits, housing and medical funds.
WLYBEE 1 week ago
@WLYBEE So the answer is to kill? How about we look at the real problem? Why are there so many unwanted pregnancies? Why this great need for abortion? Figure out why between 1930 and1990, the total proportion of first births which were either premaritally born or premaritally conceived to women 15-19 increased from 29 percent to 89 percent. Or should we just increase abortions?
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard There are so many unwanted pregnancies because the societal norms, values and morals have shifted, like in any environment. The reason there is an increase in premarital conception is because of the translocation from the focus of marriage via the lesser reliance on religion to financial security and responsibility, which isn't exactly a bad thing. There is also an increase in abortion because of sociological shifts such as greater rights and independence for women.
WLYBEE 1 week ago
@WLYBEE How does not marrying make one more financially secure? You actually think people in 1930 were not having sex because of religion? Let's be realistic - people weren't having sex because they were afraid of the dire consequences (Hell not being one of them). What happened to those consequences? Taken away by abortion and the pill. Sport sex and orgasms have taken precedence over the creation of life; its done wonders for the black community, they thank you. Keep up the good work.
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard "Sex is now entertainment." Look up "the oldest profession".
crzyprplmnky 2 weeks ago
@crzyprplmnky No, its now percieved as entertainment by the masses, this is new. Your comparison is similar to this:
I say - Porn has become mainstream.
Your retort - porn has been around since ancient Egypt.
True, but my point still stands; porn is at the fingertips of children, its stars are talked about in the media, the stars model mainstream fashion and appear in movies, etc.. Did this happen even 30 years ago? No. Same for the changing mores of sexuality.
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
the question posed is a good one but it is too general and assumes too much. the questions should be: at what point do we as a society (informed by science as well as the religious) decide when a human life exists and, at what point do we have a right to terminate this life or potential life?
scientists, humanists and those informed by religion often disagree about what constitutes a human life. personally i dismiss the religious argument & consider the other two.
canteluna 1 month ago
@canteluna for me the question is not answered on absolutist terms of when some level of life exists (hence the handjob remark). the question & answer should be consistent with how a society values human life. many of us believe in euthanasia in some circumstances. usually we equate personhood with a certain level of brain function & self awareness. the fetus does not meet this standard in the first few months of life. so the question is who decides to end a life. the government or the mother?
canteluna 1 month ago
@canteluna an abortion is a sacrifice. humans make them all the time. we have no problem sending 18 year olds to fight the wars they had nothing to do with so that, ostensibly, the rest of us can live a higher quality life. a woman makes a similar choice when deciding to abort a fetus.
china took the responsibility to mandate a one child program in order to help improve the quality of life for their society & the rest of us on the planet. this was an extreme but understandable measure.
canteluna 1 month ago
@canteluna There are much better ways to lower birth rates than abortion. In fact, since abortion, unwanted pregnancies have risen in the U.S.. Why, since the introduction of birth control and abortion, has the prevalence of unwanted pregnancies risen?
In euthanasia, the person has no potential for regaining human life, not so in a fetus. It seems your argument is flawed.
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
@GTBeauregard Its the same pattern repeating. Why is education failing? The schools suck right? Why is unwanted pregnancy rising? Lack of birth control and abortion right? Why is black culture deteriorating? Lack of funding and racism. In all of them, the mainstream thinking is wrong. The problems are worsening because the people are worsening; it is internal not external.
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
@GTBeauregard Clarification: unwanted pregnancies increased/increasing dramatically in lower socioeconomic strata - the strata that has always been the problem and for which birth control/abortion is supposedly the godsend.
GTBeauregard 2 weeks ago
@GTBeauregard my argument wasn't centered on abortion as a solution to lowering birth rates so you're creating and arguing with a straw man. there are various reasons for abortion.
as to the issue of rising unwanted pregnancies, for me, it's up to women to decide what to do with their bodies, not men.
all societies kill for one reason or another. my preference is to avoid causing suffering to all sentient beings & to consider the quality for all existing life & planetary well being.
canteluna 1 week ago
@canteluna Not maliciously. Now we can talk about important things like - why don't we euthanize all rapists, molesters, violent criminals, etc.? Now we're talking about making society a better place. I mean, since murder is OK depending on the end.
But abortion in itself makes society worse so you're wrong. By legetamizing sport sex and delegitamizing sex for family we have created generations of children raised in poor environments, usually without a dad, who become flawed individuals.
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard you ask why "WE don't euthanize rapists..." because WE are a society that tends to be a secular democracy & the penal codes are what our society deems fair. You & I might disagree but we are not dictators.
As for what makes our society better, i just happen to agree with the majority that abortion when safe and legal is better than the alternative. there will be negative consequences to abortion being legal or not. as a society we've made an informed decision.
canteluna 1 week ago
@canteluna " the penal codes are what our society deems fair. " that was my point. Why this strange morality where innocent life is taken to ease the burdens of females while sociopaths are allowed to live. Saying "that's just how it is" is one response I guess.
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard once a fetus can exist outside the womb without the support of the mother then i'll agree it's an autonomous life with rights to protect. until then it's the right of the woman to do with her body as she likes including abort. just because a zygote is a potential human life doesn't give it rights. why can't so many men in particular accept this? get a different hobby, try wood working or making ice sculptures. please don't kill abortion doctors.
canteluna 1 week ago
@canteluna Please don't kill babies; wait, you already do. A term baby cannot live outside the womb without its mother - go back to the drawing board.
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard as i said, don't define a zygote or non-sustainable fetus as a baby. we're not going to convince each other on that issue. but obviously a term baby can live without its mother though it's not preferable. but if a woman chooses to bring a pregnancy to term she will likely care for it.
canteluna 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard btw the reason i have no problem with a woman deciding to abort the life inside her (yes, it is a form of life but most things are) is because it is not a sentient being. anyway it is not my body. i am a man & have no say about other people's bodies unless they harm someone else. again, i don't see the harm by abortion to a non sentient being. i care more about animals being tortured who clearly do suffer & live miserable lives just so we can eat them.
canteluna 1 week ago
@canteluna "i care more about animals being tortured who clearly do suffer.."
Logical conclusion: It is morally permissible to kill someone in a way that they do not suffer (ie sedation).
Inevitable response: Nuh uh! They have had experiences and stuff, which magically endows them with personhood forever even if they aren't suffering. Plus they have the physiological structures which enable them to suffer, even though those structures are useless meat while sedated or unconscious.
Hatrimn 4 days ago
@Hatrimn if that's the best you can come up with let's not waste each other's time.
a sedated person has rights because he/she otherwise lives autonomously outside the womb. in the case where the person is likely to remain in a "meat" or "vegetable" state, their life can be ended.
as to "magically endows them with personhood" really? that's the best you can come up with? find someone else to foist your ridiculous arguments on.
canteluna 4 days ago
@canteluna "..lives autonomously outside the womb. "
So anyone who requires life support or organ transplants is not deserving of the right to life? Nope. Physiological dependency does not strip someone of the right to life.
"..the person is likely to remain in a "meat" state.."
So it is wrong to kill someone who shows potential in regaining sentience, but the unborn who show potential in obtaining sentience are fucked? LOL, nice reasoning.
Hatrimn 4 days ago
@Hatrimn "physiological dependency does not strip someone of the right to life." in theory you are wrong. it depends on what is involved in the dependency. but the entire point here is who makes the decision. you, as a man, should have nothing but hot air (which you have plenty of) to contribute to the decision of a woman deciding what to do about her pregnancy. get it? get yourself another hobby.
canteluna 2 hours ago
@Hatrimn "potential sentience" is your phrase. don't put words in my mouth. a potential life doesn't warrant rights. if you, as the partial contributor to a pregnancy don't want to abort the potential life, then ask the woman upon whom the potential life is dependent. it's up to her if she wants to consider your request.
you & rick santorum should mind your own business & just fuck each other, that way you won't have to worry about abortion.
canteluna 1 hour ago
@GTBeauregard your argument that abortion makes society worse is simply your opinion. i believe self righteous fake christians make society worse. that is my opinion. anyway it is not up to either of us to be involved in anyone's sex life unless we are invited or as a guardian protecting a child. get it? it's that simple.
canteluna 1 week ago
@canteluna who are you to decide who is a "flawed individual?" you seem flawed enough to me. but who isn't?
if you're views are informed by christianity then i say go back to the new testament & learn to consider society & your fellow man as christ did, not with petty resentment but with compassion. if christ is not about reminding us of the necessity of acceptance forgiveness & love & if the bible is only a book of prescriptions & proscriptions, then forget him & burn the bible.
canteluna 1 week ago
@canteluna Christ was just a man with dumb ideas who spoke in allegory to mask his simple slave relgion and pretend to be a god. You call me flawed; I wonder what you'd call a rapist or one who delights in arbirary violence agains the innocent - just a nuicance we must deal with in egalitarian society? Since abortion and birth control, unwanted pregnancies and fatherless children have increased dramatically among the poor; most in prison come from these. Ignore that if you wish
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard most people as "pro life" (hate that term it's such a misnomer) as you tend to be christians or muslims. i wanted to see how you would react when i brought religion into the issue.
i don't agree with your simplistic & uniformed view of christ. i am not religious but there is plenty to admire about christianity & jesus (though also plenty to criticize).
i don't know you so my calling you "flawed" is just my way of reminding you that we all are, especially hypocrites.
canteluna 1 week ago
@canteluna Egalitarianism comes from Christianity; it is a false concept and is at the root of many of our problems.
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard we don't live in an egalitarian society. we live in a market system with some social programs such as the education system & medicare & social security & others. the soviet system was arguably egalitaran. like it or not we have inherited a judeo christian religion & culture.
all economic systems are artificial. it depends on your values & yo self interest which one you prefer. there are problems with all of them.
you sond like a libertarian.
canteluna 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard why so upset about abortion & criminals? angry you have to pay taxes for prisons?
look at europe, they have liberal abortion laws but with few of the consequences you allude to. that tells you the cause is not abortion & promiscuity.
yes people in prison tend to be from broken homes, so what, so was i. the real issue is whether people are valued & nourished. in europe young men aren't abandoned, there are opportunities such as vocational school or university.
canteluna 1 week ago
@canteluna Europe has the same consequences but to a lesser degree. Most likely, this has to do with their low black and Hispanic populations. Whites and Muslims tend to have less abortions (I know, Muslim isn't a race and race doesn't exist).
England has a higher violent crime rate than the U.S.. - just a lower homicide rate. No, the correlation with fatherless children and violent crime is there.
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard Additionally, Whites and Muslims tend to have less abortions AND have a much smaller percentage of fatherless children - blacks have a single parent rate of 80%.
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard whites are catching up with blacks in the areaof single parent families.
muslims are another issue because muslim women are often considered little more than chattle in observant societies & have no choice.
so with your logic we should all become mulims or religious or patriarchal. choose your poison.
the statistics may be disturbing but to simply put yourself in a position of moral superiority is useless. engage with people you are concerned about.
canteluna 1 week ago
@canteluna My poinjt stands - fatherless children commit the crime. You may not like how address the problem but you must first look at the world realistically - which you are not doing.
By my logic, all programs that enable the trend of fatherless children should be ended. There is no helping these kids; the root of the problem must be addressed.
GTBeauregard 3 days ago
@GTBeauregard my point also stands, when societies provide real opportunities for its youth they are less likely to go into crime. do you know how much it costs to incarcerate someone? i would rather spend the $ on them in childhood, making sure their needs are met & offer free vocational training for young adults (as they do in europe), than spend $ later on incarcerating them after they've victimized someone. people act based on incentives, provide worthy ones or they will act selfishly.
canteluna 1 hour ago
@canteluna Yes, why does it bother me that criminals roam the streets? that's a tuff one.
I'll go ahead and assume that you live in an affluent or mainly white area.
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard i live in a fairly large city that has one of the highest murder rates in the country. i don't like my wife going out alone in the evening.
i make no excuses for predators whether they're white collar or common thugs. they're the product of our system. to trace their source to one part of the system is simplistic. an egalitarian system which, if we had one, would be a great disicentve to crime. europe is more egalitarian & they have much less crime, fewer guns too.
canteluna 1 week ago
@GTBeauregard anyway, why not exorcise what's bugging you about abortion & criminals & get involved with some of these people instead of bitching on youtube from an armchair. you might find that when you get to know them, instead of looking down at them from a distance, some might be worth your effort.
compassion is the answer to almost every human problem. that's the only thing in any religion that is worthy of anyone's time. the rest is platitudes & idolatry.
canteluna 1 week ago
@canteluna Just because you see the world as gay and I don't does not mean I have get involved with criminals. My world is my family and neighborhood; I don't believe in the global citizen ploy nor do I believe that much can be done for these kids - they enjoy crime. I would prefer to handle this by removing the social engineering that was caste by the Left and which perpetuates the problem - a problem virtually nonexistent 50 years ago.
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
@canteluna You seem to think you can argue in favor of abortion by pointing out the stupidity of Christianity.
GTBeauregard 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GTBeauregard who are you to decide who's a "flawed individual?" you seem flawed enough to me. but who isn't? if your views are informed by christianity then i say go back to the new testament & learn to consider society & your fellow man as christ did, not with petty resentment but with compassion. if christ is not about reminding us of the necessity of acceptance forgiveness & love & if the bible is only a book of prescriptions & proscriptions, then forget him & burn the bible.
canteluna 1 week ago
wait wait wait. can someone please explain this to me. So we commit genocide when we get a hand job ? and if so does this mean , god has the right to kill us ? since he is so infinite and what not and we are merely humans ?
RayWilliamJohansen 2 months ago
If you ban contraception because you think it is the equivalent of abortion, all you are doing is creating more unwanted fetuses, thus more abortions.
Funny how that works.
canesrule96 2 months ago
If aborted fetuses are indeed children, and aborting them sends them straight into heaven... isn't aborting your child just about the most infinitely kind thing you can do for it?
I mean, the Westboro Baptist Church celebrates aborted fetuses because they believe this shit.
Generalizing tends to be dangerous, if you haven't noticed.
"Absolute truths" are rarely absolute and even more rarely moral.
Ebvardh 2 months ago
Beautifully said on the part of Hitch, as always. They asked a rather ridiculous question and he put it in perspective. Sadly, people just didn't get it his answer because people think too hard on abortion as a black and white issue. Actually, people think too hard about abortion in general when all that vehement energy could be used in solving societal issues to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
longtail4711 2 months ago 23
@longtail4711
There are only two ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies:
1) Guys need to stop raping girls
2) Girls need to stop sleeping around.
I don't think that requires all that much "vehement energy."
aaa333ify 1 month ago
@aaa333ify No silly, I mean lets start having more gay sex! It's a win-win situation! :D
longtail4711 1 month ago
@longtail4711 :)
aaa333ify 1 month ago
@aaa333ify "Sleeping Around" implies frequent multiple intercourse partners, which I can assure you is NOT the source of the majority of unwanted pregnancies. Also I do believe you've forgotten to mention: 3) Girls need to stop raping guys. That shit actually does happen.
MrBigzKY 1 month ago
This guy has no idea how to answer questions. How can people believe the rubbish coming out of his mouth... Sadness!!
robert33182 2 months ago
Why are some people so fucking obsessed about whether or not somebody believes in God or not- both sides, just STFU and get a life!
tylertyler82 2 months ago
Comment removed
D8956 2 months ago
Comment removed
D8956 2 months ago
Comment removed
D8956 2 months ago
I live in Asia. In places where I live, in a third world country where there are tons of squatters and hungry people, in places like these with crimes like rape, murder, where sex and prostitution is rampant, I must say that abortion is a right of the woman. Besides, usually the preggos in my country are poor, so I believe that it is pro-life to do abortion in places like mine. The mothers would let their baby out only to have them starve and die slowly. In first world countries however, no.
mAwesome334 2 months ago 5
There is no god or gods. Humans are shitting all over life on the planet and nature will do as it will.
337noname 2 months ago