Should we treat them differently?

[pheromoneaction]

Really enjoyed you video informative. When you have time come visit my channel!

[TheHcgdietplan]

Really enjoyed you video informative. When you have time come visit my channel!

[ClaireLonia96]

MY body= MY decision

Women have the same right as men, including the one to do what they want with their body.

If I was pregnant and forced to keep the baby, I would: be forced to stop my career at least for some time, vomit every morning for a period of a few months. I may die because of it. I may not be economically and mentally able to raise it. That would result with me wanting it even less.

And don't forget: an unwanted child grows into an angry or very sad adult most of the time.

[ryddelwearsahat]

Simple question- can a fetus be adopted like a born child can, or is it a permanent 9 motnhs until birth, lol? Also, rape is not wanted, but lethal force(killing) ir legally, morally okay to prevent it. Oh, rape does not kill, by the way- it's just something unpleasant- make the bitch deal w/ it- she shouldn't have worn that short skirt, lol- it's her fault. If it's that bad, she can go get therapy alter, lol- if the stress doesn't kill her/make her suicide. Ha!

[lovechocolate10]

Great video!

[mamayzing]

Very poignant. That is the only difference between an electively aborted baby and a murdered baby in the media, their wantedness. I also find it interesting that when the baby is unwanted the term "fetus" is used. Dehumanizing the victim, so we don't feel so bad about the "right to choose."

[juliewashere88]

What FREEAMERICANOW69 said.

[FREEAMERICANOW69]

and how is this hard to understand?

abortion: a woman deciding for herself to end the unwanted fetus inside her body because she has a right not to be pregnant whenever she chooses= legal.

fetal homicide: somebody else not using the woman's permission to end her WANTED FETUS' LIFE = illegal.

[trhorn100]

@FREEAMERICANOW69 - So you're saying a person's wantedness should determine whether it is right or wrong to kill them? Should a woman be allowed to kill her two-year old if she doesn't want him anymore? If not, then why do unwanted two-year olds have a right-to-life but not unwanted fetuses?

[FREEAMERICANOW69]

trhorn

yes, because forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will is a violation of the 14th amendment's LIBERTY W/O DUE PROCESS and it's already that way now.

STRAWMAN, we both know that killing born people is illegal and will be that way for a very long time... so your point is moot, next question!

a fetus doesn't have a right to life because giving it rights would interfere with the woman's rights stated above, since a fetus is not legal a human being or legal person living in/off her

[Karenjadegirl]

@trhorn100 Already born children can be adopted out to other families if their parents are unable or unwilling to to care for them, however zygotes/embryos/fetuses in the woman's body cannot. Of course everyone has the right to live, just not inside the bodies of other *unwilling* people.

[Karenjadegirl]

@trhorn100 You can adopt out a born child if you aren't willing to keep it, but not a fetus in the womb. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, to have another person develop inside her body, then she has the right to have it removed from her body.

[RobbytheLion]

@trhorn100 Actually I think this person is saying that if a human is living inside your body, you can determine whether you want them there or not. Your fetus is your property as long as it's inside you. Contrariwise, if you kill someone living independently of you, say a baby, that is murder. Or if you kill a pregnant woman, that is two counts of murder since the woman and the fetus are not part or your person.

[thesilentskeptic]

@trhorn100 A fetus is not the same as a two-year old baby. And in some countries it is only legal if the pregnancy is a product of rape, incest or causes danger to mother's or baby's health.

By your logic two people should not use protection since they are killing potential babies.

[PATRICKoxoEthafulm]

@FREEAMERICANOW69 you again, omg shut up, go do something with your life. go right a song about how it's "ok" to have an abortion, your voice will be stronger there. Im writing a pro-life song because i know picking on people like you is just exercise for my ability to display the truth. but your up trolling on every lovely video i see, i can't imagine how many others you've ran your fingers on

[FREEAMERICANOW69]

@P

like, omg, U don't have to respond because U don't like my comment and U can't prove it wrong, gawd.

so stop worrying me because what i do is none of your goddamn business and U can't stop be from doing something that's LEGAL and constitutional. telling the fact that others' morality against abortion is moot to a woman's will, civil/ constitutional right to have one is my objective...deal with it or commit sucide, which shouldn't be hard for u, since U was planning on doing anyway.

[PATRICKoxoEthafulm]

@FREEAMERICANOW69 your cruel suicide promoting words represent the truth of your perspective. don't tell yourself you are righteous

[rwrforever]

Great job Brother!

[crzychck77]

It truly makes no sense....a baby is a baby no matter what the circumstance and we should pray daily for those who are pro-choice to realize that it is not okay to murder an unborn child. Life is sacred and we all deserve a chance to live.

[pretyinpinck]

Come on, how much clearer can it be? Abortion is murder anyway you see it...Let's pray to end abortion and let our government know we don't want our tax dollars funding it...We can do it, let's each of us take action...God Bless, Cammy.

[mattghtpa]

Once again another poorly disguised attempt to illicit sympathetic emotions to erode civil liberties in the name of pseudo morality.

[xalisae]

OOOOORRRR, it could be to point out absolutely GLARING inconsistencies in the law which seems to protect SOME pre-birth humans who are "wanted" and allow others to be killed and thrown away by the thousands on a daily basis with no other distinguishing quality from the first set than that they are "unwanted". Talk about having one's civil liberties denied! I'd say that the humans thrown into the incinerator at the abortion provider had theirs violated in the worst way.

[mattghtpa]

Nah, it is what it is, a slowly dying Bronze Age ideology grasping for relevance left behind by an increasingly secular society slowly adopting reason as a guide rather than mysticism and supernatural superstitious fear based reality.

[xalisae]

Please do tell me one time I have ever cited anything close to "mysticism" or "supernatural superstitious fear" in support of protecting fetal human rights. Please.

[mattghtpa]

A bit odd aren't you?

We are discussing a video, we are not discussing you.

[xalisae]

Did you miss the point of the video? It's premise is the irrationality of abortion supporters and the schizophrenic laws we currently have. Abortion opponents want to stop discrimination and dehumanization of certain individuals based on wantedness, and you went off on some rant about mysticism and the supernatural. I'm just trying to get you to make sense.

[xalisae]

How exactly can one find reason in two sets of individuals which are exactly the same yet treated in two wildly different ways by the law and their own next of kin?

As an atheist, I'm a fan of all things logical and secular. There is no reason whatsoever to abortion.

[thwonk121]

so are you for criminalizing abortion on demand as well as fetal homicide?

[xalisae]

Duh? If one is illegal, it only stands to reason the other should be, as well. Should it be legal to kill unwanted mother-in-laws and illegal to kill wanted ones? Basing laws on the value OTHERS place on your life seems insane, at best.

[thwonk121]

I'm with you there, even though I like my mother-in-law :)

Where do you think humans get their value from? The sate, or is it intrinsic?

If intrinsic, where does it come from?

[xalisae]

The lives of all species, animals included, have intrinsic value.

However, the values assigned to these species is not necessarily equal. Since we are human beings, we write the rules, we assign the values. That gives the intrinsic value of the lives of our species special value.

I would expect if dogs ran the world, they would think there to be something particularly special about canines, and it'd be the same for felines if cats were in charge.

[thwonk121]

Since intrinsic means something that is part of essential nature, how could the fact that we call the shots of other species somehow change our "intrinsic" value?

Where do you think that value comes from if it's really intrinsic?

[xalisae]

After a system has been established for a long period of time, the roles assigned to various beings within that system become intrinsic. The aspects of their nature which made them suited to the roles they play in life (aptitudes/proficiencies or lack thereof) are intrinsic. Those aptitudes/proficiencies or lack of such things have put various species in the places they are, and those places have various value.

[TraderTif]

Is there a difference between abortion and fetal homicide?

[thwonk121]

The primary difference between abortion and fetal homicide, other than "wanted-ness", and the law, is instrumentation.

Fetal homicide is usually committed with a gun in the hand of shooter or with a car with a drunk driver at the wheel. Abortion is by contrast committed (performed) using sophisticated medical equipment.

One is a crime and one is a "right" in our country currently.

[TraderTif]

Bizarre. I wonder if people would be more bothered if abortionists used guns, instead of medical instruments.

[thwonk121]

It would be (legally) interesting one day if an abortion doctor was driving drunk and hit a pregnant woman killing her (wanted) child but leaving her alive.

He could charged with fetal homicide, but the primary difference between the car wreck and his daily medical procedures would be the instrument involved: car vs. medical equipment.

[StinkyBammerHater]

i don't understand the twisted logic either. great video

[64eugenia]

The only way we can have legalized abortion on one hand and "murder on two counts" in the cases of pregnant women who have been killed is to be hypocritical, double-faced, and dishonest. It's just a fact. It's silly and sad but there it is.

[urbanprophet777]

Gaaah i dont know whats wrong whit ppl,God is clearly saying you shall not kill.Luckly the curse of sin teaches people the hard way.Sad,but i cant ask a ungodly man to act like,God said.Sad that they kill the unborn,sad that they bring curse on them self and sad that nations allowing this,and curse them self and there nation.God is just,dont ever think he dont care.And everyone can be forgiven if they repent .God is fair jugde.Jesus is ure defenseand teacher and satan,is the acuser and deceptor

[angiecoop7]

One of the best prolife videos I've ever seen!

[RANDYandROSEY]

One of the best video's that I've ever seen. Great job!!!

If they can't understand the ignorance about abortion after watching this then they are blind for sure.

[AAL]

They should get bible abortions!

Book of Numbers Chapter 5

[thwonk121]

we live in a schitzo society.

[dykedesuyo]

I agree that this is a double standard, but I don't think those men should be charged with 2 murders. I guess I just see it the other way.

[xalisae]

And why not? Why are those lives those mothers were carefully nurturing not as valuable as their own?

[dykedesuyo]

It's a difference of when we see life as beginning. I don't think that a person becomes alive until it is born. If it can't survive outside of the womb, then it is still part of the woman as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sure neither of us will be convinced, and I'm not trying to make you see it my way, I just wanted to show my difference of opinion on this.

[xalisae]

So a human's capacities and abilities dictate the value their lives have?

A human on life support...are the machines keeping them alive considered part of their bodies?

[dykedesuyo]

I said that a person BECOMES alive when it is born.

I said nothing at all about what dictates the value of someone's life, just when life begins in my opinion. When life ends is a whole different discussion that has nothing to do with this video.

Again, I'm not debating, just clarifying my thoughts. If you are asking these questions out of honest curiosity then I appreciate it. If you are simply being irate that I don't share your view, please stop. (It's hard to read intonation in comments)

[xalisae]

Well, I'm sorry, but every science/biology/embryology textbook would disagree with your opinion about when a person becomes alive.

What is so special about being born? You realize that there is VERY little difference between a fetal human in it's last month of development and a birthed human, right? What about premature babies? Are they not alive? They require life support despite having been born...I'm trying to see your logic here.

[dykedesuyo]

If every book agreed on when people became alive then we wouldn't have debates on when life begins. Some say life begins at conception, some say birth, some say the third trimester, and there are plenty more in between. There's a reason why it is debated.

I don't know why it is you feel so strongly about my opinion and making it the same as yours. My logic is - as long as it's attached to the woman's body internally, it is part of the woman's body.

I understand we disagree, and I'm OK with it

[xalisae]

So, I could attach you to my body and legally kill you, because you are part of my body. Gotcha.

[dykedesuyo]

That's a silly statement and you know it. It's obvious you are far too emotionally involved in this conversation to respond to me with anything but contempt and sarcasm.

I have no ill will towards you or your ideas. My only point in making a response was to share a differing viewpoint. You were clearly interested in attacking that viewpoint because of your passion for this issue. I'm sorry my opinions upset you; please do not take this discussion so personally.

[TraderTif]

According to your logic, would conjoined twins be 2 separate legal persons?

(I'm just curious.)

[dykedesuyo]

With conjoined twins, it's a fair point. I would say because both can interact and prove their individuality so they are each individuals. However, if one committed suicide and the other died as a result, I would not count that as a murder.

Nor do we count it as murder when parents decide to split conjoined twins so that one may survive, even though that results in the death of the other, because without the surgery both would die. This is similar to an abortion for medical reasons, isn't it?

[TraderTif]

It depends. I have never, personally, met any anti-abortion person that opposed the right of a pregnant woman to seek real, medical treatment for herself (or for the child), even if this treatment resulted in the unintended death of the child. (I would not even call that an abortion.)

However, sometimes the phrase "abortion for medical reasons" actually translates to "kill the fetus because it has some medical problem or birth defect", which is an entirely different story.

[dykedesuyo]

I've never heard of "abortion for medical reasons" referring to the fitness of the fetus, though I haven't looked it up specifically so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

There are people, like Ray Cumfort, who want to make abortions for ectopic pregnancies and other medical conditions that would greatly jeopardize the health of the woman illegal, stating it is God's will and if she dies, she dies.

I think women have the right to choose life for themselves regardless. Call it self defense

[xalisae]

You're using rare hard cases that no one (pro-life or otherwise) would agree with at all.

Of course pro-lifers by and large support life-saving measures for the mother. Regrettably sometimes those actions kill the fetal human, but of course her life must be saved.

"Right to choose"...I love how ambiguous and innocuous that sounds. How misleading. How exactly is it self-defense to stop the beating heart of another person that isn't harming you?

[TraderTif]

A person "becomes alive" at birth? What is it beforehand, a non-living person? Or a non-living, non-person? Or what??

I've heard a lot of people argue that fetuses aren't persons, but this is the first time I've heard anyone argue that they aren't alive. What are you using as a definition for "alive"??

[dykedesuyo]

Good question, allow me to clarify. I meant becomes alive as an individual. Before that I don't feel there is another individual involved.

[TraderTif]

I am also curious, if a person "becomes alive as an individual" at birth, then what about this video. In one of the clips, there is reference to a pregnant woman who was murdered, and the fetus was cut out of her womb. Would that count as "birth"? If the child lived for a few minutes, or hours, or days afterward, then did it become a person? Or what?

[dykedesuyo]

That is also an excellent point and I think that's where the issue of "intent" would come into the law.

That man cut open her stomach with the intent of bringing out an individual and slaying it separately from the woman. Then, yes, I think it was a double murder because of his obvious intentions to kill 2 separate individuals.

[xalisae]

What's the difference? The women who weren't cut open had the same thing happen to them and their babies...The same result occurred, so why should it be considered any differently?

[dykedesuyo]

Like I said, in our legal system you have to look at the intent of the individual in order to charge someone. Just like we have 1st and 2nd degree murder based on the different intentions of the criminal.

The difference, as I explained, is that the intent of the man was to destroy the lives of 2 separate individuals, so he separated the two and killed them each in turn. Therefore, his intention was to kill 2 people and he should be charged as such.

[xalisae]

Oooh, I get ya. So someone who kills a pregnant woman and doesn't intend to kill her young that she's nurturing inside herself should be charged with one count of murder, and another count of manslaughter. I guess that'd make sense. The only problem with your argument here is that these men were killing their partners BECAUSE they were pregnant and they didn't want to be fathers, much the same as a woman killing her child via abortion because she doesn't want to be a mother. It's a man aborting.

[dykedesuyo]

You obviously didn't understand the conversation I was having with TraderTif, as I explained that I did not see the fetus as an individual and, thus, would not count it as any kind of killing EXCEPT in the case when the murderer specifically separated the two to kill them as individuals. THEN it shows intent to murder 2 INDIVIDUALS and the issue of whether the fetus is or is not an individual is moot.

We differ on this issue so you cannot use what you take to be truth to "understand" my point.

[xalisae]

Oh no, I did understand it, it's just that when all things are considered, your argument doesn't hold water.

I was actually being sarcastic because your argument really just doesn't hold up. Those men murdered those women who were carrying their children in order to kill the children as well. Do you really think they would've killed them had they not been pregnant?

[dykedesuyo]

1) It IS possible that the boyfriend or husband was unaware of the pregnancy or was simply angry at the woman and did not take anything else into consideration.

2) If they killed the woman for being pregnant, they were still killing the woman with the subsequent result of the fetus (as still part of her body) dying.

I'm simply explaining how I think the courts should act if they acknowledged the definition of when an individual's life begins that I put forward. This is entirely hypothetical.

[xalisae]

Gotcha. So even when a person admits to killing a woman carrying his child in order to kill that child, you're still going to make excuses. M'kay.

When I was pregnant with my son, my son was part of my body? Really? I had 2 hearts, 4 lungs, 2 livers, 4 kidneys, and a penis? Scientifically, your argument is absolutely ludicrous.

[MJ22488]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. But since a baby can't survive on its own for many months after birth, by your criteria it wouldn't be considered a fully alive person till long after birth either. Why should the birth process change that? Attachment to the mother by the umbilical cord is just the child's means of nourishment. After birth the baby is attached to the mother at the breasts for that nourishment. But he is still not self-sufficient. So, when would the baby become alive? Thanks.

[dykedesuyo]

I see where the confusion lies in this, and the difference I draw is that anyone could care for the child after birth. Therefore it is not part of the woman's body and is, therefore, an individual in my eyes.

Again, as I've been saying repeatedly. This is just the way I view the world. Thanks for your respectful inquiry.

[xalisae]

Well, I'm sorry, but "your eyes" can't compete with biology. A separate set of DNA (even a separate gender in the case of a male fetal human), a separate body which produces its own separate blood cells, organs, organ systems including a pumping heart and working musculatory system among other bodily systems. As I said before, just because a person is temporarily on life support, are the machines part of a person's body or vice-versa? Once that person is well again, are they missing organs?

[dykedesuyo]

I'm going to say this one more time, and then I am going to be done with you, xalisae.

I shared my opinion.

I am not here to change your mind.

I am not interested in changing mine.

I have not once told you that you are wrong, nor berated your opinion, but you have done nothing but be sarcastic, disrespectful, insulting and dismissive of mine.

I would thank you to be more civil in the future with others. If you don't like my opinion, then don't share it. See how easy that was?

[xalisae]

And you obviously have no interest in facts or truth, either.

Sorry if I find it difficult to be civil during discourse such as this, but it's just so hard to forget that lies, dogma, and misinformed individuals such as your self have had a hand in the legalized killing of 3,000+ humans a day.

[dykedesuyo]

You're not the only person who feels strongly about this, I just stay civil because it's the right thing to do.

In fact, if my own mother had not had an abortion I would not be alive today. Whereas my best friend in school would not exist today if her mother had believed in abortion. As far as I'm concerned, the gray area is far to big for people to starting making statements about "fact" or "truth".

I like being alive, so I'm glad my mother had the choice. That is why I'm not going to change

[dykedesuyo]

p.s. I'm sorry for making it personal, but I felt it was unfair to be characterized as a stoic bystander with no emotional investment in this issue.

I would greatly appreciate it if you did not attack my mother for what she did or make assumptions about the situation to justify whatever position you might take on it. I rarely tell people that information and I hope it was not a mistake this time. I do not expect it to impact your position on this issue at all, nor was that my goal.

[kdurston1]

"I rarely tell people that information and I hope it was not a mistake this time. "

You posted it the bleedin' internet.... aparently you don't have a problem telling the world about your "personal" life.... More feminist "stop think" in action!

[xalisae]

I'm not making assumptions. I want to know how her having an abortion was necessary to bring you about into the world. To me, that makes no sense. I was able to have my daughter AND give birth to my son...I'm just trying to understand how one would have to kill one child in order to have another.

[xalisae]

How did you come to that conclusion? How do you know your mother needed an abortion in order to have you? Was it for a medical reason? If so, you do realize that the vast, vast majority of pro-life individuals support a procedure to save the life of someone or prevent permanent damage to their health? It's just that abortion is RARELY for those reasons. Over 80% of abortions are purely elective.

[dykedesuyo]

No, it was not medical. It was years before I was born when she simply wasn't ready. However, if she had chosen to keep it, she would not have married my father years later and had me.

In that scenario, even if my mother had had more children, I would have been genetically impossible. My parents are still happily married after 30 years and I am alive. I can't complain about this and, even if it is only selfishly, I am very happy that my mother chose the path she did.

[xalisae]

How do you know? Would your mother have been incapable of leaving whoever it was she was with at the time to be with the man who would become your father? Don't you have any sympathy for the sibling your mother killed before you were born? I'm the oldest of 6 children in my family, and I'd gladly give my life for any of them.

[dykedesuyo]

Now you are dealing in hypotheticals. I hope we can agree that it, at least, would have been very unlikely. Especially since my birth nearly resulted in her death (very unexpectedly) and was a major factor in her never having more children. One could equally hypothesize that even if she had married my father later, there would have been no me.

Any way around it, the world is a difficult place to paint with broad strokes. That is why differing opinions exist and are necessary.

[dykedesuyo]

I think this was a relatively good discussion with all (or at least most) involved. I'm fairly confident that none of us can learn much more from each other. Feel free to post anything that you'd like me to hear before this thread is done, but I hope you won't find it rude that I do not respond. If I did, I fear we would go on forever. Good luck in all you do.

[xalisae]

You're the one dealing in hypotheticals from the beginning by assuming that your mother wouldn't have had you if she had had another baby before you. You do realize that abortion increases the risk of many negative occurrences and complications of subsequent pregnancy and deliveries, right? If your mother hadn't had an abortion first, her problems with you might've been minimal.

[jmarkhinton]

Love This.............Shows the Double Standard!

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

Romans 1:16-28.

Thanks for posting this - Keep it up - we need more Truth on all fronts......and less tolerant, seeker-friendly, culturally relevant, moral relativism (which is displayed in this collection of clips).....and sadly enough is coming more and more from our pulpits and pews.

Truth is the only thing that will set men free!

[CindyOsborne]

2of2: To argue that the human blastocyst is less human than the human embryo, the embryo less human than the fetus, the fetus less human than the newborn is no more accurate than to argue that the 5 year old human is less human than the 35 year old human.

Sometimes accidents or spontaneous biological events end a human life.

Sometimes a choice ends a human life as well. That is the "choice" in pro-choice.

[CindyOsborne]

1of2: In considering "choice" as it relates to abortion, consider this: From the moment that sperm meets egg - conception - nothing is added but time & nutrition. If allowed to continue w/o interruption, spontaneous or induced, a fully developed infant human being will be born about 38 weeks later.

Time & nutrition. The same components required for an infant human to become an adolescent human. Time & nutrition. The same requirements for an adolescent human being to become an adult human being.

[livelikeit]

Only wanted fetuses have a right to life in our country. Apparently, our founding fathers didn't really mean it when they said we are all CREATED EQUAL and have an UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE

[TunesAndStars]

It is more specific than that.

Only pre-born babies wanted by their mother are allowed to live.

Most fathers want their pre-born babies to live, but that critical fact is willfully ignored.

When the mother wants to kill the baby by abortion, she does, no matter how much the father wants to save the life of his pre-born baby daughter or pre-born baby son.

[EdotRich]

Very good point! In full agreement!

[LifeReport]

Fantastic job, Trent!