Excellent! Nice breakdown of all the points. The bottom line is really, who's responsibility is it going to be to take care of that child--if that person is the mother (and it ususally is) the decision rests with her. Not the church, not the government and not anyone else--regardless of your passionate point of view. If you are obsessed, I recommend you focus inwardly to find out what in your life is wrong. Leave other people a bit of privacy and dignity and keep your nose out of it.
because by day 22 after conception a baby's heart beats with it's own blood. By week 5 it's eyes, legs and hands begin to develop. By week 6 it's mouth and lips are present, it's fingers are forming and it's BRAIN WAVES ARE DETECTABLE. By week 7 it's eyelids and toes form. By week 8 it has every organ in place and it's bones and fingerprints form. By week 9 fingernails develop, and the baby can turn it's head and frown. By week 17, 7 months before the third trimester begins, the baby can dream.
@KaggomeXXFan Ok, when it can dream then even I don't want an abortion to happen. But before that it's not a person because it's pretty much brain dead.
Even with brain waves, the brain has yet to form enough for conscious thought.
Personally I don't like #3, because that mass of cells has all of the DNA which decides what it will look like and how it will act, but your reasoning kinda makes since, barely. I disagree with #4. I will explain in my next comment.
(PART 2) And as some people have stated before, a baby is not part of the mothers bady, but they are connected, different person, but connected and I have to quote on plokin1, "Their bodies (please note - plural) are only *connected*, but they do not even share any parts of body." And yes, I am pro death penalty. I believe that if someone did something VERY bad, they should pay for it. I dont know about this but a friend say'd (and I kinda agree, murderers should die the way they killed.
(PART 1) Okay, look at it like this, a fetus is a human at conseption, scientists all over the world are agreeing that a baby is alive (meaning organs are working, brain is functioning), taking the life of anyone (curcumstacial) so by killing an unborn baby IS murder. And if a person is braindead/coma you would kill them too? Just because a persone is not conciuse dosen't mean they are not people. I know I have bad spelling, I just woke up.
I appreciate your considerations and your reasoning here. I just wonder if you have ever heard the testimony of a woman who was the victim of a failed saline abortion.J Just search for Gianna Jensen. I think she demonstrates clearly that what you are saying may be right in one sense - we can choose - but very wrong on the other hand, because a feotus is a child and needs protection.
@mamasmither I dont care about seat belt laws. It's your body. The seat belt laws were put in place by insurance lobbyist. The insurance companies save money when more people wear seat belts.
I saw some big mistakes in your video. The biggest one is that YOU ARE OVERGENERALIZING... I'm a pro-lifer, but I am not religious nor anti-women. I am a 19 year old woman who cares about children starving... I don't fit with your concept of a pro-lifer. Abortion should be illegal because it is murder. And please stop overgeneralizing.
PD. sorry for the grammar mistakes, Im not a native english speaker.
if you want to seem objective when arguing, you MUST NOT label people. I think you pro-choicers wouldn't like to be labeled as "a bunch of immoral hedonists who only care about themselves", so please, if you don't want to be labeled, stop labeling people. Again, sorry for the grammar mistakes.
In your responses to previous comments I noticed you never addressed the claim that an unborn baby recognizes its mother's voice. This would seem to contradict your assertion that there is no meaningful consciousness present before birth. Is this because you think this is false information or because you think that it isn't significant?
Thanks for the fast response. I don't claim to know of any research. It's just something that I have heard more than once represented as reliable fact and had assumed was true. Along with other claims that there has been evidence of other responses from the unborn fetus that indicate similar cognitive abilites. Apart from that, some of the earlier comments were making that claim and you didn't respond.
I did some fast googling and found 2 x-tian biased sites that were making that claim. (Go figure.) I would certainly expect a neuroscientist to hear about such a discovery if it was scientifically proven. I'll take these claims with more skepticism in the future. Thanks
@The5th: That was not the argument I was making. I was saying that belief in a soul does not cause one to be against abortion. Also, the argument from potential is weak. If you believe one shouldn't kill a zygote because it can become a human, you must also be against contraception. _Ethically_ speaking, the line between gamete and zygote is arbitrary. Furthermore, a zygote has no consciousness, does not feel pain, and the mother feels no remorse. It's not even similar to murder.
The line between gamete and zygote is not arbitrary! You have not done your homework! A gamete merely has a half of the determined DNA of the child. A zygote has a full set! The destruction of the gamete is justifiable as it is merely a half of a genetic code. A zygote contains all of the characteristics of a separate human being thus, destruction would not be moral. Simply because a zygote cannot feel doesn't discount it as a person. The genetic code is what determines it as a person.
Lol, I have done my homework. Remember I said "ethically speaking." Biologically speaking the line is not arbitrary, but ethically, it is. A zygote is effectively brain dead, and I have no moral problem with killing a brain dead person. The presence of consciousness and the ability to feel pain or remorse are what determine the moral value of killing to me. Would you agree that it is ok to kill a brain dead human? We can continue the discussion from that point depending on your answer.
A zygote is different from a brain dead person. A zygote has a full set of human characteristics in its DNA and has the full ability to develop and obtain a human human body that has the potential to live a life. A brain dead person does not have that potential, though I would still argue that it is wrong to kill a brain dead person.
If you would actually argue that it is wrong to kill a brain dead person, then I doubt we can get much further in the discussion. A brain dead person is simply a mass of human cells, I don't understand why you would argue that it is wrong. I will say, though, that you have not given any logical support for a distinction between one speculation and another. The future of a zygote is speculative, as is that of a gamete, they're simply a stage apart. What justification is there for a distinction?
What do you mean speculation? I have provided sound scientific fact. Zygotes develop bodies. That is not speculation, that is fact! This fact is what backs my argument!
A distinction between zygote and gamete is obvious, a gamete merely retains one half of a set of human characteristics thus causing it to only be one half of a person. A zygote has a full set of decisive DNA, thus it contains all of the information to decide a human's characteristics. There, you have your justification
That's merely a biological fact, show how it bears any relevance to an ETHICAL consideration. A zygote's fully developed human body is speculative, it's an unrealized potential. It could happen, but it hasn't yet. If a zygote's potential to develop into a body is meaningful to you, why is a gamete's potential to become a zygote not? How is aborting a zygote ETHICALLY different from wearing a condom during sex? You're interrupting a natural process, preventing a potential life either way.
You sir, lack any logical argument. You say that simply because a fetus is part of a woman that then the woman should have the right to kill it. Let me clarify something. A fetus is not part of the woman. He/she has its own separate set of DNA, thus making he/she a separate person. Saying that a fetus is part of a person is like saying that a child and a mother who are embracing are now one body. Biologically, a fetus is a separate human being... thus, the woman has no right to kill him/her...
Wow, but cancer doesn't have human DNA. Well maybe you can say that it does (albeit a very corrupted version), but notice, I am not opposed to killing skin cells, you know why? Skin cells have no opportunity to form into a human while a zygote has the full ability to live. A zygote with a full set of uncorrupted human DNA is thus, explainable as being a person while a body cell (or a cancer cell for that matter) has no ability to become a fully developed human. Obviously you can see that.
Well, maybe some, but I don't think all or even nearly all. I'm not religious but I do believe in a soul, and I don't consider it murder. In fact, most people I know believe in a soul and are pro-choice. I could be wrong though, after all my experience isn't exactly a large sample size in the grand scheme of things ;-)
Simply because most people are pro choice doesn't make most people right. Most people are uninformed and do not have years of serious biological research and study behind them...
A fetus IS technically a life form, and abortion IS technically killing that life form. This is not the issue, the issue is the reasoning behind the moral values we place on different types of killing. So the question is whether killing the fetus constitutes "Murder." It doesn't IMHO, but let's not pretend that it isn't killing.
I also disagree that the fetus is a part of the woman's body. It has its own body with its own genetic configuration, it's simply attached and dependent.
look at the athiest telling us there is no god and there is no soul, but a fetus who is 100% biologically and genetically human is not human until it has 'thoughts, memories, dreams", hopes, dreams and rainbows.
you say that the government shoudlnt tell you what to do unless you are infringing on other peoples rights..im sorry but i would have to argue that killing a fetus inside of you is infringing on their rights wouldnt you say?
Ronalddep is an atheist and he made some good points that you did not contradict. You're giving religion too much credit for pro-life. Cutting off our finger and cutting out a fetus are not at all the same. A fetus will grow and thrive, but a finger will never have his own ideas.
I am pro-life and am against the death penalty. Now where did you decide prolife is automatically for prodeathpenalty?
And what was all that about prolife being antiwoman? uuuum i'm a woman. LOL
The real problem is that women dont get a list given to them of all the side effects like you do when you get any other operation whether it is in or out of the hospital. Impartiality the mental, witch has been proven but still after may years have not been accepted. If women should at lest be informed about the consequences!
We cant force them, but we can educate them about their reponsability. Who are you to say that a fetus is not an unborn baby. Just because "scientist" called like that.
You from all the people since you were christian should know life is sacret.
Put your self in the babies situation. What about if your mom was going to abort you or even thought about aborting you, how would you feel? but at the end is your DECISION!
Pregnancies are not forced or imposed, they are the result of sexual activity that everyone knows can lead to reproduction. Pro-freedom is for everyone, including those in the womb.
@Lala2jack I didn't decide to be one. I was a christian who grew up in the church, went every sunday. One day I realized I could no longer believe in fairy tales. Wasn't my choice, I just couldn't.
@Lala2jack The bible was written before the invention of science (the scientific method). The scientific method is the only objective way we have for deciding what is true and what is not.
Well I am pro-life I can say to you and explain why abortion is SO WRONG!!!!!! But then you have the option to listen or not. Because of God we have the ability to make our own decisions. Many pro-lifers are taking a stand to educate people who do not know the consequences of abortion. But at the end is your decision. I am not the one who is going to be judging pro-choice people, God is. For every decision there is ALWAYS a consequence even if its not right away..
4. A late term fetus can recognize its mother's voice. Just one example of its consciousness, not that it really matters.
5. Absolutely ridiculous. Pro-lifers are just as concerned about the mothers well being as the child. Pro abortionists are the one's who are about deciding who dies and who lives.
1. If the unborn child can't count on it's own mother to protect it from harm, then someone else (government) must
2. I am an atheist. Religion needs not play any part in this issue. Life begins at conception, not because of a soul, but because it is a separate being developing on its own, without any outside influence.
3. At some point, you concede that the fetus can, at a later point, become someone who's rights you care about. . Killing fetus= killing potential life. Same thing
I also cannot agree with you at point 4. You argue, that no memories and no self-awareness is equivalent to coma. It is not, or, at least, at the moment we do not have enough scientific evidence to determine that. Baby definetely recognises its mother (by her heartbeat and so on) and shortly after birth in very limited way can it does express its (dis)satisfaction by crying or not. I think it is way more then vegetable or coma patient.
Fetus is *not* grown as a *part* of a woman's body. Their bodies (please note - plural) are only *connected*, but they do not even share any parts of body.
To the contrary siamese twins actually do share some body parts, but no one claims that any of them has any rights to do what he wants to with another one.
Nice try. The scientific facts are that all the cells that have grown, divided and separated from the fertilized ovum are parts of a separate individual human being. Women do not have 4 legs,2 hearts beating at different rates, and different sex, and blood types. What you described about the pre-born mental state is similar to us while sleeping. You are still making distinctions between human beings and your position is founded on pro-choice rhetoric rather than science and biology.
There can be no deferenciating between early and late term, it is the exact same entity, no matter how old it is.
The only way ANY abortion could not ne morally wrong is if a person has no morals. An unborn child is NOT part of the mothers body, yes, it is inside her, and yes it depends on her, but it is a separate person at the same time. Also, if it were okay for a person to do with there body whatever they liked, why is it illegal to take certain drugs? or for minors to drink alcohol?
Excellent! Nice breakdown of all the points. The bottom line is really, who's responsibility is it going to be to take care of that child--if that person is the mother (and it ususally is) the decision rests with her. Not the church, not the government and not anyone else--regardless of your passionate point of view. If you are obsessed, I recommend you focus inwardly to find out what in your life is wrong. Leave other people a bit of privacy and dignity and keep your nose out of it.
Damis10001 1 year ago
if the fetus can't live outside the womb, then it should be legal and not 'murder'
marinewife0824 1 year ago
because by day 22 after conception a baby's heart beats with it's own blood. By week 5 it's eyes, legs and hands begin to develop. By week 6 it's mouth and lips are present, it's fingers are forming and it's BRAIN WAVES ARE DETECTABLE. By week 7 it's eyelids and toes form. By week 8 it has every organ in place and it's bones and fingerprints form. By week 9 fingernails develop, and the baby can turn it's head and frown. By week 17, 7 months before the third trimester begins, the baby can dream.
KaggomeXXFan 1 year ago
@KaggomeXXFan Ok, when it can dream then even I don't want an abortion to happen. But before that it's not a person because it's pretty much brain dead.
Even with brain waves, the brain has yet to form enough for conscious thought.
pointmanzero 1 year ago
Personally I don't like #3, because that mass of cells has all of the DNA which decides what it will look like and how it will act, but your reasoning kinda makes since, barely. I disagree with #4. I will explain in my next comment.
KaggomeXXFan 1 year ago
(PART 2) And as some people have stated before, a baby is not part of the mothers bady, but they are connected, different person, but connected and I have to quote on plokin1, "Their bodies (please note - plural) are only *connected*, but they do not even share any parts of body." And yes, I am pro death penalty. I believe that if someone did something VERY bad, they should pay for it. I dont know about this but a friend say'd (and I kinda agree, murderers should die the way they killed.
thepunishervshulk 1 year ago
(PART 1) Okay, look at it like this, a fetus is a human at conseption, scientists all over the world are agreeing that a baby is alive (meaning organs are working, brain is functioning), taking the life of anyone (curcumstacial) so by killing an unborn baby IS murder. And if a person is braindead/coma you would kill them too? Just because a persone is not conciuse dosen't mean they are not people. I know I have bad spelling, I just woke up.
thepunishervshulk 1 year ago
I appreciate your considerations and your reasoning here. I just wonder if you have ever heard the testimony of a woman who was the victim of a failed saline abortion.J Just search for Gianna Jensen. I think she demonstrates clearly that what you are saying may be right in one sense - we can choose - but very wrong on the other hand, because a feotus is a child and needs protection.
TheCreaticians 1 year ago
@TheCreaticians It has it's risk. Women should be informed of those beforehand.
pointmanzero 1 year ago
@mamasmither I dont care about seat belt laws. It's your body. The seat belt laws were put in place by insurance lobbyist. The insurance companies save money when more people wear seat belts.
Personally, I don't care if you wear one or not.
pointmanzero 1 year ago
@pointmanzero
I saw some big mistakes in your video. The biggest one is that YOU ARE OVERGENERALIZING... I'm a pro-lifer, but I am not religious nor anti-women. I am a 19 year old woman who cares about children starving... I don't fit with your concept of a pro-lifer. Abortion should be illegal because it is murder. And please stop overgeneralizing.
PD. sorry for the grammar mistakes, Im not a native english speaker.
Eli220990 1 year ago
@Eli220990 Yes, I admit I overgeneralize. I am speaking of U.S. pro-lifers.
I should have stated that up front.
pointmanzero 1 year ago
@pointmanzero
if you want to seem objective when arguing, you MUST NOT label people. I think you pro-choicers wouldn't like to be labeled as "a bunch of immoral hedonists who only care about themselves", so please, if you don't want to be labeled, stop labeling people. Again, sorry for the grammar mistakes.
Eli220990 1 year ago
@mamasmither I answered that. It is out duty to restore them if possible. The same as CPR.
pointmanzero 1 year ago
@mamasmither "doe we have any evidence that a jellyfish, bugs, or other life forms of this type KNOW they are alive? "
Humans, bottle nose dolphins and some apes and elephants have shown signs that they have self awareness.
But we are the only species that is aware of our mortality.
pointmanzero 1 year ago
Comment removed
Akerusandesu 1 year ago
Fair enough.
Akerusandesu 1 year ago
whats the music called ?
juggernaughtmiller 1 year ago
In your responses to previous comments I noticed you never addressed the claim that an unborn baby recognizes its mother's voice. This would seem to contradict your assertion that there is no meaningful consciousness present before birth. Is this because you think this is false information or because you think that it isn't significant?
1om8cat 2 years ago
@1om8cat An unborn baby recognizes it's mother's voice? Can you provide peer review research that supports that claim? At what age?
I'm sorry but I have never heard that claim before.
pointmanzero 2 years ago
Thanks for the fast response. I don't claim to know of any research. It's just something that I have heard more than once represented as reliable fact and had assumed was true. Along with other claims that there has been evidence of other responses from the unborn fetus that indicate similar cognitive abilites. Apart from that, some of the earlier comments were making that claim and you didn't respond.
1om8cat 2 years ago
@1om8cat I don't have time to respond to everyone. My wife is a neuroscientist and that claim is a new one to me and her.
I would really be interested to know if it is true. It would show cognitive ability of the fetus and I would reconsider my stance on abortion.
pointmanzero 2 years ago
I did some fast googling and found 2 x-tian biased sites that were making that claim. (Go figure.) I would certainly expect a neuroscientist to hear about such a discovery if it was scientifically proven. I'll take these claims with more skepticism in the future. Thanks
1om8cat 2 years ago
@The5th: That was not the argument I was making. I was saying that belief in a soul does not cause one to be against abortion. Also, the argument from potential is weak. If you believe one shouldn't kill a zygote because it can become a human, you must also be against contraception. _Ethically_ speaking, the line between gamete and zygote is arbitrary. Furthermore, a zygote has no consciousness, does not feel pain, and the mother feels no remorse. It's not even similar to murder.
Oyama87 2 years ago
@Oyama87
The line between gamete and zygote is not arbitrary! You have not done your homework! A gamete merely has a half of the determined DNA of the child. A zygote has a full set! The destruction of the gamete is justifiable as it is merely a half of a genetic code. A zygote contains all of the characteristics of a separate human being thus, destruction would not be moral. Simply because a zygote cannot feel doesn't discount it as a person. The genetic code is what determines it as a person.
the5thCount 2 years ago
Lol, I have done my homework. Remember I said "ethically speaking." Biologically speaking the line is not arbitrary, but ethically, it is. A zygote is effectively brain dead, and I have no moral problem with killing a brain dead person. The presence of consciousness and the ability to feel pain or remorse are what determine the moral value of killing to me. Would you agree that it is ok to kill a brain dead human? We can continue the discussion from that point depending on your answer.
Oyama87 2 years ago
A zygote is different from a brain dead person. A zygote has a full set of human characteristics in its DNA and has the full ability to develop and obtain a human human body that has the potential to live a life. A brain dead person does not have that potential, though I would still argue that it is wrong to kill a brain dead person.
the5thCount 2 years ago
If you would actually argue that it is wrong to kill a brain dead person, then I doubt we can get much further in the discussion. A brain dead person is simply a mass of human cells, I don't understand why you would argue that it is wrong. I will say, though, that you have not given any logical support for a distinction between one speculation and another. The future of a zygote is speculative, as is that of a gamete, they're simply a stage apart. What justification is there for a distinction?
Oyama87 2 years ago
@Oyama87
What do you mean speculation? I have provided sound scientific fact. Zygotes develop bodies. That is not speculation, that is fact! This fact is what backs my argument!
A distinction between zygote and gamete is obvious, a gamete merely retains one half of a set of human characteristics thus causing it to only be one half of a person. A zygote has a full set of decisive DNA, thus it contains all of the information to decide a human's characteristics. There, you have your justification
the5thCount 2 years ago
That's merely a biological fact, show how it bears any relevance to an ETHICAL consideration. A zygote's fully developed human body is speculative, it's an unrealized potential. It could happen, but it hasn't yet. If a zygote's potential to develop into a body is meaningful to you, why is a gamete's potential to become a zygote not? How is aborting a zygote ETHICALLY different from wearing a condom during sex? You're interrupting a natural process, preventing a potential life either way.
Oyama87 2 years ago
You sir, lack any logical argument. You say that simply because a fetus is part of a woman that then the woman should have the right to kill it. Let me clarify something. A fetus is not part of the woman. He/she has its own separate set of DNA, thus making he/she a separate person. Saying that a fetus is part of a person is like saying that a child and a mother who are embracing are now one body. Biologically, a fetus is a separate human being... thus, the woman has no right to kill him/her...
the5thCount 2 years ago
Cancer has separate DNA, but I don't see you trying to protect it, or call it a "person".
pointmanzero 2 years ago
Wow, but cancer doesn't have human DNA. Well maybe you can say that it does (albeit a very corrupted version), but notice, I am not opposed to killing skin cells, you know why? Skin cells have no opportunity to form into a human while a zygote has the full ability to live. A zygote with a full set of uncorrupted human DNA is thus, explainable as being a person while a body cell (or a cancer cell for that matter) has no ability to become a fully developed human. Obviously you can see that.
the5thCount 2 years ago
Well, maybe some, but I don't think all or even nearly all. I'm not religious but I do believe in a soul, and I don't consider it murder. In fact, most people I know believe in a soul and are pro-choice. I could be wrong though, after all my experience isn't exactly a large sample size in the grand scheme of things ;-)
Oyama87 2 years ago
@Oyama87
Simply because most people are pro choice doesn't make most people right. Most people are uninformed and do not have years of serious biological research and study behind them...
the5thCount 2 years ago
A fetus IS technically a life form, and abortion IS technically killing that life form. This is not the issue, the issue is the reasoning behind the moral values we place on different types of killing. So the question is whether killing the fetus constitutes "Murder." It doesn't IMHO, but let's not pretend that it isn't killing.
I also disagree that the fetus is a part of the woman's body. It has its own body with its own genetic configuration, it's simply attached and dependent.
Oyama87 2 years ago
Cancer IS technically a life form. and chemo IS technically killing that life form.
So killing a mass of cells is fine. But people get all upset when you want to kill a mass of cells that could one day become a human.
I think the only reason why is because they believe in a soul.
pointmanzero 2 years ago
I am really interested in why don't believe in humans having a soul. More in depth.
TheMsBambi 2 years ago
sure, I could make a video about that.
Send me an email to remind me.
pointmanzero 2 years ago
look at the athiest telling us there is no god and there is no soul, but a fetus who is 100% biologically and genetically human is not human until it has 'thoughts, memories, dreams", hopes, dreams and rainbows.
now laugh at him.
reptoidband 2 years ago
Wow! you totally pwned me with your superior logic!
*claps*
pointmanzero 2 years ago
you say that the government shoudlnt tell you what to do unless you are infringing on other peoples rights..im sorry but i would have to argue that killing a fetus inside of you is infringing on their rights wouldnt you say?
fairportcheerellie 2 years ago
no, I addressed that in the video.
pointmanzero 2 years ago
Comment removed
curt1030 2 years ago
Ronalddep is an atheist and he made some good points that you did not contradict. You're giving religion too much credit for pro-life. Cutting off our finger and cutting out a fetus are not at all the same. A fetus will grow and thrive, but a finger will never have his own ideas.
I am pro-life and am against the death penalty. Now where did you decide prolife is automatically for prodeathpenalty?
And what was all that about prolife being antiwoman? uuuum i'm a woman. LOL
Tortek001 2 years ago
The real problem is that women dont get a list given to them of all the side effects like you do when you get any other operation whether it is in or out of the hospital. Impartiality the mental, witch has been proven but still after may years have not been accepted. If women should at lest be informed about the consequences!
hannbelzak 2 years ago
They are informed.
You don't know what you are talking about.
pointmanzero 2 years ago
They are not informed, you don't know what you're talking about you fucking nigger.
333jesusislord3333 2 years ago
Does jesus know you use that word?
pointmanzero 2 years ago
Yup, he personally told me that it was ok. In fact, the bible encourages racism and slavery. Read it some time. It might do you some good.
333jesusislord3333 2 years ago
tell this a throu a rape pregnant victim....and jerking of is mass murder ? or what
Carnatics 2 years ago
We cant force them, but we can educate them about their reponsability. Who are you to say that a fetus is not an unborn baby. Just because "scientist" called like that.
You from all the people since you were christian should know life is sacret.
Put your self in the babies situation. What about if your mom was going to abort you or even thought about aborting you, how would you feel? but at the end is your DECISION!
God be with you.
elycantu15 2 years ago
So you will never understand where the pro-lifers stand. But is not to late to change. God loves you even if you deny him.
God be with you.
elycantu15 2 years ago
I know exactly where pro-lifers stand, I used to be one, and I used to be a christian.
I am still pro-life, but I am also pro-freedom.
You can't force someone to carry a pregnancy.
pointmanzero 2 years ago
Pregnancies are not forced or imposed, they are the result of sexual activity that everyone knows can lead to reproduction. Pro-freedom is for everyone, including those in the womb.
Canvideo 2 years ago
Nope, no one has the "right" to be in anothers body, or to live off of anothers body.
Just like I would not have the "right" to start using your body as life support.
pointmanzero 2 years ago
Maybe you should have thought of that when you were there. I bet you would not have passed on it if you had the choice.
Canvideo 2 years ago
don't you have better things to do?
Your beginning to become a "regular" commentator.
Problem is your on the wrong side. You should be trying to protect human life. Not cellular life.
pointmanzero 2 years ago
why did you decide to be an atheist?
just curious.(still don't know if i believe in god or not. science has proof and god, well just belif.) -jack
Lala2jack 1 year ago
@Lala2jack I didn't decide to be one. I was a christian who grew up in the church, went every sunday. One day I realized I could no longer believe in fairy tales. Wasn't my choice, I just couldn't.
pointmanzero 1 year ago
have you read the bible?
if you have whats it's opinion on science?
Lala2jack 1 year ago
@Lala2jack The bible was written before the invention of science (the scientific method). The scientific method is the only objective way we have for deciding what is true and what is not.
pointmanzero 1 year ago
oh.. well i think my mind is made up.
thank you -jack
Lala2jack 1 year ago
cont.
So take responsibility and we will find out at the end.
God bless.
elycantu15 2 years ago
I don't believe in a god.
pointmanzero 2 years ago
Well I am pro-life I can say to you and explain why abortion is SO WRONG!!!!!! But then you have the option to listen or not. Because of God we have the ability to make our own decisions. Many pro-lifers are taking a stand to educate people who do not know the consequences of abortion. But at the end is your decision. I am not the one who is going to be judging pro-choice people, God is. For every decision there is ALWAYS a consequence even if its not right away..
elycantu15 2 years ago
Continued-
4. A late term fetus can recognize its mother's voice. Just one example of its consciousness, not that it really matters.
5. Absolutely ridiculous. Pro-lifers are just as concerned about the mothers well being as the child. Pro abortionists are the one's who are about deciding who dies and who lives.
ronalddep 2 years ago
1. If the unborn child can't count on it's own mother to protect it from harm, then someone else (government) must
2. I am an atheist. Religion needs not play any part in this issue. Life begins at conception, not because of a soul, but because it is a separate being developing on its own, without any outside influence.
3. At some point, you concede that the fetus can, at a later point, become someone who's rights you care about. . Killing fetus= killing potential life. Same thing
ronalddep 2 years ago
(...continuation...)
I also cannot agree with you at point 4. You argue, that no memories and no self-awareness is equivalent to coma. It is not, or, at least, at the moment we do not have enough scientific evidence to determine that. Baby definetely recognises its mother (by her heartbeat and so on) and shortly after birth in very limited way can it does express its (dis)satisfaction by crying or not. I think it is way more then vegetable or coma patient.
[sorry for any mistakes in my English]
plokin1 2 years ago 4
I believe you are wrong in this last argument.
Fetus is *not* grown as a *part* of a woman's body. Their bodies (please note - plural) are only *connected*, but they do not even share any parts of body.
To the contrary siamese twins actually do share some body parts, but no one claims that any of them has any rights to do what he wants to with another one.
(...to be continued...)
plokin1 2 years ago 2
Nice try. The scientific facts are that all the cells that have grown, divided and separated from the fertilized ovum are parts of a separate individual human being. Women do not have 4 legs,2 hearts beating at different rates, and different sex, and blood types. What you described about the pre-born mental state is similar to us while sleeping. You are still making distinctions between human beings and your position is founded on pro-choice rhetoric rather than science and biology.
Canvideo 2 years ago 2
thank you for your comments, your wrong.
pointmanzero 2 years ago
There can be no deferenciating between early and late term, it is the exact same entity, no matter how old it is.
The only way ANY abortion could not ne morally wrong is if a person has no morals. An unborn child is NOT part of the mothers body, yes, it is inside her, and yes it depends on her, but it is a separate person at the same time. Also, if it were okay for a person to do with there body whatever they liked, why is it illegal to take certain drugs? or for minors to drink alcohol?
ProLife7777777 2 years ago 2
I dont think those things should be illegal, like I explained in my video.
See... if you believe in a soul then you will disagree with me, which I also pointed out in my video.
pointmanzero 2 years ago
thank you for taking the time to make another video. but it seems you haven't changed your stance on abortion really at all..
fairportcheerellie 2 years ago
I know my stance is controversial.
I also know that many people will not agree with it.
But it is truly what I believe.
In the end if I am wrong about us having souls, then I will find out.
I hope I don't find out I am wrong.
Thank you for watching.
pointmanzero 2 years ago