Terminating the lives of human beings has been acceptable by humanity since its beginnings and will always be acceptable by humanity. For religiousd reasons, for political reasons, for reasons of anger, for reasons of all kinds! Just a factual observation.
good video, people are so evil these days. such shepp manipulated by media and brainwashed by those who wish to depopulate the earth....evil evil....murder is murder ..life begins at conception or it wouldn't happen at all....pro abortionists.....you suk!
PLEASE DONT READ THIS!In 1971 a guy named Kyle an his girlfriend Emily were in side a house that was said to claim peoples lives if they entered the house.The next morning a guy named Alex saw fingernail marks on the door.if you dont post this to 5 videos, youll be getting a visit from Kyle and Emily tonight!WARNING:this has been proved to be real,i value my life!whoever reads this may God be with you! I TRULY DO APOLOGIZE!!! PS i got this from another vid ( i am not taking my chances
You kept repeating that it has a heart beat, how does a heart beat add to it's personhood? what makes that any more pertnant than anyother stage?
You ask for something that is human yet not a person, off the top of my head I easily thought of tumors, teratomas and parasitic twins. All of them lack what I consider the constituents of personhood: self-awareness, sentience, and sapience yet are human
I gave my definition, you seemed to avoid defining personhood...
it is LIFE....MANKIND IS BRAINWASHED BY EVIL FORCES ......MURDER... ABORTION IS MURDER....anyone who has an abortion is a murderer and will be judged one day
ok my last post had such bad grammer I am going to write it again. The disabled are conscious are aware of their existence and react to social situations and emotions. A fetus does none of these things at all, it is dependent on the womens body like a plant is dependent on light. You are comparing apples and elephants thats how ridiculous your agrument is.
You dont seem to understand the concepts of a human life and a person at all. This human life in its early stages is not a person, its brain has not devolped enough to do the things a person does. It does not think it does not react to pain, does not react in any way at all. Also repeating yourself is not a good way to make a point.
jesus christ you still dont understand, the disabled are conscious humans that react to social situations and though may no comprehend many things does comprehend there own emotions. While a fetus cant do any of those things at all it lives like a plant does and is on the same level of a plant really it does not do things that we could consider it a person. While disabled children do they feel. You dont seem to understand the pro choice position at all.
'Less capable' is a retrospective statement. Disabled adults have matured to their full potential be it defective, (for lack of a better word), and through the act of birth, are afforded rights rights as 'people'. A fetus is not a person, they are still advancing towards a possible state of final development,(physiological and psychological)individual to that organism. One person may not have a final development identical to another, but that adult state is FINAL - fetal development is not.
Also, you've said it yourself. You've had an abortion. If you really did regret it, I believe you would stop being so hypocritical in your views and 'right your wrongs' by adopting a few of the millions of unwanted children on earth. Or perhaps that would be too inconvenient for you, which is why you had an abortion in the first place (birth control as you put it), and why you are such a hypocrite??? =).
Just a thought, John Newton was a former slave-ship captain; he joined William Wilberforce in the campaign for abolition. He also wrote a tract about the cruelty of slavery, he was very instrumental in bring slaving to a halt in England, which also help to end slavery in the USA; you may know him as the author of Amazing Grace.
Just because she has had an abortion and is not against it does NOT mean she is a hypocrit it simply means she realized right from wrong. She came to realize that abortion is 100% without a doubt murder. You miss priss need to stop being so judgemental and see the fact that she knows what she has done wrong and she is trying to help with this by preventing other women from doing this unspeakable act.
I respect your opinion, but you are blurring true definitions with emotion and drawing irrelivant arguments based on that emotion and how you choose to twist your wrongly-defined or wrongly-perceived labels to suit your agenda.
Get back on your broomstick. Stop twisting what pro-choicers have said. We don't debate the fact that the organism is growing and belongs to the human species. A zygote/embryo undergoes complete physiological change and metamorphisis to BECOME a PERSON once developed and viable. This is when it gains personhood, and thus rights. Human/person - completely different.
Of course the zygote/embryo is human. But it is not a person. To be a person, you need personhood. It needs sentience, awareness, the ability to have thought etc. Zygotes don't have this ability. They are human zygotes, but they aren't PEOPLE. Typical pro-life propaganda by an uneducated hypocrite.
The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins via sexual reproduction is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists, and they are not uneducated hypocrites but scientist majoring in that field, your statements above are your own thoughts not scientific. Please do look up what the embryologists have to say one this issues.
Of course a human forms at conception, it has human DNA doesn't it? My point is, a human (the defined name for our species) is different from a PERSON (i.e. developed human who has gained PERSONHOOD and therefore, rights). Pro-lifers say 'it's always human'. Pro-choicers say, 'it needs to be classified as a person to gain rights as one'(consciousness, functionality, sentience). Therefore, 'human' does not necessarily equal 'person'; zygotes do not inherintly earn rights at conception.
And please don't post the 'anesthesia' argument about consciousnes or functionality, because it is another irrational argument made by pro-lifers. A 6 week old embryo with no prior thought, awareness or functionality is very different to an unconscious man who dreams. 'Human' is the broader name for our species; 'person' applies once we develop enough to become viable as independent entities, free from the parasitic pre-existence inside the womb.
The mother however, has rights. She is a PERSON by every definition and law. To try and imply that a 6 wk old mass of tissue with the same perception of life as a brain tumour, should have rights equal to or greater than those of the mother, is proposterous.
priss- You said- "Pro-choicers say, 'it needs to be classified as a person to gain rights as one'(consciousness, functionality, sentience).
Where did you get that? Because you must realize that, 'person' is a legal term. And no where in abortion law is the definition of person- 'consciousness, functionality, or sentience'.
My guess is that you just made up that definition because you want to justify your approval of killing children for convenience. Sad.
Written in to the law books of our past history concerning slave issues, black slaves were not considered a person with any rights, they were just property, part of the owner's estate.
A pondering question, were they "a person" after the law was abolished or before?
I am trying to draw attention to the fact that being an anatomical, genetic human being (i.e. belonging to the species homo sapien) is not synonymous with being a person. Legal personhood requires a certain level of intelligent, organised brain activity, which manifests itself in consciousness, ability to co-ordinate one's physical body etc. Personhood is not given by virtue of the DNA within the cells of the organism. By the way, I know that 'person' is a legal term - I am a junior lawyer.
priss- Whether a human being is a 'person' or not isn't the most important question. In the United States' history, blacks weren't considered 'persons'. They were property and could be killed at the will of the owner. So, the more important question is- If 'something' is a human being, regardless if they have the legal standing as a person, should it be ok to kill them at will? Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. You, as a junior lawyer, should know that.
Alright, well consider this a different way...A woman does no harm in conceiving a fetus - that is, that fetus doesn't know it exists, so it can be no worse off by being conceived. HOWEVER, to then obligate the mother to carry it to term, give birth to it and raise it WILL harm her. Welfare that the biological father pays to raise a child he doesn't want and doesn't see is a small obligation compared to what the mother faces if she is forced to give birth. Why should the mother have no choice?
priss- Everything you just said is stupid- however, just so I know where you're coming from, answer this simple question- Is a fetus a HUMAN being or some other type of being? If you think it's another type of being- what?
Of course it is a human being, retard. And nothing I said is stupid. Pro-lifers suggest that women shouldn't have a choice as to whether or not to terminate a pregnacy, yet if a man doesn't want a child all he has to do is walk away from the woman he impregnated. She sacrfices herself for 9 months, at minimum, and pregnancy is not 100% safe. If she keeps the child, he pays her welfare, she does everything else. He has exercised choice to not have a child, why can't she?
priss- The law defines 'murder' as 'the premeditated killing of a human being by a human being'.
So whether a fetus is a 'person' or not doesn't really matter. A fetus IS a human being; and during abortion, one human being is being premeditatedly killed by another human being. The only correct definition for that act is 'murder'. So you advocate murder. Sick.
Get off your high horse - every smart person in the world who actually thinks about it realises that in some circumstances abortion is the best option. Your morals don't dictate what choices are best for everyone in the world. Also, murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of one human by another, therefore (since you want to get technical) abortion is NOT murder, since abortion is legal.
the law is not always right....God's law is above all...THOU SHALT NOT KILL...It is life,......youi people say it isnt because your brainwashed and selfish evil people ..I pity you
Abortion (when performed correctly) is close to 10 times safer than childbirth. Legalising abortion prevents desperate women resorting to desperate measures such as back-alley abortionists. It keeps women safe.
They're both equal participants in the act of conception, unless the woman is raped. Looking at both consentual and forced unwanted impregnation, whichever way you weigh it up, the man in the equation gets off VERY lightly in regards to obligations and risks. Why does a woman have to carry the burden of BOTH people's actions, and why can't she exercise a right to end a pregnancy if she doesn't want to risk her health etc for a child neither of them wants?
Conditions such as hypertension, varicose veins, diabetes, not to mention the complications of giving birth...haemorrhage, infection, etc. A man has NONE of these worries during pregnancy. EVEN IF a woman DOES give the child up for adoption, she still has to go through the hardest 9 months of the process ON HER OWN without impacting the man at all! How is it fair to tell her she has no choice in whether or not she goes through that?
This is quite an interesting statement you have made. Have you ever heard of the Unborn Victims of Violence act of 2004? This is a law which states that if anyone harms an unborn child at ANY stage of development (abortionists excluded), they can and will be charged with a crime. My question to you is, if the unborn child is not a person with rights, why are there such laws? It sounds to me as though the unborn do have rights, and are in fact considered people. What say ye?
This Act does not define the fetus as a person, but instead as a member of the homo sapien species. It does not state that harming a fetus is killing a person; it is killing a human being. The concept of belonging to a species is different to the concept of having personhood.
This relates to consent really...terminating the pregnancy without consent of the legal entity in charge of it is a crime. Turning off life support is also a crime unless you have legal authority to do so.
You make some good points. My point though is that because the unborn do have rights, why would they not be considered people? But this brings me to my next question: if someone kills another human being (since we can at least agree the unborn are human) does that make it any less important than if someone kills a "person"? According to Merriam Webster , a human being IS a person and vice verse. What do you think?
I am sold on You. I am enlighten by your messeges. Life in it self is a gift and anyone not seeing that would support abortion. Life is a drug in itself. It is a natural high. People have the right Yes, but with abortion your not giving the right to someone else. I can not be bought on killing someone that does not kill. If abortion is used to sustain a life yes, but as a option. Life is a natural high that sex, drugs, or money can not come close to!
My previous comment was supposed to be in a thread and it didn't quite make it into it. Some glitch with YouTube. I really wish we could get back on topic. The fact some people here can't do so just proves to me that roevswade is correct in what she asserts. No-one can answer her back, so she has won the argument.
Sounds like someone has a serious problem here. The justifications you make are the same ones my friend heard from men doing 25 years to life in the penitentiary system for assault. The root cause is pornography consumption. Methinks you have a problem with it, judging by the language you use.
The answer to the "irresponsible people" argument is to let those people fall hard on their faces. Do not aide and abet their behaviour and let them fall into the gutter. Sometimes waking up in a cold hard place sobers people up. If we brought back social disapproval and shame into society, people would be more thinking about their lives.
You sound like a lot of paedophiles and sex offenders cases I used to read about in my university classes. Also like men who justified their actions to the women I helped. I used to assist women survivors of violence and your comments sound like those of criminals in the penitentiary system. Better check yourself before you wreck yourself.
"Telling people 'just say no' to sex is like telling a cocaine addict to 'just stop'."
Sex is an addiction? Perhaps for some & sex addicts should seek help. I'm not telling people to "just say no" to sex. I'm saying make informed & intelligent choices about your body, your future & that of your potential offspring. Play with matches & you'll likely get burnt. Use matches responsibly & you won't get burnt. "Be responsible." That's all I'm trying to say.
"Sex is a hormonal act, driven by primal, irrational forces. You can't expect people to make intelligent decisions about it." I can & do expect people to make intelligent decisions! I was a virgin for 28 yrs. I was holding out for a life-mate. I have one now. We have one child together. Neither of us has been sterilized. We're both against abortion on demand. We both still have a sex drive. Primal forces can & should be controlled or acted upon RESPONSIBLY. It's not like they "POSSESS" us.
Oh.... Yeah, that's right! The Devil makes people have sex, so there's no point in making an informed & intelligent choice, because we're powerless against the Devil. The Sex Drive is too strong! Might as well just give in & make as many babies as I can with as many partners as I can, huh? Give me a break.... <_<
Again, I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about people thinking & preparing BEFORE they have sexual intercourse. Don't want kids? Then don't make 'em. Having sex without birth control? Then be prepared for the next 19+ years of parenthood.
I hear what you're saying, but I still think there needs to be a balance between nature and nurture. It does the child a grave disservice to bring it into the world and then not be able to care for it. Not saying one ought to "terminate" for that reason. I'm just saying one ought to plan ahead before they go knocking boots.
People make mistakes. Admiting our mistakes and learning from them is the best we can do. Helping other to not make the same mistake is noble indeed. Great video.
That is the most profound testimony I've ever heard about abortion. It is the most compelling and reasoned answer to the lie that the unborn are not human or people. I applaud your courage. You're a most eloquent lady. Love, Laura :)+
Terminating the lives of human beings has been acceptable by humanity since its beginnings and will always be acceptable by humanity. For religiousd reasons, for political reasons, for reasons of anger, for reasons of all kinds! Just a factual observation.
SuperSwanDive 7 months ago
person
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child
[Zygote- embryo- fetus- baby- toddler- child- teenager] = All Persons
per⋅son⋅hood
1. the state or fact of being a person.
Just because they don't have the capacity to forum an opinion or hold a conviction- doesn't mean they don't share the same exact DNA as us.
TheMrsAmanda 2 years ago
good video, people are so evil these days. such shepp manipulated by media and brainwashed by those who wish to depopulate the earth....evil evil....murder is murder ..life begins at conception or it wouldn't happen at all....pro abortionists.....you suk!
232323C 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE DONT READ THIS!In 1971 a guy named Kyle an his girlfriend Emily were in side a house that was said to claim peoples lives if they entered the house.The next morning a guy named Alex saw fingernail marks on the door.if you dont post this to 5 videos, youll be getting a visit from Kyle and Emily tonight!WARNING:this has been proved to be real,i value my life!whoever reads this may God be with you! I TRULY DO APOLOGIZE!!! PS i got this from another vid ( i am not taking my chances
daky112 2 years ago
OMG, this had so much filler!
You kept repeating that it has a heart beat, how does a heart beat add to it's personhood? what makes that any more pertnant than anyother stage?
You ask for something that is human yet not a person, off the top of my head I easily thought of tumors, teratomas and parasitic twins. All of them lack what I consider the constituents of personhood: self-awareness, sentience, and sapience yet are human
I gave my definition, you seemed to avoid defining personhood...
analyticalspider 3 years ago 2
Does a tumor grow into a thinking, feeling human being? No.
jojopuff05 3 years ago
it is LIFE....MANKIND IS BRAINWASHED BY EVIL FORCES ......MURDER... ABORTION IS MURDER....anyone who has an abortion is a murderer and will be judged one day
232323C 2 years ago
ok my last post had such bad grammer I am going to write it again. The disabled are conscious are aware of their existence and react to social situations and emotions. A fetus does none of these things at all, it is dependent on the womens body like a plant is dependent on light. You are comparing apples and elephants thats how ridiculous your agrument is.
ilikefire1515 3 years ago
You dont seem to understand the concepts of a human life and a person at all. This human life in its early stages is not a person, its brain has not devolped enough to do the things a person does. It does not think it does not react to pain, does not react in any way at all. Also repeating yourself is not a good way to make a point.
ilikefire1515 3 years ago
Many disabled adults are less "capable" in some ways than newborns, but does
that justify killing them?
roevswade 3 years ago
jesus christ you still dont understand, the disabled are conscious humans that react to social situations and though may no comprehend many things does comprehend there own emotions. While a fetus cant do any of those things at all it lives like a plant does and is on the same level of a plant really it does not do things that we could consider it a person. While disabled children do they feel. You dont seem to understand the pro choice position at all.
ilikefire1515 3 years ago
'Less capable' is a retrospective statement. Disabled adults have matured to their full potential be it defective, (for lack of a better word), and through the act of birth, are afforded rights rights as 'people'. A fetus is not a person, they are still advancing towards a possible state of final development,(physiological and psychological)individual to that organism. One person may not have a final development identical to another, but that adult state is FINAL - fetal development is not.
xxMISSxxPRISSxx 3 years ago
Also, you've said it yourself. You've had an abortion. If you really did regret it, I believe you would stop being so hypocritical in your views and 'right your wrongs' by adopting a few of the millions of unwanted children on earth. Or perhaps that would be too inconvenient for you, which is why you had an abortion in the first place (birth control as you put it), and why you are such a hypocrite??? =).
xxMISSxxPRISSxx 4 years ago
XxxMissxxx....
Just a thought, John Newton was a former slave-ship captain; he joined William Wilberforce in the campaign for abolition. He also wrote a tract about the cruelty of slavery, he was very instrumental in bring slaving to a halt in England, which also help to end slavery in the USA; you may know him as the author of Amazing Grace.
roevswade 4 years ago
Sometime they that understand it the most have been school by its suffering!
I believe the right word is called (((paradigm shift ))) not hypocrisy!
Thank you for your comments,
roevswade 4 years ago
Just because she has had an abortion and is not against it does NOT mean she is a hypocrit it simply means she realized right from wrong. She came to realize that abortion is 100% without a doubt murder. You miss priss need to stop being so judgemental and see the fact that she knows what she has done wrong and she is trying to help with this by preventing other women from doing this unspeakable act.
WildIrishRose08 4 years ago
I'm sorry I meant to write that she is NOW against it.
WildIrishRose08 4 years ago
I respect your opinion, but you are blurring true definitions with emotion and drawing irrelivant arguments based on that emotion and how you choose to twist your wrongly-defined or wrongly-perceived labels to suit your agenda.
xxMISSxxPRISSxx 4 years ago
Get back on your broomstick. Stop twisting what pro-choicers have said. We don't debate the fact that the organism is growing and belongs to the human species. A zygote/embryo undergoes complete physiological change and metamorphisis to BECOME a PERSON once developed and viable. This is when it gains personhood, and thus rights. Human/person - completely different.
xxMISSxxPRISSxx 4 years ago
Of course the zygote/embryo is human. But it is not a person. To be a person, you need personhood. It needs sentience, awareness, the ability to have thought etc. Zygotes don't have this ability. They are human zygotes, but they aren't PEOPLE. Typical pro-life propaganda by an uneducated hypocrite.
xxMISSxxPRISSxx 4 years ago
Sorry xxxmissxx...
The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins via sexual reproduction is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists, and they are not uneducated hypocrites but scientist majoring in that field, your statements above are your own thoughts not scientific. Please do look up what the embryologists have to say one this issues.
roevswade 4 years ago
Of course a human forms at conception, it has human DNA doesn't it? My point is, a human (the defined name for our species) is different from a PERSON (i.e. developed human who has gained PERSONHOOD and therefore, rights). Pro-lifers say 'it's always human'. Pro-choicers say, 'it needs to be classified as a person to gain rights as one'(consciousness, functionality, sentience). Therefore, 'human' does not necessarily equal 'person'; zygotes do not inherintly earn rights at conception.
xxMISSxxPRISSxx 4 years ago
And please don't post the 'anesthesia' argument about consciousnes or functionality, because it is another irrational argument made by pro-lifers. A 6 week old embryo with no prior thought, awareness or functionality is very different to an unconscious man who dreams. 'Human' is the broader name for our species; 'person' applies once we develop enough to become viable as independent entities, free from the parasitic pre-existence inside the womb.
xxMISSxxPRISSxx 4 years ago
The mother however, has rights. She is a PERSON by every definition and law. To try and imply that a 6 wk old mass of tissue with the same perception of life as a brain tumour, should have rights equal to or greater than those of the mother, is proposterous.
xxMISSxxPRISSxx 4 years ago
priss- You said- "Pro-choicers say, 'it needs to be classified as a person to gain rights as one'(consciousness, functionality, sentience).
Where did you get that? Because you must realize that, 'person' is a legal term. And no where in abortion law is the definition of person- 'consciousness, functionality, or sentience'.
My guess is that you just made up that definition because you want to justify your approval of killing children for convenience. Sad.
thejohnstonzoo 3 years ago
Written in to the law books of our past history concerning slave issues, black slaves were not considered a person with any rights, they were just property, part of the owner's estate.
A pondering question, were they "a person" after the law was abolished or before?
roevswade 3 years ago
I am trying to draw attention to the fact that being an anatomical, genetic human being (i.e. belonging to the species homo sapien) is not synonymous with being a person. Legal personhood requires a certain level of intelligent, organised brain activity, which manifests itself in consciousness, ability to co-ordinate one's physical body etc. Personhood is not given by virtue of the DNA within the cells of the organism. By the way, I know that 'person' is a legal term - I am a junior lawyer.
xxMISSxxPRISSxx 3 years ago
priss- Whether a human being is a 'person' or not isn't the most important question. In the United States' history, blacks weren't considered 'persons'. They were property and could be killed at the will of the owner. So, the more important question is- If 'something' is a human being, regardless if they have the legal standing as a person, should it be ok to kill them at will? Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. You, as a junior lawyer, should know that.
thejohnstonzoo 3 years ago
Exactly! Which is why I have no clue why pro-choicers even use the argument of human vs. person.
jaces227 3 years ago
Alright, well consider this a different way...A woman does no harm in conceiving a fetus - that is, that fetus doesn't know it exists, so it can be no worse off by being conceived. HOWEVER, to then obligate the mother to carry it to term, give birth to it and raise it WILL harm her. Welfare that the biological father pays to raise a child he doesn't want and doesn't see is a small obligation compared to what the mother faces if she is forced to give birth. Why should the mother have no choice?
xxMISSxxPRISSxx 3 years ago
priss- Everything you just said is stupid- however, just so I know where you're coming from, answer this simple question- Is a fetus a HUMAN being or some other type of being? If you think it's another type of being- what?
thejohnstonzoo 3 years ago
Of course it is a human being, retard. And nothing I said is stupid. Pro-lifers suggest that women shouldn't have a choice as to whether or not to terminate a pregnacy, yet if a man doesn't want a child all he has to do is walk away from the woman he impregnated. She sacrfices herself for 9 months, at minimum, and pregnancy is not 100% safe. If she keeps the child, he pays her welfare, she does everything else. He has exercised choice to not have a child, why can't she?
xxMISSxxPRISSxx 3 years ago
priss- The law defines 'murder' as 'the premeditated killing of a human being by a human being'.
So whether a fetus is a 'person' or not doesn't really matter. A fetus IS a human being; and during abortion, one human being is being premeditatedly killed by another human being. The only correct definition for that act is 'murder'. So you advocate murder. Sick.
thejohnstonzoo 3 years ago
Get off your high horse - every smart person in the world who actually thinks about it realises that in some circumstances abortion is the best option. Your morals don't dictate what choices are best for everyone in the world. Also, murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of one human by another, therefore (since you want to get technical) abortion is NOT murder, since abortion is legal.
xxMISSxxPRISSxx 3 years ago
xxmiss:murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of one human by another LIAR. It an illegal killing of human BEING!
sueezee 3 years ago
the law is not always right....God's law is above all...THOU SHALT NOT KILL...It is life,......youi people say it isnt because your brainwashed and selfish evil people ..I pity you
232323C 2 years ago
priss- What are you talking about? Women can give up their children for adoption. She can walk away from her responsibility just as he can.
Also, NOTHING is 100% safe. Not even abortion.
thejohnstonzoo 3 years ago
Abortion (when performed correctly) is close to 10 times safer than childbirth. Legalising abortion prevents desperate women resorting to desperate measures such as back-alley abortionists. It keeps women safe.
xxMISSxxPRISSxx 3 years ago
They're both equal participants in the act of conception, unless the woman is raped. Looking at both consentual and forced unwanted impregnation, whichever way you weigh it up, the man in the equation gets off VERY lightly in regards to obligations and risks. Why does a woman have to carry the burden of BOTH people's actions, and why can't she exercise a right to end a pregnancy if she doesn't want to risk her health etc for a child neither of them wants?
xxMISSxxPRISSxx 3 years ago
priss- You said "...why can't she exercise a right to end a pregnancy if she doesn't want to risk her health etc for a child..."
What do you mean by the word 'health'?
thejohnstonzoo 3 years ago
Conditions such as hypertension, varicose veins, diabetes, not to mention the complications of giving birth...haemorrhage, infection, etc. A man has NONE of these worries during pregnancy. EVEN IF a woman DOES give the child up for adoption, she still has to go through the hardest 9 months of the process ON HER OWN without impacting the man at all! How is it fair to tell her she has no choice in whether or not she goes through that?
xxMISSxxPRISSxx 3 years ago 3
its ok to kill a baby to avoid vericose veigns...LOLOLOL.......your deceived and in dire danger of your eternal soul
232323C 2 years ago
This is quite an interesting statement you have made. Have you ever heard of the Unborn Victims of Violence act of 2004? This is a law which states that if anyone harms an unborn child at ANY stage of development (abortionists excluded), they can and will be charged with a crime. My question to you is, if the unborn child is not a person with rights, why are there such laws? It sounds to me as though the unborn do have rights, and are in fact considered people. What say ye?
jaces227 3 years ago
Wrong.
This Act does not define the fetus as a person, but instead as a member of the homo sapien species. It does not state that harming a fetus is killing a person; it is killing a human being. The concept of belonging to a species is different to the concept of having personhood.
This relates to consent really...terminating the pregnancy without consent of the legal entity in charge of it is a crime. Turning off life support is also a crime unless you have legal authority to do so.
xxMISSxxPRISSxx 3 years ago
You make some good points. My point though is that because the unborn do have rights, why would they not be considered people? But this brings me to my next question: if someone kills another human being (since we can at least agree the unborn are human) does that make it any less important than if someone kills a "person"? According to Merriam Webster , a human being IS a person and vice verse. What do you think?
jaces227 3 years ago
Thank you for speaking out! You are brilliant! And you make the best pro-life arguments. <3
ashmarie88 4 years ago
I am sold on You. I am enlighten by your messeges. Life in it self is a gift and anyone not seeing that would support abortion. Life is a drug in itself. It is a natural high. People have the right Yes, but with abortion your not giving the right to someone else. I can not be bought on killing someone that does not kill. If abortion is used to sustain a life yes, but as a option. Life is a natural high that sex, drugs, or money can not come close to!
almighty1rights 4 years ago
My previous comment was supposed to be in a thread and it didn't quite make it into it. Some glitch with YouTube. I really wish we could get back on topic. The fact some people here can't do so just proves to me that roevswade is correct in what she asserts. No-one can answer her back, so she has won the argument.
prolifediaries 4 years ago 2
Sounds like someone has a serious problem here. The justifications you make are the same ones my friend heard from men doing 25 years to life in the penitentiary system for assault. The root cause is pornography consumption. Methinks you have a problem with it, judging by the language you use.
prolifediaries 4 years ago
The answer to the "irresponsible people" argument is to let those people fall hard on their faces. Do not aide and abet their behaviour and let them fall into the gutter. Sometimes waking up in a cold hard place sobers people up. If we brought back social disapproval and shame into society, people would be more thinking about their lives.
prolifediaries 4 years ago
You sound like a lot of paedophiles and sex offenders cases I used to read about in my university classes. Also like men who justified their actions to the women I helped. I used to assist women survivors of violence and your comments sound like those of criminals in the penitentiary system. Better check yourself before you wreck yourself.
prolifediaries 4 years ago
You're right. Which is why the Catholic Church is never going to change their position on birth control.
smadewell 4 years ago
"Telling people 'just say no' to sex is like telling a cocaine addict to 'just stop'."
Sex is an addiction? Perhaps for some & sex addicts should seek help. I'm not telling people to "just say no" to sex. I'm saying make informed & intelligent choices about your body, your future & that of your potential offspring. Play with matches & you'll likely get burnt. Use matches responsibly & you won't get burnt. "Be responsible." That's all I'm trying to say.
smadewell 4 years ago
"Sex is a hormonal act, driven by primal, irrational forces. You can't expect people to make intelligent decisions about it." I can & do expect people to make intelligent decisions! I was a virgin for 28 yrs. I was holding out for a life-mate. I have one now. We have one child together. Neither of us has been sterilized. We're both against abortion on demand. We both still have a sex drive. Primal forces can & should be controlled or acted upon RESPONSIBLY. It's not like they "POSSESS" us.
smadewell 4 years ago
Oh.... Yeah, that's right! The Devil makes people have sex, so there's no point in making an informed & intelligent choice, because we're powerless against the Devil. The Sex Drive is too strong! Might as well just give in & make as many babies as I can with as many partners as I can, huh? Give me a break.... <_<
smadewell 4 years ago
oh please do tell! email it to me.
roevswade 4 years ago
They try everything, but the logical thing to do and that is to switch sides.
roevswade 4 years ago
Again, I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about people thinking & preparing BEFORE they have sexual intercourse. Don't want kids? Then don't make 'em. Having sex without birth control? Then be prepared for the next 19+ years of parenthood.
smadewell 4 years ago
fish...reptile...yikes! That's the biggest fraud that ever cursed the earth. It's already been proven a fraud.
Unfortunately, this lie is being passed to women who are later confronted with the truth and must then deal with it. How sad!
washedbytheword777 4 years ago
Thank you for your story.
tongueteasingks 4 years ago
I hear what you're saying, but I still think there needs to be a balance between nature and nurture. It does the child a grave disservice to bring it into the world and then not be able to care for it. Not saying one ought to "terminate" for that reason. I'm just saying one ought to plan ahead before they go knocking boots.
smadewell 4 years ago
People make mistakes. Admiting our mistakes and learning from them is the best we can do. Helping other to not make the same mistake is noble indeed. Great video.
squitmaa 4 years ago
Thank you, great video as always.
CampaignForLife 4 years ago
That is the most profound testimony I've ever heard about abortion. It is the most compelling and reasoned answer to the lie that the unborn are not human or people. I applaud your courage. You're a most eloquent lady. Love, Laura :)+
prolifediaries 4 years ago