I personally think abortion should only be done in the 1st trimester. I don't think someone should force a woman to go through pregnancy. For me, that is a violation of human rights. Besides, once you give fetuses equal human value it is dangerous for the pregnant women who actually want to go through the pregnancy. They can be prosecuted for miscarriages, stillbirths, forced to have C-sections etc. These are documented cases in states that have fetal protection laws. It makes pregnancy a danger
@PhilosophyJunky Not if it is a conscious walking breathing self aware human being. That is the thing. Women & girls are human beings too. They aren't incubators. Embryos/fetuses in the first trimester do not have the same qualities as a person. 1st trimester fetuses are basically human genetic material with the potential for personhood. The exact same qualities as my egg that expells from my uterus every month. Every time I have a period, there is one more potential person that won't exist.
@Fishqueen1972 Okay, so you are saying that quantitative functions such as consciousness and self-awareness is what defines personhood and human value? Have you considered the implications of this belief?
But with all respect, your statements about an unfertilized egg is false. A human zygote is a whole, functioning member of the human species. This is just science, not any personal belief of mine. An egg is not a unique human organism, a zygote is.
@PhilosophyJunky Dude stop with the propaganda and if you're a poe, you're a very bad one. A zygote shares zero characteristics of a person. At no point does a person believe that THOSE TWO SPECIFIC THINGS ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT MAKE PERSONHOOD. There are TONS of other factors in it that humans beyond Zygotehood share. Stop twisting words.
@PhilosophyJunky lol. "An egg is not a unique human organism"???? If every ovum I produce in my lifetime became fertilized then they could all become unique human organisms that could develope into personhood. This is scientific fact. The only difference between an egg and a zygote is the amount of genetic material. The zygote is just one stage further, but they have more in common. No consciousness, no self awareness. I will respond to your first quest about human value & implications later.
@Fishqueen1972 No, I am sorry, but with all respect, your scientific facts are incorrect. There are fundamental differences between an egg and a zygote. Mainly, an egg is a part of a larger human organism while a zygote is its *own, unique, WHOLE organism*. I'd be happy to cite sources for this information, but youtube doesn't let you post links. But, even if you are right, all you have done is broadened the scope of human value, not lessened it. You've done nothing to disprove my argument.
@PhilosophyJunky It would you who is affecting the concept of human value. By giving fetuses value you automatically devalue the personhood of the pregnant woman. You have taken away some of her rights to medical decision making that every other citizen has. You have objectified her by viewing her as an incubator for human propogation and taking away her freewill. I am not just talking about abortion here. The gov't has tried to force women to have c-sections.
Fishqueen1972 I will defend the personhood of women just as strongly as I defend the personhood of the unborn. In fact, half of the unborn that I am defend ARE WOMEN. This is an old and worn out argument - that valuing the life of unborn women somehow makes you AGAINST born women. How does my logic about human value in any way exclude a specific gender? Neither men nor women should have the right to kill their pre-born offspring. That doesn't mean I've objectified either of them.
Carbon dioxide has everything it needs to proceed threw all stages of human development, it's got plants to turn it into more plants, and people to eat it and turn it into people. Your argument has been nulled.
@SocialDissimulation An infant is not an adolescent and an adolescent is not an adult. Are you suggesting you were never an adolescent, an infant or even a fetus?
@SocialDissimulation Actually, they are. A fertilized egg's species is a chicken, and a fertilized pine-cone's species is a pine tree. A human fetus's species is a human. That's science, not my opinion.
@SocialDissimulation I'm not twisting words. My view is what is known as the substance view of human value.
If human value (aka personhood) is measured by quantitative functions (e.g. consciousness, self-awareness) it logically follows that humans with more of the given function (are more conscious, have more self-awareness) have more value than those with less. Therefore the idea of human equality cannot exist.
@P That's non-sequitur. A broad description of something =/= heightened consciousness. This isn't to say that consciousness isn't a particularly human trait and is above that of let's say a Chimp. The slippery slope doesn't apply here, because we're talking about an embryo that meets -zero- qualities of what you and I have aside from being spawned by us. If it meets -zero- qualities of what a person is, it cannot be qualified as a person. A rock and an embryo think about the same thing: nothing.
@SocialDissimulation An embryo and myself share 2 things - we are both humans and I was once an embryo myself. You are implying that thought is what gives humans value. If this is true, an embryo has zero value because it has zero thought process; and if you have more thought process than a child then it logically follows that you are more valuable than the child.
If all people are equal, what trait do we all have equally?
@PhilosophyJunky No, no, no, no, no, a thousand times no. The implication is: Brain function, organ function, birth, nervous system, hobbies, sight, viability, reaction to stimuli, the list goes on and on. These are all things that a person must have had the chance to undergo before they can be a person. They have either had to -have- the chance to do it, or have done it already. So if you say: Well what about a brain-dead person? They still meet the criteria.
@SocialDissimulation My critic still applies. It does not make any difference if it is just thought processing or a combination of many functional abilities - any human who has more of the given abilities/functionality would therefore have more value. In this case, a person with more brain activity, better organ function, more hobbies, can see better, is more viable, can react to stimuli more efficiently, etc. would have more value. It's logically consistent. And it rules out human equality.
@SocialDissimulation Let's look at this the other way around. If all people are equal, what makes us equal that we all have in equal quantities? It is not brain function, it is not the same birthing process (c-sections), it is not self-awareness, and the list could go on and on. The only thing we all share equally is a common HUMAN nature. We are all equally human. Therefore, if we believe in human equality, we must accept that it is the very nature of being human that makes us valuable.
@PhilosophyJunky Keep it to one post, I've ignored the other. We are 'equal' in the loosest, loosest sense. In a philosophical vacuum, I agree, we are equal. Outside, in the real world? Absolutely not. There are lives to be more chiefly valued than others on a survival level. For instance, two people, one to save one to not save, one brain-dead, one completely aware of his or her surroundings. Without the addition of family ties or misdeeds, it is more logical to continue sentient life.
That is in no way logically correct. Premise 1 and 2 are wrong, premise 3 depends on your definition of human. In the biological sense, embryos consist of human cells, but if that is what makes someone human then I could cut off my finger and say it's human. Conclusion 1 and 2 are wrong.
@rsgirl10 If you reject premise 1 then you are rejecting human equality. That's a high price. If premise 2 is wrong, please show me how by showing something other than being human that all people have equally. Biologically you are simply wrong about an embryo being the same as a fingernail. An embryo is a whole, unique human being whereas fingernails are a much smaller part of a whole. Embryos are not parts of a whole that has yet to be constructed, they are wholes that are developing
I have no problem with saying that some people are more valuable than other people, and I'd think it was an obvious statement. Before I'm accused of anything, I'd like to clarify that I'm not racist or sexist in how I would determine who is more valuable; rather, most often valuableness is relative to circumstances.
Also, I'd like if you could distinguish between human and person in your argument. If they are interchangeable, as I am using them for now, that's tautology.
To argue the next point, humans are similar in a variety of indisputable ways. We are made of atoms. We are made of cells. We are made of similar genetic information. Because of our genetic information we have literally millions of things in common. We are all incapable of surviving in extremely acidic environments like some bacteria. We all equally share the exact probably of dying if we don't have any water for 3 months.
There are simple things like this that premise 2 doesn't account for, but we are nearing the point of the argument in which we will fundamentally differ, and not much can be done to change the others mind. There are two points that we won't agree on.
1) Our definitions of what it means to be a person will differ, yours being inclusive of z/e/f's and mine being exclusive. I assume that if I could prove to you in some way, hypothetically speaking, that a z/e/f is not a person or human, you would change your mind. In the same way, if you could prove z/e/f's ARE people, I might change my mind. If we did not reevaluate our arguments in this case, we would be incredibly unscientific in our approach.
If our definitions are different, we won't be able to argue much. My definition of a person requires more than yours I believe. I believe that to be considered a person you must be have sentient qualities, ability to feel emotions, forms of consciousness, etc. I know you will disagree in some way, but how can we fight a definition? I'm not going to argue that a z/e/f doesn't have the genetic info of homo sapien sapiens, but I believe there is much more needed.
That was my point in saying I could cut off my finger and say it's a human. If all that's needed to be human is for a cell to have human genetic information, then any individual groups of cells could be called human, regardless of what stage of development. It just seems silly to me to say that "it's a unique set of genetic information" or whatever pro lifers argue. Is it that if the genetic information is not unique it loses some important quality?
Cancer cells are genetically different from everyone else, including their host, steal nutrients from the host, and are often unwanted and lead to life threatening, and non life threatening health conditions. If cancer cells are that close to z/e/f's, what puts them in a different category to not be defended by arguments that say z/e/f's should be protected because they are unique individuals with human genetic info? I don't think I've addressed your argument, I just ranted.
But yes, my point was that we can't argue much further on this point if our definitions are so different. The best way to approach it would be to argue our points using the other's definition of what it is to be human or a person. I can argue it, and it has to do with the next area in which pro lifers and pro choicers fundamentally differ.
And to address your second reply, that's not how I was approaching it. I was simply saying that if the only requirement of something being human is that it contains genetic information of a human, then any individual cells may also be called human. I don't agree with this, I'm simply pointing out a flaw in that definition of human or person. I don't think z/e/f's are as similar as you thought I did to fingers, it was an error in communication.
@rsgirl10 Okay, you hit on the key issue. Our definition of person. Now you state that sentience/emotion are requirements for a person. First, this states that human beings are valuable for their FUNCTION. It is what I can do that makes me valuable. So is some people can do MORE of whatever function you deem valuable, those people would be more valuable than those who cannot do that function as well. So, if sentience makes us valuable, then if i can prove that I have more sentience than you -c-
I’m going to state my responses to the issues you brought up. I think you misinterpreted a lot of what I was saying. If any of the problems you brought up are not addressed in the following points, call me out on it. I am using human and person interchangeably for now. Here are my points:
i. You made the mistake of assuming the characteristics I brought up were things I thought that made people more valuable, when I said they were characteristics humans/people must have.
ii. Qualities like sentience do not necessarily make a thing valuable; I was talking about necessary qualities of humans.
iii. Being human is not what makes a thing valuable
iv. I have not yet argued what makes people more valuable
v. A human with more value does not deserve more rights
@rsgirl10 you should stop using the terms human and person interchangeably, since you are clearly making a distinction. the science proves the humanity of the unborn.
vi. You are or aren't human, never *more human* just as you either pass or fail a test. If you have a high grade you don't *pass more* just as you are not *more human* even if the required qualities of being human are more advanced in your case. Say Macs are computers with enhanced qualities of a PC. It would be wrong to say Macs are *more computer-like* than PCs. A PC is just as much of a computer as a Mac, even if Macs have advanced capabilities in what makes them computers.
@rsgirl10 I am not saying that it would make them 'less human' I am saying it would make them less valuable. Which is true. Because if a mac has enhanced computer traits it is a better computer and should be preferred over the lesser computer.
vii. Thus, since you are either human or not, you either have the rights of humans or you don’t. Since you cannot be more human, you cannot have more rights based on that.
viii. It’s a misconception that while we are sleeping we are't thinking/sentient. In REM sleep we actually emit the same kind of waves as we do when we are fully awake (beta waves). Even in stage four of sleep we have delta waves, which have a much slower wave frequency, but a frequency nonetheless. This means we are thinking during our sleep, and often have as much brain activity as when we are awake.
Generally I do agree that when something does not have the abilities I will list as requirements of being human, it is not human, and thus should not have the same rights as humans or people do. However, even in unconscious or semi conscious states we are sentient because of the fact that we emit certain wave frequencies. If a person were brain dead, they should not have the same rights as a person, because according to this definition, they are not human any longer.
Some places in the world legally define death as brain death, and when a person is dead they no longer have the same rights. This has become more popular because it is now possible to revive a person who is not breathing or has no pulse due to medical advances. Thus, my definition of this is also legally sound.
@rsgirl10 but we are not discussing what is legally sound. Death can also be defined as when the masses of cells in the body lose their communication with each other. Thus a human embryo's cells are communicating with each other and is a whole living organims.
ix. Person: a person must of the human race, possess the ability to experience different emotions, must be self-aware & must be able to undergo different levels of consciousness. You'll see that neither brain dead people nor z/e/f’s are included in this definition. However, animals other than humans possess all of these things save the first, which in my opinion is the least important. I'd say that if a thing lacked just the first requirement, it should have some rights.
@rsgirl10 then I am also more valuable than you, and would therefore deserve more rights. These functional capacities you state that give us value can be lost. When I go to sleep, I am no longer sentient. This would mean that I am no longer a person. Unless you want to revise your definition of person to say the "capacity for sentience" instead of what it is right now (immediate sentience). But then you would have to incorporate z/e/f because if you give them time, they also have that capacity.
x. I made my definition of person/human to not include sentient, although I think it’s implied, because I find it is too broad of a word.
xi. These things are not arbitrary – I associate them with people everyday. Again, it’s hard to argue a definition. How can I say that your definition of human is wrong unless it is completely absurd (which I’m sure it won’t be – it will probably be a bit different than mine, that’s all)?
@rsgirl10 Saying that the definition of what makes people people are the things you associate with people every day is circular logic. You assuming a thing is a person, see what those things have in common, then say that is what makes them people. Things like sentience and emotion are not an all-or-nothing trait. People have varying degrees of these. So if those traits are what make people people, then people with more of those traits would be more valuable.
@rsgirl10 If you maintain that it is like passing or failing a test, how are you drawing the line between pass and fail? I see no way you could draw this line without picking an arbitrary amount that you cannot even measure.
@rsgirl10 I agree that once we agree that z/e/f's are human that the discussion becomes philosophical rather than scientific. Science can tell us what the z/e/f are, but it cannot tell us how we should treat them. I thoroughly believe I can defend my definition of being a human being makes us valuable better than you can defend the definition that sentience/emotion/etc. makes us valuable. Further more, why does sentience matter? This is an arbitrary function. Please defend it.
I will ask you again to please distinguish human & person in your argument, otherwise I've pointed out yet another way in which it is flawed. Also, what do you think of my cancer cell analogy? I think it’s a pretty good one.
I haven't gotten to the bulk of my argument, & I’m hesitant to until we come to some sort of understanding in what each of us are arguing, simply b'c my argument is quite long. So when you’re up for it, let me know.
@rsgirl10 As i stated in my last message to you, I request that we leave this be. I am a very busy person and this is a very big distraction to me as I feel very passionate about this topic and apologetics in general. To answer you last questions: I do not distinguish between human and person. I don't see a problem with this. I know you stated an argument against it but I do not believe the argument holds for a few reasons. A cancer call is not a whole human organism. Please, let's leave it be.
Okay, wow. I'm not making you reply, all you have to do is stop responding, but if you throw a comment out there that I think is flawed, I'm going to say something. Google "tautology", and premise 2 fails.
@rsgirl10 You are making the mistake of looking at human beings as things that are constructed piece by piece, whereas in reality a human being is developed from a starting cell that is the whole human being. This is scientifically true. I can readily quote numerous embryology text books and court hearings on this fact. They are quite lengthy, so if you are interested in them I will gladly send them to you in a message.
2) There's an implied assumption that it’s wrong to kill on the prolife stance. I don't believe it’s always wrong to kill. I could elaborate on this point further, & I have a lot more to say, & but I want to make sure you don't mind very long posts. It's also inconvenient writing on a 500 word limit, so if you could suggest a better way of messaging, I'm up for it. I can't seem to pm you. I suppose before I give you my argument, you could address problems with what I've said.
Also, even if premise 1 and 2 were true, conclusion one would not necessarily follow. Premise 3 to conclusion two are structured properly, but as premise 3 is flawed, and conclusion 2 is based on all 3 premises, that argument sucks. Give me a day and I'll look up the kind of fallacy you're making.
What is the argument for young mothers killing their unborn children? That the child would be born into poverty and abuse, with no one able to give 'proper' care to him/her. My mother was 17 (after Roe v. Wade) when she found out I was growing inside her. She had to drop out of HS and marry my drunk, abusive, drug-using father. But yet, she still gave birth to me, and I was introduced from day one to a world of poverty and abuse.
I will admit that there have been some absolutely horrible things I've had to go through, but here I am, 29 years later - happily married with 2 children of my own. What you abortionists are essentially saying is that I shouldn't be alive, nor should my own children. The argument for reducing abortions is incredibly specious as well, when if we truly find abortion to be abhorrent and akin to murder, we would logically only allow it in the event the mother's life is in danger.
When do human cells become a person? It seems to be an unanswerable question. A zygote (fertilized egg) is no more or less alive than a sperm, an egg, or a white blood cell. At what point does it stop becoming a collection of cells and become a person and why??
It is an important question and the answer is that if you leave a skin cell or a blood cell it will stay a skin or blood cell, it will never be anything else. However a zygote if given the proper envirenment will grow into a fetus, an infant and toddler and through the human cycle until death. Once a zygote is formed it is on the same path that everyone else is on through life, that is what makes it alive.
@themanyhandedmonste Theoretically, we can take any cell in the human body, and given the right conditions and factors, can cause it to grow into an adult human being. We've already grown animals from unfertilized cells (cloning). Therefore, each cell in your body is a potential person. And a potential person is not necessarily a person.
@CambridgeHeights Agreed. Anyone looking for more info on this comment can look up things on IPS stem cell research. Very cool.
You can take even skin cells and use them to grow a human... which means like you said, every cell technically has the potential to be a human or person...take from that what you will.
the whole abortion argument is stupid...if one human mates with another human the whole idea is conception, I mean nowadays we do it for pleasure, but the jist is to have babies. I don't think if two humans mated they would have monkey babies...no most likely they are going to be humans. a human becomes a human once that sperm hits the egg and starts to form the zygote. personally i am christian so, in my mind i was formed long ago.
@dominiontakinova the argument IS stupid but for a different reason. anti-abortion ignore what would happen if illegal. doctors would be discouraged to break the law and "rogue" solutions like rivers & dumpsters, coathangers & worse. better by trained staff in a clinic. to deny that IS stupid.
@Krane157 First, I would question that statistic.... In Canada and many western countries we don't even believe in the death penalty....why kill the unwanted babies before they've even committed a crime? That seems a little presumptuous. Not a little actually, REALLY presumptuous.
@5gf1 good point; however, remember that a fertilized egg is not really a fetus until the 8th week and isnt even a baby when it is first fertilized, so then and in that case, an abortion would just be removing a group of cells from a woman
@Krane157 Until the 8th week? Where did you get that idea? The problem is, that everyone has a different opinion on this and doesn't follow science. It's a human being from the moment of conception. Doctors, even abortionist learn that in med school. It doesn't make any sense for something to turn into a human being 8 weeks into it's growth period. Everything else on this planet starts out as the same species. It's alive, growing, has human parents.
@5gf1 actually its because the stem cells that the embryo is made of hasnt been programmed to become a baby yet so no its not a baby upon conception its cells upon conception :)
@5gf1 Youtube didn't let me finish my comment the other night...In 1988 the canadian government commisioned a group of scientist to state that the embryo was not human to ease the legalization of abortion, the scientist would not agree to do this because it was impossible to disprove that the embryo is indeed human. Therefore the government opted to not include unborn humans as persons. This is the argument that smart pro-abortion advocates use today because it isn't based on faulty science.
personally i say abortion is right but still people should take into mind when abortion is fine and when it is not. abortion is a great thing if there is a pregnant rape victim or a baby threatens the health of the woman however it should not be used as a crutch. mainly its the womens choice to get an abortion and nothing should affect of influence her to do or not do sed abortion, but there has to be a line in which people draw to stop women and men from having sex and relying on only abortion.
@5gf1 because its also dangerous, say if an abortion is unsafe or is by a cheap doctor with poorly cleaned tools then she may contract infections, also its way too costly to do it all the time. im not saying its something a woman should not go near the idea of it but they cant just do it fluently
@Krane157 Well if it's really dangerous why aren't we being told? You NEVER hear of abortions going wrong these days, are you saying that it's being covered up? Plus, here in Canada abortions are covered by health care and it looks like that's happening in the states now too...soo, whats the big deal?
@Krane157@5gf1 Ok so someplaces. But theoretically, if every abortion was safe and covered by health care would you still have a problem with it? You said that there has to be a line which people draw to stop women and men from having sex and relying on only abortion. I'm from Canada where the majority of abortions are "safe" (so says the media and doctors) and it's covered by health care. If it's just like any other medical procedure...why draw a line?
God is the author of all life not humans. People die all the time (and so you would say God "kills" them.) Does that somehow justify murder? No. That is why pro-lifers believe that life is from God and sacred and that humans cannot decide who lives and who dies.
In both your posts you have admitted that God exists and that abortion is wrong. So I am gathering that you don't actually want to debate abortion but whether or not God is good. Well, abortion is an interesting place to start that discussion.
From a Christian perspective, yes it is. (Although I don't agree with your definition of murder to include God, I would say it applies to humans taking innocent human lives) As I said before, God gives life so God can take life. Everyone dies whether it is in their first 9 months or 100yrs God takes everyone's life. We are made to die and continue our life with God in heaven. Man does not give or create life therefore he can not take it.
Well, I wasn't the one to initiate this debate about what God has to do with it. pineappleboy1 was. I was just explaining what a Christian would say to his remark.
This is really a debate about human rights. Regardless of the separation of church and state, the state and the church both still uphold some of the same moral values. Murder for example is condemned by both. Furthermore, regardless of where in the world you live, there still exists objective truth and inalienable human rights.
The fact is, hundreds of thousands of human beings are losing their lives through abortion. Regardless of where you live and what the law says, what the church says, that is wrong. It can't be right for some people to kill a baby and wrong for others. The right to life is the fundamental human right upon which ALL others are based. History shows that America likes to pick and choose who gets the right to life. Slaves, Native Americans, the unborn, all have been denied their right to life.
Proove that your god exists. Well, in a court of law, if i saw someone dying in the street and i walked past and refused to help them, i would be charged with manslaughter as i didn't get them help when they needed it. But, there is a double standard when it comes to your god, right?
You're actually using "god" in an argument against abortion? what if you're arguing with an atheist, you think they're gonna take you seriously??
I might've taken you seriously before you confuse the legality involving lax reprocussions on breaking the good samaritan clause with intentional pre-meditated murder
So what do you do when you're pregnant, and every doctor you talk to tells you that the pregnancy will kill both you and the child? Go ahead and let both die? Oh, and not to mention you already have a child to care for...should the already born child go motherless for a child that won't be born?
This is a different case altogether. When the life of the mother is in danger the intervention can be taken which may cause the baby to die. For example, a woman is pregnant and finds out she is suffering from uteran cancer the only remedy being to remove her womb. The intention here is to save the mother with the side effect being the death of the baby. While this is a very unfortunate situation the intention is not to destroy the life of the baby but to save the mother.
That is extremely rare for a woman and the child both to die. However, that dr. is to try and save both lives. If that will not work, of course the mother will be saved.But this happens from 2% of all abortions! So are you saying that abortion should be legal only for the health of the mother, or are you saying all abortions should remain legal?
In my opinion, I think abortion should be looked at in a case by case basis. I do not support abortion, however, I do understand that there are some cases where it is viable. I don't think mothers should abort just because they don't want the child. There are plenty of good people that would like to adopt these unwanted and aborted children. As for a legal standpoint, I think there should be strict guidelines for it to be legal.
@gcdcman81. I agree with your statement about abortion should not happen just because they do not want it. Also there is a difference between elective and therapeutic abortion. What is being argued her is that elective abortions are wrong.
i never get involved in abortion debates...they are never ending debates and i dont want to be one of those little dots out of the tons of others just debating back and forth b/c no one ever wins nor it never ends...fuck it
People say you have a choice to be good or evil, yet there is always talk of gods plan. Everything is part of gods plan so how does that leave any choice if everything is already planned out? It doesnt. Do you really believe that all that goes on in this world is already planned by some supreme being? A child gets raped and is cut up into pices by some sick individual, hundreds of children die everyday from disease and hunger, children left without parents due to war. Some plan huh?
Just gonna make my own rebuttal: there's no argument whether a fetus is alive or not; and there are no regulations on killing any sort of living organism.
Also, I feel that this anti-abortion argument tries to fit the circumstances to the law, rather than the law to the circumstances i.e., blindly stating that abortion is the murder of a human being, when the law is perfectly open to exceptions (sorry if that sounds really sick XD).
"There are no regulations on killing any sort of living organism" ?? I don't know where the hell you are from? But in my country you can't murder your 2 yr old. I take that as a regulation! There are no exceptions to murder under the law. There are exceptions to killing persons, ie self defense. This does not fit the abortion argument. "there's no argument whether a fetus is alive or not." Did you watch the video? That is an argument that the fetus is alive.
Whoops. I actually can't remember what i was talking about when i said there are no regulations on killing any sort of living organism. i THINK i meant that just because something is alive, killing it isn't murder (you can kill bugs all you want). And i when i say there's no argument as to whether it is alive, i mean that it falls under the scientific definition of life at all stages, but the law's concern has to be whether it counts as a human life.
There aren't regulations on killing any living organism. Is a tree not a living organism? There are no regulations on killing those. You act as if human beings are the only living things.
There are regulations on killing certain living organisms....simple. The law is concerned whether the fetus is a "person" under the law. How a human is not a person beats me. Same argument used to defend slavery in earlier centuries.
I never said a fetus is not a person. That is not the issue if you're discussing the legality of abortion. The morality and legality of abortion are separate issues.
abortion is bad no question. it is not up to the mother to kill a potential person. its just as bad as killing an adult. think about it. your mother could have killed you before you even had a chance. think about all those people who never had a chance because they were aborted. its an evil thing to do.
I hate this predestination/predetermination bs type of argument. Think about this, if you were never born you would never have the chance to think about how bad it is to have never be born. The reason death is so scary is the whole concsiousness thing, which isn't achieved even on a very basic level until around the beginning of the 2nd trimester. Up to 50% of embryos die naturally. So what? You could have easily not made it out alive anyways. I think your argument is so very invalid.
Your consciousness argument strikes me as odd. Are you inferring that you know when consciousness begins? Science has not postulated when thsi begins, so how woudl you decide this? And that the presence of consciousness is what determines the sanctity of a life? Strange argument. The abortion debate need not be a religious one. Is ending the life of another human being wrong? If you think no, then that's the debate, not abortion. If you believe there is nothing after this life, (more)
Also, if you want to play the 'what if' game how about if your dad and mom never met. Or what if Hitler's parents would have had an abortion! Pondering these things is one thing but I have heard no evidence to deny women the right to abortions. I just can't see how terminating a life with no concsiousness and no central nervous system (no ability to feel pain) is worse than, say, sending a cow to the slaughter (note that I love meat).
if my parents never met i wouldnt of been born but that would of been better than my mom killing me before i was born. it is not a mothers choice to kill her son or daughter its gods.and it doesnt matter whether the unborn child can feel pain or not, its like stealing the chance of that potential person to live the life we are living.if you dont want the baby dont kill it put it up for adoption. also god put animals on this earth for food . unlike a people.its gods choice to kill people not ours
Yeah...but...there's no god...Haha that's my problem with many that debate against abortion. But, I'm glad you're fine with your god aborting so many children (i.e. natural causes). Anyways to make myself clear I don't really see the difference between never being conceived and being aborted in the very early stages. And this mythical god you speak of definitely will not have an impact if you want to convince me otherwise.
ok, say there is no god,i just want to mention this subject, but say there is no god when you and i die we'll die and thats that. but say there is a god, which there is, ill go to heven and frankly youll go to hell im sorry to say. also never being concieved is saying you where never supposed be alive. but being aborted is your supposed to be alive but being killed before you had a chance.
Supposed to be alive? Obviously another argument that would only work with someone that believed in God... Enjoy heaven for me! FYI: even if I believed the God of the bible was real I still wouldn't worship him. He sounds like such an evil little prick. Also, why would an all powerful God want us to waste our lives worshiping him? Is he that vein?
he wants us to worship him and to live a happy good life so we could live forever in the kingdom of heven. and you know what if your mom or dad were killed wouldnt you want the murderer to suffer forever? and fyi:gods not evil the devil is. and if you dont believe that either watch the exersist. based on a true story!
Wow you're pointing towards the 'exersist' for your proof of God. Funny on multiple levels. Ok, so good try at pulling some emotional bullshit. You said I'd go to hell for not believing in this mythical dude. That's the problem, I believe I'm a very kind and loving person. I try hard not to bring harm to others. So...I'm glad I'm lumped in with killers. FYI: there's no after life. Grow up. Make peace with knowing when you die there will be eternal slumber. Doesn't seem that bad I think.
need i go on cos seriously theres enough wrong with the worldto keep me busy for millenia.
if god loves everything then why is there so much evil and suffering. and dont blame the devil because god made him in the 1st place so its still his fault. he could have cleaned up his mess by now!
god gives you the choice of being good or bad. why would he want people who wants to be bad in heaven. he doesnt. he wants only good people there. and there is suffering because if the people that went threw that stayed good then they would be rewarded heaven. now i know i wont change your mind and you wont change mine i am just defending my belief.
fair do's i wont fault you on defending what you believe is right.
if god loves every single person wouldnt we have a better tolerence for the temptations of evil.
i dont know about you but does the short time humans can live for not seem enough to decide the fate of your eternal soul? if you dont meet the criteria for heaven do you think you should get a 'do-over' to try get in or if your bad thats it your screwed.
obv murderers and rapists shouldnt gt it jst the light sinners.
it all depends on the sercumstances. if you enjoy killing then you dont deserve a second chance. if your in the army or your defending yourself thats a differant story. if your truely sorry for what sin you did you are forgiven
i didnt say the exercist was the proof of god but the proof of the devil. and you know what why would more than half the world believe in a god if it was all fake. are you seriously saying that the world is stupid for beleving a god? i know you didnt say it in those words but i know what you ment.
Ah well then since you spelled it right and made it proof of another mythical bastard I guess you are right. First of all, majority doesn't work in mental institutions. Second, I don't think it's that weird that so many believe in God. People want to believe there is something bigger in life guiding us. It's very human. It's just also very illogical. It's kinda like how all parents think they have smart attractive children. Easy to believe in that type of thing. Get my point?
Also, at one point the majority believed that that earth was the center of the universe after evidence showed that was false. The majority also believed it was perfectly acceptable to have blacks as slaves. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. So, yeah, I don't see your argument as anything more than pointless. People still believe because it's comforting for those scared of facing a structureless existence.
even a "out-of-the-womb-baby" isnt yet able to survive on its own. like most mammal babies it cant survive without the mother feeding it and giving her love. But if a mother cant fully give herself to tha baby because she didnt want it in the first place it can be at least psychologically damaging. so why not wait for the right time be fully there for the child?
but what about adoption, if the birth mother can't care for it, why not give it away to parents who can? its better to give a child a chance, rather than just take it away. but that's just my view, i understand where ur coming from too =/
apoption, sure. But besides not many people apopting a child rather than making one, adoption is not a solution to this debate. Just turn the number of abortions into number of orphans, plus the ones that are already here. I doubt that there is the capacity of good orphanages first of all.
I would like to see a fertile debate about when human life begins or what really makes a human a human: is it the DNA?, brainfunction?, a cute smile?
@everyoneluzhewie WTG!! do you know adoption agencies and CPS gets federal funding and charge adoptive parents over $40,000.00 per infant.Why do you think they have so many now sitting in their agencies.People can't afford to pay the fee.So now the two groups get federal funding that we as tax payers have to pay.The more unwanted in their agencies the more funding they get and the more we pay in taxes. So WTG in promoting the selling of the unwanted.
Statistics show that the extra millions of babies of unmarried mothers or born to poor families would have likely grown up to become criminals.
It has beem statistically proven that the cohort that would have been born in the early and late seventies were not alive in the late 1990's due to abortion and therefore were not alive to commit more crime.
That said, how do you enforce an absolute prohibition on abortion? Millions of abortions are performed every year so millions of women, doctors, nurses, boyfriends, husbands, friends and family would have to incarcerated every year for abortion which is murder according to any anti-abortion campaigner I have ever argued with.
Who is going to build the vast prisons to house all these people if they are convicted? Where is the money supposed to come from?
Because the act of abortion would have been legal and people were led to believe that it was ok. It is true that too many people were involved and that is why the only way we could deal with the past is by moving on and giving everyone a clean slate, to start fresh. The fact that anti-abortionists see the act as murder doesn't mean that the doctors, nurses, boyfriends, husbands, and friends involved in abortion believed they were murdering someone. They were misinformed and need to know.
They knew they were terminating a pregnancy and a human life.
Anti-abortionists wouldn't care anyway.
They would say murder is murder.
Does giving everyone a clean slate mean that all abortions prior to a hypothetical date of 31 Dec 2009 are legal and the perpetrators go free but when the ban is introduced on 1 Jan 2010 all those people go to jail for life or in most American states would be sentenced to death for murder?
why wouldnt i be sarcastic, your comment was so close minded and just plain wrong. i dont need to put my input here, but i can call u out on your horrible idea
hmmm...maybe you could take the less lazy route and actually add something to the debate by explaining how i'm closed-minded..
otherwise, simple sarcastic comments like that are pretty much pointless and quickly forgotten...
i would actually like for you to point out where i was closed-minded so i can see other people's point of view and do something about it...but worthless comments like those don't help..
i was not seeking to add anything. u were being close minded because you jumped to your one conclusion that abortion should be illegal and people should be jailed, take big action, etc. there are multiple sides to the story. before making your comment think about the other side LOGICALLY instead of sticking to your one side without listening to the other. im done here
This has been flagged as spam show
To all the pro-life and pro-choice, watch this award winning documentary and see where you stand at the end.
Look up 180 movie on youtube or 180movie.com
standingontruth1 3 months ago
I personally think abortion should only be done in the 1st trimester. I don't think someone should force a woman to go through pregnancy. For me, that is a violation of human rights. Besides, once you give fetuses equal human value it is dangerous for the pregnant women who actually want to go through the pregnancy. They can be prosecuted for miscarriages, stillbirths, forced to have C-sections etc. These are documented cases in states that have fetal protection laws. It makes pregnancy a danger
Fishqueen1972 7 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 Should we allow the killing of some human being to make things less dangerous for other human beings?
PhilosophyJunky 4 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky Not if it is a conscious walking breathing self aware human being. That is the thing. Women & girls are human beings too. They aren't incubators. Embryos/fetuses in the first trimester do not have the same qualities as a person. 1st trimester fetuses are basically human genetic material with the potential for personhood. The exact same qualities as my egg that expells from my uterus every month. Every time I have a period, there is one more potential person that won't exist.
Fishqueen1972 4 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 Okay, so you are saying that quantitative functions such as consciousness and self-awareness is what defines personhood and human value? Have you considered the implications of this belief?
But with all respect, your statements about an unfertilized egg is false. A human zygote is a whole, functioning member of the human species. This is just science, not any personal belief of mine. An egg is not a unique human organism, a zygote is.
PhilosophyJunky 4 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky Dude stop with the propaganda and if you're a poe, you're a very bad one. A zygote shares zero characteristics of a person. At no point does a person believe that THOSE TWO SPECIFIC THINGS ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT MAKE PERSONHOOD. There are TONS of other factors in it that humans beyond Zygotehood share. Stop twisting words.
SocialDissimulation 4 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky lol. "An egg is not a unique human organism"???? If every ovum I produce in my lifetime became fertilized then they could all become unique human organisms that could develope into personhood. This is scientific fact. The only difference between an egg and a zygote is the amount of genetic material. The zygote is just one stage further, but they have more in common. No consciousness, no self awareness. I will respond to your first quest about human value & implications later.
Fishqueen1972 4 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 No, I am sorry, but with all respect, your scientific facts are incorrect. There are fundamental differences between an egg and a zygote. Mainly, an egg is a part of a larger human organism while a zygote is its *own, unique, WHOLE organism*. I'd be happy to cite sources for this information, but youtube doesn't let you post links. But, even if you are right, all you have done is broadened the scope of human value, not lessened it. You've done nothing to disprove my argument.
PhilosophyJunky 4 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky It would you who is affecting the concept of human value. By giving fetuses value you automatically devalue the personhood of the pregnant woman. You have taken away some of her rights to medical decision making that every other citizen has. You have objectified her by viewing her as an incubator for human propogation and taking away her freewill. I am not just talking about abortion here. The gov't has tried to force women to have c-sections.
Fishqueen1972 4 months ago
Fishqueen1972 I will defend the personhood of women just as strongly as I defend the personhood of the unborn. In fact, half of the unborn that I am defend ARE WOMEN. This is an old and worn out argument - that valuing the life of unborn women somehow makes you AGAINST born women. How does my logic about human value in any way exclude a specific gender? Neither men nor women should have the right to kill their pre-born offspring. That doesn't mean I've objectified either of them.
PhilosophyJunky 4 months ago
Carbon dioxide has everything it needs to proceed threw all stages of human development, it's got plants to turn it into more plants, and people to eat it and turn it into people. Your argument has been nulled.
helllspell 7 months ago
That's not a debate, it's an opinion
bananaintraining 11 months ago
Sad that they did not post the rebuttal. :-(
TheActualLiz 1 year ago
An egg isn't a chicken. A pinecone isn't a pine tree. This seems pretty easy to me.
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago
@SocialDissimulation lol. That was put quite plainly. Going to steal that line if you don't mind. =P
rsgirl10 1 year ago
@SocialDissimulation An infant is not an adolescent and an adolescent is not an adult. Are you suggesting you were never an adolescent, an infant or even a fetus?
TheAccidentalFascist 11 months ago
@SocialDissimulation Actually, they are. A fertilized egg's species is a chicken, and a fertilized pine-cone's species is a pine tree. A human fetus's species is a human. That's science, not my opinion.
PhilosophyJunky 4 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky That does not give it personhood, nor does an omelette qualify as two chickens.
SocialDissimulation 4 months ago
@SocialDissimulation I'm not twisting words. My view is what is known as the substance view of human value.
If human value (aka personhood) is measured by quantitative functions (e.g. consciousness, self-awareness) it logically follows that humans with more of the given function (are more conscious, have more self-awareness) have more value than those with less. Therefore the idea of human equality cannot exist.
PhilosophyJunky 4 months ago
@P That's non-sequitur. A broad description of something =/= heightened consciousness. This isn't to say that consciousness isn't a particularly human trait and is above that of let's say a Chimp. The slippery slope doesn't apply here, because we're talking about an embryo that meets -zero- qualities of what you and I have aside from being spawned by us. If it meets -zero- qualities of what a person is, it cannot be qualified as a person. A rock and an embryo think about the same thing: nothing.
SocialDissimulation 4 months ago
@SocialDissimulation An embryo and myself share 2 things - we are both humans and I was once an embryo myself. You are implying that thought is what gives humans value. If this is true, an embryo has zero value because it has zero thought process; and if you have more thought process than a child then it logically follows that you are more valuable than the child.
If all people are equal, what trait do we all have equally?
PhilosophyJunky 4 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky No, no, no, no, no, a thousand times no. The implication is: Brain function, organ function, birth, nervous system, hobbies, sight, viability, reaction to stimuli, the list goes on and on. These are all things that a person must have had the chance to undergo before they can be a person. They have either had to -have- the chance to do it, or have done it already. So if you say: Well what about a brain-dead person? They still meet the criteria.
SocialDissimulation 4 months ago
@SocialDissimulation My critic still applies. It does not make any difference if it is just thought processing or a combination of many functional abilities - any human who has more of the given abilities/functionality would therefore have more value. In this case, a person with more brain activity, better organ function, more hobbies, can see better, is more viable, can react to stimuli more efficiently, etc. would have more value. It's logically consistent. And it rules out human equality.
PhilosophyJunky 4 months ago
@SocialDissimulation Let's look at this the other way around. If all people are equal, what makes us equal that we all have in equal quantities? It is not brain function, it is not the same birthing process (c-sections), it is not self-awareness, and the list could go on and on. The only thing we all share equally is a common HUMAN nature. We are all equally human. Therefore, if we believe in human equality, we must accept that it is the very nature of being human that makes us valuable.
PhilosophyJunky 4 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky Keep it to one post, I've ignored the other. We are 'equal' in the loosest, loosest sense. In a philosophical vacuum, I agree, we are equal. Outside, in the real world? Absolutely not. There are lives to be more chiefly valued than others on a survival level. For instance, two people, one to save one to not save, one brain-dead, one completely aware of his or her surroundings. Without the addition of family ties or misdeeds, it is more logical to continue sentient life.
SocialDissimulation 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SocialDissimulation Alright, here's my one post reply to your most recent comment:
Premise 1: All people are of equal value
Premise 2: The only thing all people share equally is that they are human
Conclusion 1: Being human is what makes people valuable
Premise 3: Human embryos are human
Conclusion 2: Human embryos have equal human value
I believe this is strong logic.
PhilosophyJunky 4 months ago
@SocialDissimulation Premise 1: All people are of equal value
Premise 2: The only thing all people share equally is that they are human
Conclusion 1: Being human is what makes people valuable
Premise 3: Human embryos are human
Conclusion 2: Human embryos have equal human value
I believe this is strong logic.
PhilosophyJunky 4 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky This statement has also been ignored. Keep it to one post, please.
SocialDissimulation 4 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
That is in no way logically correct. Premise 1 and 2 are wrong, premise 3 depends on your definition of human. In the biological sense, embryos consist of human cells, but if that is what makes someone human then I could cut off my finger and say it's human. Conclusion 1 and 2 are wrong.
Please don't tell me your a philosophy major...
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@rsgirl10 If you reject premise 1 then you are rejecting human equality. That's a high price. If premise 2 is wrong, please show me how by showing something other than being human that all people have equally. Biologically you are simply wrong about an embryo being the same as a fingernail. An embryo is a whole, unique human being whereas fingernails are a much smaller part of a whole. Embryos are not parts of a whole that has yet to be constructed, they are wholes that are developing
PhilosophyJunky 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
I have no problem with saying that some people are more valuable than other people, and I'd think it was an obvious statement. Before I'm accused of anything, I'd like to clarify that I'm not racist or sexist in how I would determine who is more valuable; rather, most often valuableness is relative to circumstances.
Also, I'd like if you could distinguish between human and person in your argument. If they are interchangeable, as I am using them for now, that's tautology.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
To argue the next point, humans are similar in a variety of indisputable ways. We are made of atoms. We are made of cells. We are made of similar genetic information. Because of our genetic information we have literally millions of things in common. We are all incapable of surviving in extremely acidic environments like some bacteria. We all equally share the exact probably of dying if we don't have any water for 3 months.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
Comment removed
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
There are simple things like this that premise 2 doesn't account for, but we are nearing the point of the argument in which we will fundamentally differ, and not much can be done to change the others mind. There are two points that we won't agree on.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
1) Our definitions of what it means to be a person will differ, yours being inclusive of z/e/f's and mine being exclusive. I assume that if I could prove to you in some way, hypothetically speaking, that a z/e/f is not a person or human, you would change your mind. In the same way, if you could prove z/e/f's ARE people, I might change my mind. If we did not reevaluate our arguments in this case, we would be incredibly unscientific in our approach.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
If our definitions are different, we won't be able to argue much. My definition of a person requires more than yours I believe. I believe that to be considered a person you must be have sentient qualities, ability to feel emotions, forms of consciousness, etc. I know you will disagree in some way, but how can we fight a definition? I'm not going to argue that a z/e/f doesn't have the genetic info of homo sapien sapiens, but I believe there is much more needed.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
That was my point in saying I could cut off my finger and say it's a human. If all that's needed to be human is for a cell to have human genetic information, then any individual groups of cells could be called human, regardless of what stage of development. It just seems silly to me to say that "it's a unique set of genetic information" or whatever pro lifers argue. Is it that if the genetic information is not unique it loses some important quality?
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
Cancer cells are genetically different from everyone else, including their host, steal nutrients from the host, and are often unwanted and lead to life threatening, and non life threatening health conditions. If cancer cells are that close to z/e/f's, what puts them in a different category to not be defended by arguments that say z/e/f's should be protected because they are unique individuals with human genetic info? I don't think I've addressed your argument, I just ranted.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
But yes, my point was that we can't argue much further on this point if our definitions are so different. The best way to approach it would be to argue our points using the other's definition of what it is to be human or a person. I can argue it, and it has to do with the next area in which pro lifers and pro choicers fundamentally differ.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
And to address your second reply, that's not how I was approaching it. I was simply saying that if the only requirement of something being human is that it contains genetic information of a human, then any individual cells may also be called human. I don't agree with this, I'm simply pointing out a flaw in that definition of human or person. I don't think z/e/f's are as similar as you thought I did to fingers, it was an error in communication.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@rsgirl10 Okay, you hit on the key issue. Our definition of person. Now you state that sentience/emotion are requirements for a person. First, this states that human beings are valuable for their FUNCTION. It is what I can do that makes me valuable. So is some people can do MORE of whatever function you deem valuable, those people would be more valuable than those who cannot do that function as well. So, if sentience makes us valuable, then if i can prove that I have more sentience than you -c-
PhilosophyJunky 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
I’m going to state my responses to the issues you brought up. I think you misinterpreted a lot of what I was saying. If any of the problems you brought up are not addressed in the following points, call me out on it. I am using human and person interchangeably for now. Here are my points:
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
i. You made the mistake of assuming the characteristics I brought up were things I thought that made people more valuable, when I said they were characteristics humans/people must have.
ii. Qualities like sentience do not necessarily make a thing valuable; I was talking about necessary qualities of humans.
iii. Being human is not what makes a thing valuable
iv. I have not yet argued what makes people more valuable
v. A human with more value does not deserve more rights
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@rsgirl10 you should stop using the terms human and person interchangeably, since you are clearly making a distinction. the science proves the humanity of the unborn.
PhilosophyJunky 3 months ago
@rsgirl10 you can't just state 'being human is not what makes a thing valuable. you must offer support for your claim.
PhilosophyJunky 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
vi. You are or aren't human, never *more human* just as you either pass or fail a test. If you have a high grade you don't *pass more* just as you are not *more human* even if the required qualities of being human are more advanced in your case. Say Macs are computers with enhanced qualities of a PC. It would be wrong to say Macs are *more computer-like* than PCs. A PC is just as much of a computer as a Mac, even if Macs have advanced capabilities in what makes them computers.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@rsgirl10 I am not saying that it would make them 'less human' I am saying it would make them less valuable. Which is true. Because if a mac has enhanced computer traits it is a better computer and should be preferred over the lesser computer.
PhilosophyJunky 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
vii. Thus, since you are either human or not, you either have the rights of humans or you don’t. Since you cannot be more human, you cannot have more rights based on that.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
viii. It’s a misconception that while we are sleeping we are't thinking/sentient. In REM sleep we actually emit the same kind of waves as we do when we are fully awake (beta waves). Even in stage four of sleep we have delta waves, which have a much slower wave frequency, but a frequency nonetheless. This means we are thinking during our sleep, and often have as much brain activity as when we are awake.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
Generally I do agree that when something does not have the abilities I will list as requirements of being human, it is not human, and thus should not have the same rights as humans or people do. However, even in unconscious or semi conscious states we are sentient because of the fact that we emit certain wave frequencies. If a person were brain dead, they should not have the same rights as a person, because according to this definition, they are not human any longer.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
Some places in the world legally define death as brain death, and when a person is dead they no longer have the same rights. This has become more popular because it is now possible to revive a person who is not breathing or has no pulse due to medical advances. Thus, my definition of this is also legally sound.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@rsgirl10 but we are not discussing what is legally sound. Death can also be defined as when the masses of cells in the body lose their communication with each other. Thus a human embryo's cells are communicating with each other and is a whole living organims.
PhilosophyJunky 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
ix. Person: a person must of the human race, possess the ability to experience different emotions, must be self-aware & must be able to undergo different levels of consciousness. You'll see that neither brain dead people nor z/e/f’s are included in this definition. However, animals other than humans possess all of these things save the first, which in my opinion is the least important. I'd say that if a thing lacked just the first requirement, it should have some rights.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@rsgirl10 then I am also more valuable than you, and would therefore deserve more rights. These functional capacities you state that give us value can be lost. When I go to sleep, I am no longer sentient. This would mean that I am no longer a person. Unless you want to revise your definition of person to say the "capacity for sentience" instead of what it is right now (immediate sentience). But then you would have to incorporate z/e/f because if you give them time, they also have that capacity.
PhilosophyJunky 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
x. I made my definition of person/human to not include sentient, although I think it’s implied, because I find it is too broad of a word.
xi. These things are not arbitrary – I associate them with people everyday. Again, it’s hard to argue a definition. How can I say that your definition of human is wrong unless it is completely absurd (which I’m sure it won’t be – it will probably be a bit different than mine, that’s all)?
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@rsgirl10 Saying that the definition of what makes people people are the things you associate with people every day is circular logic. You assuming a thing is a person, see what those things have in common, then say that is what makes them people. Things like sentience and emotion are not an all-or-nothing trait. People have varying degrees of these. So if those traits are what make people people, then people with more of those traits would be more valuable.
PhilosophyJunky 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
Holy cow, are you always on? Might have to respond tomorrow.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@rsgirl10 No, I just have a smart phone that notifies me of everything.
PhilosophyJunky 3 months ago
@rsgirl10 If you maintain that it is like passing or failing a test, how are you drawing the line between pass and fail? I see no way you could draw this line without picking an arbitrary amount that you cannot even measure.
PhilosophyJunky 3 months ago
@rsgirl10 I agree that once we agree that z/e/f's are human that the discussion becomes philosophical rather than scientific. Science can tell us what the z/e/f are, but it cannot tell us how we should treat them. I thoroughly believe I can defend my definition of being a human being makes us valuable better than you can defend the definition that sentience/emotion/etc. makes us valuable. Further more, why does sentience matter? This is an arbitrary function. Please defend it.
PhilosophyJunky 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
I will ask you again to please distinguish human & person in your argument, otherwise I've pointed out yet another way in which it is flawed. Also, what do you think of my cancer cell analogy? I think it’s a pretty good one.
I haven't gotten to the bulk of my argument, & I’m hesitant to until we come to some sort of understanding in what each of us are arguing, simply b'c my argument is quite long. So when you’re up for it, let me know.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@rsgirl10 As i stated in my last message to you, I request that we leave this be. I am a very busy person and this is a very big distraction to me as I feel very passionate about this topic and apologetics in general. To answer you last questions: I do not distinguish between human and person. I don't see a problem with this. I know you stated an argument against it but I do not believe the argument holds for a few reasons. A cancer call is not a whole human organism. Please, let's leave it be.
PhilosophyJunky 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
Okay, wow. I'm not making you reply, all you have to do is stop responding, but if you throw a comment out there that I think is flawed, I'm going to say something. Google "tautology", and premise 2 fails.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@rsgirl10 I am well aware of what tautology is. This is not tautology.
PhilosophyJunky 3 months ago
@rsgirl10 You are making the mistake of looking at human beings as things that are constructed piece by piece, whereas in reality a human being is developed from a starting cell that is the whole human being. This is scientifically true. I can readily quote numerous embryology text books and court hearings on this fact. They are quite lengthy, so if you are interested in them I will gladly send them to you in a message.
PhilosophyJunky 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
2) There's an implied assumption that it’s wrong to kill on the prolife stance. I don't believe it’s always wrong to kill. I could elaborate on this point further, & I have a lot more to say, & but I want to make sure you don't mind very long posts. It's also inconvenient writing on a 500 word limit, so if you could suggest a better way of messaging, I'm up for it. I can't seem to pm you. I suppose before I give you my argument, you could address problems with what I've said.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
@PhilosophyJunky
Also, even if premise 1 and 2 were true, conclusion one would not necessarily follow. Premise 3 to conclusion two are structured properly, but as premise 3 is flawed, and conclusion 2 is based on all 3 premises, that argument sucks. Give me a day and I'll look up the kind of fallacy you're making.
rsgirl10 3 months ago
i think that baby crying is a pawn to get ppl to want abortions, lol. i'm pro-life, but why is there a baby there?
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What is the argument for young mothers killing their unborn children? That the child would be born into poverty and abuse, with no one able to give 'proper' care to him/her. My mother was 17 (after Roe v. Wade) when she found out I was growing inside her. She had to drop out of HS and marry my drunk, abusive, drug-using father. But yet, she still gave birth to me, and I was introduced from day one to a world of poverty and abuse.
cornfednebraskaneer 1 year ago
I will admit that there have been some absolutely horrible things I've had to go through, but here I am, 29 years later - happily married with 2 children of my own. What you abortionists are essentially saying is that I shouldn't be alive, nor should my own children. The argument for reducing abortions is incredibly specious as well, when if we truly find abortion to be abhorrent and akin to murder, we would logically only allow it in the event the mother's life is in danger.
cornfednebraskaneer 1 year ago
When do human cells become a person? It seems to be an unanswerable question. A zygote (fertilized egg) is no more or less alive than a sperm, an egg, or a white blood cell. At what point does it stop becoming a collection of cells and become a person and why??
CambridgeHeights 1 year ago
It is an important question and the answer is that if you leave a skin cell or a blood cell it will stay a skin or blood cell, it will never be anything else. However a zygote if given the proper envirenment will grow into a fetus, an infant and toddler and through the human cycle until death. Once a zygote is formed it is on the same path that everyone else is on through life, that is what makes it alive.
themanyhandedmonste 1 year ago
@themanyhandedmonste Theoretically, we can take any cell in the human body, and given the right conditions and factors, can cause it to grow into an adult human being. We've already grown animals from unfertilized cells (cloning). Therefore, each cell in your body is a potential person. And a potential person is not necessarily a person.
CambridgeHeights 1 year ago
@CambridgeHeights Agreed. Anyone looking for more info on this comment can look up things on IPS stem cell research. Very cool.
You can take even skin cells and use them to grow a human... which means like you said, every cell technically has the potential to be a human or person...take from that what you will.
rsgirl10 1 year ago
the whole abortion argument is stupid...if one human mates with another human the whole idea is conception, I mean nowadays we do it for pleasure, but the jist is to have babies. I don't think if two humans mated they would have monkey babies...no most likely they are going to be humans. a human becomes a human once that sperm hits the egg and starts to form the zygote. personally i am christian so, in my mind i was formed long ago.
dominiontakinova 1 year ago
@dominiontakinova the argument IS stupid but for a different reason. anti-abortion ignore what would happen if illegal. doctors would be discouraged to break the law and "rogue" solutions like rivers & dumpsters, coathangers & worse. better by trained staff in a clinic. to deny that IS stupid.
dontcutthebaby8 1 year ago
em i think abortion is really bad for human being in the univers and please destroy abortion for the world wide peace
pspcas12 1 year ago
@pspcas12 and unwanted babys which have a larger chance to grow up to be criminals or associated with crime! way to go world peace idea!
Krane157 1 year ago
@Krane157 First, I would question that statistic.... In Canada and many western countries we don't even believe in the death penalty....why kill the unwanted babies before they've even committed a crime? That seems a little presumptuous. Not a little actually, REALLY presumptuous.
5gf1 1 year ago
@5gf1 good point; however, remember that a fertilized egg is not really a fetus until the 8th week and isnt even a baby when it is first fertilized, so then and in that case, an abortion would just be removing a group of cells from a woman
Krane157 1 year ago
@Krane157 Until the 8th week? Where did you get that idea? The problem is, that everyone has a different opinion on this and doesn't follow science. It's a human being from the moment of conception. Doctors, even abortionist learn that in med school. It doesn't make any sense for something to turn into a human being 8 weeks into it's growth period. Everything else on this planet starts out as the same species. It's alive, growing, has human parents.
5gf1 1 year ago
@5gf1 actually its because the stem cells that the embryo is made of hasnt been programmed to become a baby yet so no its not a baby upon conception its cells upon conception :)
Krane157 1 year ago
@5gf1 Youtube didn't let me finish my comment the other night...In 1988 the canadian government commisioned a group of scientist to state that the embryo was not human to ease the legalization of abortion, the scientist would not agree to do this because it was impossible to disprove that the embryo is indeed human. Therefore the government opted to not include unborn humans as persons. This is the argument that smart pro-abortion advocates use today because it isn't based on faulty science.
5gf1 1 year ago
personally i say abortion is right but still people should take into mind when abortion is fine and when it is not. abortion is a great thing if there is a pregnant rape victim or a baby threatens the health of the woman however it should not be used as a crutch. mainly its the womens choice to get an abortion and nothing should affect of influence her to do or not do sed abortion, but there has to be a line in which people draw to stop women and men from having sex and relying on only abortion.
Krane157 1 year ago
@Krane157 Why? If it's right and only the woman's choice, why can't she have sex all she wants and rely on abortion?
5gf1 1 year ago
@5gf1 because its also dangerous, say if an abortion is unsafe or is by a cheap doctor with poorly cleaned tools then she may contract infections, also its way too costly to do it all the time. im not saying its something a woman should not go near the idea of it but they cant just do it fluently
Krane157 1 year ago
@Krane157 Well if it's really dangerous why aren't we being told? You NEVER hear of abortions going wrong these days, are you saying that it's being covered up? Plus, here in Canada abortions are covered by health care and it looks like that's happening in the states now too...soo, whats the big deal?
5gf1 1 year ago
@5gf1 do some research on the internet, there are places where cheap and unsafe abortions happen.
Krane157 1 year ago
@Krane157 @5gf1 Ok so someplaces. But theoretically, if every abortion was safe and covered by health care would you still have a problem with it? You said that there has to be a line which people draw to stop women and men from having sex and relying on only abortion. I'm from Canada where the majority of abortions are "safe" (so says the media and doctors) and it's covered by health care. If it's just like any other medical procedure...why draw a line?
5gf1 1 year ago
I would love to debate her. She would look like a fool.
ANDREWSABAT 1 year ago
BORING!
marliestrim 2 years ago
How about the hundreds of thousands of miscarriages that occur each year...is God not the biggest abortionist of them all?
pineappleboy1 2 years ago
God is the author of all life not humans. People die all the time (and so you would say God "kills" them.) Does that somehow justify murder? No. That is why pro-lifers believe that life is from God and sacred and that humans cannot decide who lives and who dies.
5gf1 2 years ago
well god doesnt really lead by example does he...baby murderer.
pineappleboy1 2 years ago
In both your posts you have admitted that God exists and that abortion is wrong. So I am gathering that you don't actually want to debate abortion but whether or not God is good. Well, abortion is an interesting place to start that discussion.
5gf1 2 years ago
So when God murders a baby is that right?
pineappleboy1 2 years ago
From a Christian perspective, yes it is. (Although I don't agree with your definition of murder to include God, I would say it applies to humans taking innocent human lives) As I said before, God gives life so God can take life. Everyone dies whether it is in their first 9 months or 100yrs God takes everyone's life. We are made to die and continue our life with God in heaven. Man does not give or create life therefore he can not take it.
5gf1 2 years ago
@5gf1 Thing is we live in America- Separation of church and state.. so God should have no control over my body.
alexa4691 2 years ago
Well, I wasn't the one to initiate this debate about what God has to do with it. pineappleboy1 was. I was just explaining what a Christian would say to his remark.
This is really a debate about human rights. Regardless of the separation of church and state, the state and the church both still uphold some of the same moral values. Murder for example is condemned by both. Furthermore, regardless of where in the world you live, there still exists objective truth and inalienable human rights.
5gf1 2 years ago
The fact is, hundreds of thousands of human beings are losing their lives through abortion. Regardless of where you live and what the law says, what the church says, that is wrong. It can't be right for some people to kill a baby and wrong for others. The right to life is the fundamental human right upon which ALL others are based. History shows that America likes to pick and choose who gets the right to life. Slaves, Native Americans, the unborn, all have been denied their right to life.
5gf1 2 years ago
Don't put too much faith in your country and government alexa4691, they've been wrong in the human rights department before.
5gf1 2 years ago
yes it really true
pspcas12 1 year ago
good idea
i think so
pspcas12 1 year ago
no god is love all of us why u said like this
pspcas12 1 year ago
@5gf1
Proove that your god exists. Well, in a court of law, if i saw someone dying in the street and i walked past and refused to help them, i would be charged with manslaughter as i didn't get them help when they needed it. But, there is a double standard when it comes to your god, right?
You're actually using "god" in an argument against abortion? what if you're arguing with an atheist, you think they're gonna take you seriously??
Catlover123445 2 years ago 2
I might've taken you seriously before you confuse the legality involving lax reprocussions on breaking the good samaritan clause with intentional pre-meditated murder
Keatrocity 1 year ago
You go girl!! Awesomely said. :)
alathem02 2 years ago
So what do you do when you're pregnant, and every doctor you talk to tells you that the pregnancy will kill both you and the child? Go ahead and let both die? Oh, and not to mention you already have a child to care for...should the already born child go motherless for a child that won't be born?
gcdcman81 2 years ago
This is a different case altogether. When the life of the mother is in danger the intervention can be taken which may cause the baby to die. For example, a woman is pregnant and finds out she is suffering from uteran cancer the only remedy being to remove her womb. The intention here is to save the mother with the side effect being the death of the baby. While this is a very unfortunate situation the intention is not to destroy the life of the baby but to save the mother.
5gf1 2 years ago
@5gf1 u r soooo right
tonygmilan7 2 years ago
gcd:
That is extremely rare for a woman and the child both to die. However, that dr. is to try and save both lives. If that will not work, of course the mother will be saved.But this happens from 2% of all abortions! So are you saying that abortion should be legal only for the health of the mother, or are you saying all abortions should remain legal?
alathem02 2 years ago
In my opinion, I think abortion should be looked at in a case by case basis. I do not support abortion, however, I do understand that there are some cases where it is viable. I don't think mothers should abort just because they don't want the child. There are plenty of good people that would like to adopt these unwanted and aborted children. As for a legal standpoint, I think there should be strict guidelines for it to be legal.
gcdcman81 2 years ago
@gcdcman81. I agree with your statement about abortion should not happen just because they do not want it. Also there is a difference between elective and therapeutic abortion. What is being argued her is that elective abortions are wrong.
waterplo12 1 year ago
is there a freaking baby in the crowd??
grimess66 2 years ago
Where is the rest of this debate? This video is not really a debate, it's one argument.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
Unfortunately, the girl I debated asked to have her part of the debate taken off of youtube. Goes to show how confident she was in her argument...
5gf1 2 years ago
i never get involved in abortion debates...they are never ending debates and i dont want to be one of those little dots out of the tons of others just debating back and forth b/c no one ever wins nor it never ends...fuck it
burgersforreal 2 years ago
Then why did you watch this and why are you debating debating abortion?
5gf1 2 years ago
to share my mind to others and maybe they will have the same thing on mind..
burgersforreal 2 years ago
well done Gabrielle.
Donnybrook10 2 years ago
People say you have a choice to be good or evil, yet there is always talk of gods plan. Everything is part of gods plan so how does that leave any choice if everything is already planned out? It doesnt. Do you really believe that all that goes on in this world is already planned by some supreme being? A child gets raped and is cut up into pices by some sick individual, hundreds of children die everyday from disease and hunger, children left without parents due to war. Some plan huh?
thatnewguy84 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My video detroys all pro-abortion arguments
just click my name and see
bj07bran7 2 years ago
Just gonna make my own rebuttal: there's no argument whether a fetus is alive or not; and there are no regulations on killing any sort of living organism.
Also, I feel that this anti-abortion argument tries to fit the circumstances to the law, rather than the law to the circumstances i.e., blindly stating that abortion is the murder of a human being, when the law is perfectly open to exceptions (sorry if that sounds really sick XD).
Daruqe 2 years ago 2
"There are no regulations on killing any sort of living organism" ?? I don't know where the hell you are from? But in my country you can't murder your 2 yr old. I take that as a regulation! There are no exceptions to murder under the law. There are exceptions to killing persons, ie self defense. This does not fit the abortion argument. "there's no argument whether a fetus is alive or not." Did you watch the video? That is an argument that the fetus is alive.
5gf1 2 years ago
Whoops. I actually can't remember what i was talking about when i said there are no regulations on killing any sort of living organism. i THINK i meant that just because something is alive, killing it isn't murder (you can kill bugs all you want). And i when i say there's no argument as to whether it is alive, i mean that it falls under the scientific definition of life at all stages, but the law's concern has to be whether it counts as a human life.
Daruqe 2 years ago
There aren't regulations on killing any living organism. Is a tree not a living organism? There are no regulations on killing those. You act as if human beings are the only living things.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
There are regulations on killing certain living organisms....simple. The law is concerned whether the fetus is a "person" under the law. How a human is not a person beats me. Same argument used to defend slavery in earlier centuries.
5gf1 2 years ago
I never said a fetus is not a person. That is not the issue if you're discussing the legality of abortion. The morality and legality of abortion are separate issues.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
continuum, this word is key.
sarahgoodenough 2 years ago
the one guy has a stick up his ass
berlin45ers 2 years ago
abortion is bad no question. it is not up to the mother to kill a potential person. its just as bad as killing an adult. think about it. your mother could have killed you before you even had a chance. think about all those people who never had a chance because they were aborted. its an evil thing to do.
MrMustang13 2 years ago
no not really :P you're so dumb
WizzMasterZero 2 years ago
no what? explain yourself
MrMustang13 2 years ago
I hate this predestination/predetermination bs type of argument. Think about this, if you were never born you would never have the chance to think about how bad it is to have never be born. The reason death is so scary is the whole concsiousness thing, which isn't achieved even on a very basic level until around the beginning of the 2nd trimester. Up to 50% of embryos die naturally. So what? You could have easily not made it out alive anyways. I think your argument is so very invalid.
schmuckyou 2 years ago
Your consciousness argument strikes me as odd. Are you inferring that you know when consciousness begins? Science has not postulated when thsi begins, so how woudl you decide this? And that the presence of consciousness is what determines the sanctity of a life? Strange argument. The abortion debate need not be a religious one. Is ending the life of another human being wrong? If you think no, then that's the debate, not abortion. If you believe there is nothing after this life, (more)
Donnybrook10 2 years ago
Also, if you want to play the 'what if' game how about if your dad and mom never met. Or what if Hitler's parents would have had an abortion! Pondering these things is one thing but I have heard no evidence to deny women the right to abortions. I just can't see how terminating a life with no concsiousness and no central nervous system (no ability to feel pain) is worse than, say, sending a cow to the slaughter (note that I love meat).
schmuckyou 2 years ago
if my parents never met i wouldnt of been born but that would of been better than my mom killing me before i was born. it is not a mothers choice to kill her son or daughter its gods.and it doesnt matter whether the unborn child can feel pain or not, its like stealing the chance of that potential person to live the life we are living.if you dont want the baby dont kill it put it up for adoption. also god put animals on this earth for food . unlike a people.its gods choice to kill people not ours
MrMustang13 2 years ago
Yeah...but...there's no god...Haha that's my problem with many that debate against abortion. But, I'm glad you're fine with your god aborting so many children (i.e. natural causes). Anyways to make myself clear I don't really see the difference between never being conceived and being aborted in the very early stages. And this mythical god you speak of definitely will not have an impact if you want to convince me otherwise.
schmuckyou 2 years ago
ok, say there is no god,i just want to mention this subject, but say there is no god when you and i die we'll die and thats that. but say there is a god, which there is, ill go to heven and frankly youll go to hell im sorry to say. also never being concieved is saying you where never supposed be alive. but being aborted is your supposed to be alive but being killed before you had a chance.
MrMustang13 2 years ago
Supposed to be alive? Obviously another argument that would only work with someone that believed in God... Enjoy heaven for me! FYI: even if I believed the God of the bible was real I still wouldn't worship him. He sounds like such an evil little prick. Also, why would an all powerful God want us to waste our lives worshiping him? Is he that vein?
schmuckyou 2 years ago
he wants us to worship him and to live a happy good life so we could live forever in the kingdom of heven. and you know what if your mom or dad were killed wouldnt you want the murderer to suffer forever? and fyi:gods not evil the devil is. and if you dont believe that either watch the exersist. based on a true story!
MrMustang13 2 years ago
Wow you're pointing towards the 'exersist' for your proof of God. Funny on multiple levels. Ok, so good try at pulling some emotional bullshit. You said I'd go to hell for not believing in this mythical dude. That's the problem, I believe I'm a very kind and loving person. I try hard not to bring harm to others. So...I'm glad I'm lumped in with killers. FYI: there's no after life. Grow up. Make peace with knowing when you die there will be eternal slumber. Doesn't seem that bad I think.
schmuckyou 2 years ago
god and satan = the same sick twisted, perverted, child raping, sheep shaggin fuck!
proof: evil, rapists, paedos, murderers, disease, child death, stillborn babies...
need i go on cos seriously theres enough wrong with the worldto keep me busy for millenia.
if god loves everything then why is there so much evil and suffering. and dont blame the devil because god made him in the 1st place so its still his fault. he could have cleaned up his mess by now!
ragordon168 2 years ago
god gives you the choice of being good or bad. why would he want people who wants to be bad in heaven. he doesnt. he wants only good people there. and there is suffering because if the people that went threw that stayed good then they would be rewarded heaven. now i know i wont change your mind and you wont change mine i am just defending my belief.
MrMustang13 2 years ago
fair do's i wont fault you on defending what you believe is right.
if god loves every single person wouldnt we have a better tolerence for the temptations of evil.
i dont know about you but does the short time humans can live for not seem enough to decide the fate of your eternal soul? if you dont meet the criteria for heaven do you think you should get a 'do-over' to try get in or if your bad thats it your screwed.
obv murderers and rapists shouldnt gt it jst the light sinners.
ragordon168 2 years ago
it all depends on the sercumstances. if you enjoy killing then you dont deserve a second chance. if your in the army or your defending yourself thats a differant story. if your truely sorry for what sin you did you are forgiven
MrMustang13 2 years ago
i didnt say the exercist was the proof of god but the proof of the devil. and you know what why would more than half the world believe in a god if it was all fake. are you seriously saying that the world is stupid for beleving a god? i know you didnt say it in those words but i know what you ment.
MrMustang13 2 years ago
Ah well then since you spelled it right and made it proof of another mythical bastard I guess you are right. First of all, majority doesn't work in mental institutions. Second, I don't think it's that weird that so many believe in God. People want to believe there is something bigger in life guiding us. It's very human. It's just also very illogical. It's kinda like how all parents think they have smart attractive children. Easy to believe in that type of thing. Get my point?
schmuckyou 2 years ago
Also, at one point the majority believed that that earth was the center of the universe after evidence showed that was false. The majority also believed it was perfectly acceptable to have blacks as slaves. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. So, yeah, I don't see your argument as anything more than pointless. People still believe because it's comforting for those scared of facing a structureless existence.
schmuckyou 2 years ago
That wasn't a debate....what happened to the other side?
pctopgs 2 years ago
even a "out-of-the-womb-baby" isnt yet able to survive on its own. like most mammal babies it cant survive without the mother feeding it and giving her love. But if a mother cant fully give herself to tha baby because she didnt want it in the first place it can be at least psychologically damaging. so why not wait for the right time be fully there for the child?
monkfishseye 2 years ago
but what about adoption, if the birth mother can't care for it, why not give it away to parents who can? its better to give a child a chance, rather than just take it away. but that's just my view, i understand where ur coming from too =/
everyoneluzhewie 2 years ago
apoption, sure. But besides not many people apopting a child rather than making one, adoption is not a solution to this debate. Just turn the number of abortions into number of orphans, plus the ones that are already here. I doubt that there is the capacity of good orphanages first of all.
I would like to see a fertile debate about when human life begins or what really makes a human a human: is it the DNA?, brainfunction?, a cute smile?
monkfishseye 2 years ago
because adoption houses more often then not worse places then the orginal home, fuck you're dumb.
WizzMasterZero 2 years ago
@everyoneluzhewie WTG!! do you know adoption agencies and CPS gets federal funding and charge adoptive parents over $40,000.00 per infant.Why do you think they have so many now sitting in their agencies.People can't afford to pay the fee.So now the two groups get federal funding that we as tax payers have to pay.The more unwanted in their agencies the more funding they get and the more we pay in taxes. So WTG in promoting the selling of the unwanted.
ashatbulaparanormal 10 months ago
less abortions equal more crime.
ANDREWSABAT 2 years ago
Unfortunately that is true.
Statistics show that the extra millions of babies of unmarried mothers or born to poor families would have likely grown up to become criminals.
It has beem statistically proven that the cohort that would have been born in the early and late seventies were not alive in the late 1990's due to abortion and therefore were not alive to commit more crime.
Sad but true.
swansandtyphus 2 years ago
NO, more people equal more crime.
deeeebs1234 2 years ago
obviously...
i bet if you reduce world population in half, you would also cut crime roughly in half as well...
but i don't think many people would use the killing of around 3 billion people as a means for cutting down crime.
no offense, but i don't think that's a good argument.
elnegrobembon 2 years ago
That said, how do you enforce an absolute prohibition on abortion? Millions of abortions are performed every year so millions of women, doctors, nurses, boyfriends, husbands, friends and family would have to incarcerated every year for abortion which is murder according to any anti-abortion campaigner I have ever argued with.
Who is going to build the vast prisons to house all these people if they are convicted? Where is the money supposed to come from?
The problem is too big to solve.
swansandtyphus 2 years ago
Because the act of abortion would have been legal and people were led to believe that it was ok. It is true that too many people were involved and that is why the only way we could deal with the past is by moving on and giving everyone a clean slate, to start fresh. The fact that anti-abortionists see the act as murder doesn't mean that the doctors, nurses, boyfriends, husbands, and friends involved in abortion believed they were murdering someone. They were misinformed and need to know.
rozlin88 2 years ago
They were not misinformed.
They knew they were terminating a pregnancy and a human life.
Anti-abortionists wouldn't care anyway.
They would say murder is murder.
Does giving everyone a clean slate mean that all abortions prior to a hypothetical date of 31 Dec 2009 are legal and the perpetrators go free but when the ban is introduced on 1 Jan 2010 all those people go to jail for life or in most American states would be sentenced to death for murder?
That's fucking bullshit.
swansandtyphus 2 years ago
it's not THAT big of a problem... at least not in my mind.
just make abortion illegal, shut down all abortion clinics, and fine, and possibly jail, anybody who tries to do it illegally.
just like we have laws against drugs, murder, theft, etc.. make some against abortion.
obviously we can't retroactively convict everybody who's ever had an abortion, but we can establish new laws to prevent more abortions from happening.
elnegrobembon 2 years ago
way to be open minded
dhcrazy333 2 years ago
way to contribute positively to the debate, by not just making worthless sarcastic comments and actually arguing for/against a point.
elnegrobembon 2 years ago
why wouldnt i be sarcastic, your comment was so close minded and just plain wrong. i dont need to put my input here, but i can call u out on your horrible idea
dhcrazy333 2 years ago
hmmm...maybe you could take the less lazy route and actually add something to the debate by explaining how i'm closed-minded..
otherwise, simple sarcastic comments like that are pretty much pointless and quickly forgotten...
i would actually like for you to point out where i was closed-minded so i can see other people's point of view and do something about it...but worthless comments like those don't help..
elnegrobembon 2 years ago
i was not seeking to add anything. u were being close minded because you jumped to your one conclusion that abortion should be illegal and people should be jailed, take big action, etc. there are multiple sides to the story. before making your comment think about the other side LOGICALLY instead of sticking to your one side without listening to the other. im done here
dhcrazy333 2 years ago
"i was not seeking to add anything." that's obvious, but in this kind of issue, everybody thinks that the other side is closed-minded.
in my pov, it's really simple. if murder is illegal, why shouldn't abortion be illegal?
it's perfectly logical from my perspective.
if you think i'm being closed minded, it's on you to explain how... otherwise, like i said... it's pointless to just make that kind of statement..
elnegrobembon 2 years ago