Hehe, we can have tampon or pad funerals. There should be a law that every woman must submit her used pads and tampons to make sure that embryo or excuse me person got a right to a funeral.
If a woman's body naturally prevents implantation and thus the killing of a person, should all women be in jail. Oh wait that's why our monthly cycle is so dirty and in the Bible men have to avoid a woman during and up to 7 days after her period and that women are property because we're natural murderers.
How dare you impose your belief that rape is wrong on me, if you don't like rape then don't rape anyone but don't tell people what they can and cannot do.
Well your point of view is definently pro-choice. Although through most of the video you stuck to the personhood arguement, but At 3:12 you stated that no one thinks that life begins at conception. This is wrong. I am a biology grad student and I have a pro-choice professor major. I asked him if I was correct in believing that according to biology a new life began at conception and he agreed. But just like you he believes that not all human life should get thre repect of personhood.
"you don't law at all, hell you don't even know that 13th amendment is about"
The Supreme Court, the government body charged with the task of interpreting the constitution, is a body made up of people far more intelligent and comprehensive than either you or I. You put yourself before them, saying you understand the constitution better than they. And then you skip right over my acknowledgement of Roe v. Wade, claiming I ignored it.
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. writes: "The underlying premise in the arguments pro-abortionists give against fetal personhood is that non-persons can change into persons. They are saying that a living being can undergo a radical, essential change in its nature during its lifetime. But there is a logical problem here. If the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature. This is because if the being naturally initiates the change,
It must be in its nature from the beginning to do so. If it is in its nature to do so, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life. This means that if we are persons with the right to be free from aggression later in life, we are persons even at conception." "A False Assumption," Libertarians for Life,
@teton99 From that same premise I should be entitled to senior benefits from the get go. Because it is a biologically inevitable change from conception and not a change in essential nature.
I do not consider fetuses "People" until they can act like one. Usually around 3-ish.
@teton99 From that same premise I should be entitled to senior benefits from the get go. Because it is a biologically inevitable change from conception and not a change in essential nature.
I do not consider fetuses "People" until they can act like one. Usually around 3-ish
Please support our new Christian Political Party in TN ChristianPartyTn . com Our goal is to end abortion, end gay marriage, lower the tax rate to 10%, etc. God Bless America!
HAHAHAHAHA this video sure does a good job repeating all the same ole pro-abort talking points. For a video daring to call itself "reality check" they sure are lacking in the reality arena.
Birth control means controlling births. Does the woman have the right to decide when to reproduce? The woman literally controls this function and before 24 weeks there is zero chance of the fetus living outside her womb. If she decides to abort, who can argue with her?? It is her body and her fetus, her life choice, her consequences. That's why choice is best, it should NOT be a government decision.
Sure, I agree. Women do have the right to choose when to reproduce; when they have sex. If you're willing to have sex, you should be willing to accept any consequences as such. I'm not totally against abortions, and not near foolish enough to assume I can tell a woman what to do with her body. It does, however, piss me off any less that people aren't willing to accept goddamn consequences anymore.
I was pretty good with all of this, despite respectfully disagreeing with most of her view, up until she said "Unless they're looking for a reason to restrict women's rights." And then I realized I was listening to a feminazi.
@Orjahlian Soooo, to you if a woman doesn't want her rights stepped on that makes her a Nazi?? Forcing women to give birth against their will...is this YOUR Utopian idea??
Nah, my utopian ideal is a place where people aren't hyper-fucking suspicious about everything. "THIS DOESN'T GO WITH WHAT I WANT AS A WOMAN THAT'S SEXISM" or "OH THIS DOESN'T SUPPORT MY RACE THIS IS RACIST" both piss me off.
Get the broom out of your ass, you self-pretentious bitch.
lmfao...who the fuck are u to call others pretentious? YOU are the one getting anal about others sex lives.
Wanting to take away a womans right IS sexist..doesnt matter if its from a pissed male that cant get any or a fat woman that needs to suck up to men in hopes of getting any.
It's a womans body, a womans choice. But I guess you have more respect for humanity than say amnesty int'l or WHO---both of which are prochoice
The point I was TRYING to make is that just because someone is pro-life, doesn't mean their sexist and have some sort of hidden "OPPRESS ALL WOMEN" agenda as this retarded bitch implies. The fact that you dipshits can't accept the slightest hint of responsibility is totally unrelated to my original message.
yes, you DO want to "OPPRESS ALL WOMEN" with you're bullshit morality.
abortion IS taking responsibility, you just DON'T approve of it---when abortion is a civil and constitutionally supported (13th and 14th amendment) right.
your bullshit morality has nothing to do with rights----talk to a lawyer!
Oh! I'm sorry, give me a few minutes to parse your horrid English. You meant to say "your bullshit morality." Which still doesn't make a whole lot of sense when it gets down to it.
13th amendment? You mean the one that abolished slavery? You're being very liberal in your interpretation of that one. Now the 14th amendment I could see being interpreted as such, but even then it's a very thin argument.
thank you for conceding, because you had really nothing to attack my position with except for your bullshit morality against another citizen's will, civil, and constitutional (13th and 14th amendment) right to have an abortion.
you don't even know how your constitution works.
13th: said that involuntary servitude w/o due process is prohibited, so there is no law preventing a woman from having an abortion= NO DUE PROCESS= abortion is CONSTITUTIONAL.
But you're implying it's a guaranteed right, which is downright retarded.
And I conceded that you weren't a faggot, but simply a zeitgeist nut. I wouldn't really like to use an ad hominem argument here, but it's really hard to listen to and believe someone who thinks the world is controlled by a secret society.
really? then why did you write this: "You're being very liberal in your interpretation of that one." = an indirect denial of how OUR constitutions on YOUR part.
and NOW, again another lame-ass childish attack calling me a faggot and talking about my beliefs because YOU CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG! BTW, that you are doing is an ad hominem attack called "poising the well" and most ppl can right thought it.
I'm bitching about your comprehension and your English. So let's try this one more time, and I'll make it as clear as I can.
The actions leading up to pregnancy are obvious, and rape cases aside, are 100% voluntary. Therefore, it does not fit the definition of "involuntary" servitude.
Honestly I don't know how many times I've repeated this, and if you can't get it through your thick skull there's absolutely no hope for you.
ok, again maybe you should study CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BEFORE BITCHING ABOUT my comprehension--- which, is nothing more that an strawman attack because you can't defeat me with logic and laws.
again, states has no LEGAL AUTHORITY OVER A WOMAN'S PREGNANCY UNTIL VIABILITY AT THE STATE'S DISCRETION, THEREFORE FORCING A WOMAN TO STAY PREGNANT= INVOLUNATRY SERTIVUDE.
IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE 13TH AMENDMENT.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WOMAN GETTING PREGNANT BUT THE STATE OVER HER BODY
" Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
AND THAT SUPPORTS ABORTION AND OTHER THING THAT STATE HAS NO RIGHTS OVER YOUR BODY W/O DUE PROCESS.
you can't even prove your own argument, but don't worry, just because you don't know wtf you're talking about when it comes to abortion----doesn't mean we all don't. :)
Once again, let me tell you, the supreme court has yet to accept that argument to this date. They've accepted the constitutional right to privacy as an argument for abortion, but not the amendments which you so adamantly refer to. The law is on my side, there.
Your comprehension skills are coming into question, AGAIN, because you can't seem to COMPREHEND the arguments I put forth, or just blatantly ignore them.
"supreme court has yet to accept that argument to this date"
what? it doesn't need them....it's COMMON SENSE: THERE IS NO LAW FORCING A WOMAN TO STAY PREGNANT AGAINST HER WILL, CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BEFORE VIABILITY HINT: ROE VS WADE, IF THE STATE DOES THAT, IT'S A VIOLATION OF 13TH AMENDMENT'S INVOLUNTARY SERTIVUDE.
you don't law at all, hell you don't even know that 13th amendment is about.
the 13th is about what the state CANT do to you, duh!
" Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
13th amendment.
so roe vs wade + 13th amendment= forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will, civil, constitutional rights before viability is a violation of the 13th's involuntary sertivude ....it's pretty fucking simple.
"you don't law at all, hell you don't even know that 13th amendment is about"
The Supreme Court, the government body charged with the task of interpreting the constitution, is a body made up of people far more intelligent and comprehensive than either you or I. You put yourself before them, saying you understand the constitution better than they. And then you skip right over my acknowledgement of Roe v. Wade, claiming I ignored it.
Now, even though the law is on my side there, let me ask you once why it should be that voluntary sex, leading to pregnancy, should be considered involuntary servitude?
If you refuse to answer this question a third (or was it fourth?) time, I'm going to assume you're a dumbass who's baiting me for the fun of it. In which case, bravo.
"you can't even prove your own argument, but don't worry, just because you don't know wtf you're talking about when it comes to abortion----doesn't mean we all don't. :)"
Big words coming from a man who ignores his opponent's arguments, can't spell, and cites improperly.
I've displayed both conventional logic, not relying on the opinion of other's to fuel it, and, corrected your ignorance to the fact that the law is not on your side. Your turn.
These are not abortion laws. These are amendments to the constitution, and even if they did deal with abortion (they don't), to call them abortion laws would be misleading at best, and downright fucking retarded at worst.
Your comprehension skills are in question because they are what helps someone interpret writings; you consistently failed to note my argument, and repeated the same mantra over and over. You think you can interpret the mother-fucking constitution?
@Orjahlian I I may be walking into the mine field here but, why should abortions be illegal then? I'm not really gong to go back and read 7 + pages of comments on you tube.
Please keep in mind that there is a separation of church and state in the US. So any reason dealing with a what ever belief system you are apart of isn't a vaild enough reason.
Not at all. You're seemingly less retarded than most of my debate subjects thus far. It's nice to change up partners, innit?
I never claimed they should be illegal, especially not when considering the few cases of rape etc. that actually happen.
By-the-by, I am an atheist.
Now, my argument is more along the lines of defending a human life. But before you say "IT'S JUST A FETUS LOL" it still qualifies as a life form, one that I believe deserves a chance at life.
I base that argument on the fact that it will, if it doesn't already, qualify as a human. It is a direct product of a voluntary action, and there are alternatives to keeping it if one can not afford to raise it.
Now, this is affected by my atheist views, but as I believe in no higher cause or being, I only have humanity's interests at heart. I believe human life is sacred seeing as it's only going to be lived once. To terminate one early is a cruel a fate as any.
@Orjahlian It's pretty hard to write a law based on view of what may happen, or more likely in this case what something maybe come. To me it is almost like saying that it would be fine to put away a young child that steals after they become an adult because they will be a thief when they are older.
I will always stand by another human beings right to choice, and especially in a matter as personal as this.
By the way, thanks for the back handed comment about me seemingly less retarded.
You're welcome. Don't take it personally; believe it or not it was a compliment.
And it's true, it's hard to base a law on what may happen, or may not. No arguments there. It was actually quite a relief to see someone not regurgitate bullshit.
You're welcome. Don't take it personally; believe it or not it was a compliment.
And it's true, it's hard to base a law on what may happen, or may not. No arguments there. It was nice to see someone not regurgitating bullshit; like this fellow.
How does that have nothing to due with what you cited? It says "Involuntary servitude without due process is prohibited" not "voluntary servitude."
I'd try to argue with the rest of your post but dear lord I don't understand it. You're contradicting yourself in half of it, misspelling everything, and dear lord your grammar is atrocious.
wow, again you know NOTHING about OUR constitution...13th said that involuntary servitude W/O due process is prohibited, duh!
NO law preventing abortions= No due process= abortion is constitutional.
before RvW, there were unconstitutional laws= they couldn't use the 13th....but those laws were overturned by RvW= now abortion is supported by the 13th, duh!
you don't know due process is? RvW was roe( norma) due process rights.
Honestly your lack of comprehension skills is amazing. Just a quick FYI, there's a difference between being a good debater and being too retarded to understand your opponent's position and declaring yourself the winner.
Now, if you want to use Roe v Wade, it's supposed to balance the interests between prenatal life and that of the mother, and seeing as 90% of abortions are done out of convenience rather than necessity, this seems like unbalanced interests.
Pregnancy is servitude? Well, while it technically fits the definition, it certainly doesn't meet the "involuntary" standard. Consensual sex is hardly "involuntary."
Sounds like you really don't know how to interpret the English language, to be honest, let alone the constitution. I mean, I've never heard of "Due process" being synonymous with abortions.
Speaking of legal arguments, by the by, no U.S. court has accepted that "13th amendment grants abortion rights" bullshit, either. So far the law disagrees with you, it seems.
Also, I'm going to start a drinking game based off this argument. Every time you use the phrase "your bullshit morality" I'll take a shot. I'll be hammered by the time this is over.
Now to take you on a very, very short look into history on the origins of law, which is mostly based upon, and rooted in morals!
Now if you're going to try to cite the constitution again, I want you to read it, and find me lines that guarantee an abortion. I mean, really, that's just silly. Try harder, dipshit.
Now try to counter-attack without using a straw man. We'll think of this as a learning experience, shall we?
Actually, I take that back. You're not a faggot. I just noticed your profile, you have a much worse disease. I'm very sorry to hear that you're a Zeitgeist nut. :(
What makes a person a person? Is a person different that a human? A human would be characterized by their DNA structure...one that no other species fully contains. A human has all of their DNA for every developmental stage of life at CONCEPTION. A fetus is fully human...just because you claim it isn't a person doesn't hold a fair argument. For the comment below that asks whether or not delivering a baby should be forced on a woman...the answer is yes..don't have sex if you can't pay the price!
@surgicalbassist Let me guess, you're against birth control, you're a man and since you've pulled the DNA argument...each and every egg and sperm has its own DNA. Does that make eggs and sperm also people? Is a man committing mass murder every time he ejaculates? Is a woman responsible for the eggs that aren't fertilized?
@Kolibri2005 Wrong you are! I am not against birth control...although I do find it very harmful to women to take birth control. yes, I am a man..and I pulled the DNA argument...the argument which you didn't fully understand I guess. A fertilized egg has a fully human DNA structure..therefore is fully human. An unfertilized egg, and or sperm, only have HALF of a human DNA structure. Therefore not human. Otherwirse it would be genocide to ejaculate or have a period.
@surgicalbassist Errrr, most cells in your body have a "fully human" DNA structure, but that doesn't make each one of them a human (noun), only human (adjective). These cells are alive (adjective), but they are not each a life (noun).
@madoogliani errr...the fertilized egg as a whole is a human(noun). abortion doesn't destroy human(adj) parts, it destroys the human(noun). Cells can be removed and destroyed..happens all of the time on a daily basis with every human/non-human...destroying cells without destroying the entire being isn't at question...the destruction of the ENTIRE human(noun) is the issue.
@surgicalbassist I disagree. A fertilised egg a.k.a. zygote containing a human genome is human, yes, but not _a_ human. It has to make it through many critical stages to become one. To my thinking, a foetus becomes _a_ bonafide person once it physically separates from its mother; becomes a single, independent unit (albeit still dependent, but now on anyone as opposed to only on the one it was inside of). There's no fixed time for this, as the age of birth varies, but 22 wks is earliest atm.
@madoogliani Well, whatever your thinking might be doesn't justify what is ultimately right and wrong! Same goes for my opinion. From your argument one could say that Humans are separated from other species because we can walk upright. Well..Babies don't walk upright! Heck..they can't even crawl! They must not be human. Humans communicate, humans work, humans have fully operational organ systems. Babies don't have all of that yet. They must not be human..lets just kill newborns!
@surgicalbassist But I already agreed that all life-stages are human, adjective, the term you have applied to crawling babies. I have also already indicated a crawling baby is _a_ human, noun, as well, by dint of it having physically separated.
Until a foetus becomes that single-unit-human, it isn't a person, so isn't afforded the same legal status as people. Killing people is wrong, yes, but as foetuses aren't people, then that's not why killing foetuses is wrong. Other reasons, maybe.
Yes and no. Technically, when killing a pregnant lady, the murder is upgraded to a double-homicide, is it not? The fetus is therein granted legal status as a human.
Semi-related note, it seems to me that people think of a developing child as a "Fetus" if it inconveniences them, and a "Baby" if they're willing to accept it. Terribly selfish, innit?
@Orjahlian Not always; can depend if the woman knew she was pregnant or not, how far along etc.
People, because people aren't being rigorous, also use terms like "negative energy" when really, there's no such thing, at least, certainly not in the context they're using it. People who use the term foetus generally mean it and use it accurately; people who use the term baby aren't so particular in their application. Whether you think it is a baby or not, a foetus is still a foetus.
@surgicalbassist Yes, what a surprise, you're a man. A man who feels that women should be punished for having sex, when men get off scot-free. It's not like a man's birth control is ever going to fail. If he gets a disease from a broken condom, you're not going to fight to keep him from getting treated, because it wasn't his fault and that's just silly. We don't give bacteria or viruses any rights (which are more alive (or as alive) as a zygote or early-term embryo).
@Kolibri2005 what a silly argument. If a guy gets a disease from a busted condom...oh well..that's his fault. That is a consequence of having sex. I feel no sorrow for men or women that get STDs outside of marital sex. Bacteria and viruses don't form into children/adults. Bacteria and viruses are mostly harmful and UNAVOIDABLE! And they aren't more alive than an embryo...quit making up "facts". An embryo has a heart beat at 6 weeks! viruses don't!
@surgicalbassist Guess what? You can just as easily get disease from marital sex. Actually, most bacteria are beneficial, or at the very least harmless. Bacteria are, from the first moment of formation, a fully formed being that is capable of reproducing and has all the signs of life. An embryo is not a fully formed life form. Therefore, a bacteria is more alive than an embryo. Viruses are questionable, I'll agree with that.
@surgicalbassist Birth control is often used to treat reproductive diseases, and as long as the woman finds a birth control that matches her body, it isn't particularly damaging. So, now what, you think women shouldn't have sex until they want to get pregnant? Again, what about the men?
@Kolibri2005 Birth control is ALWAYS harmful to a woman's body. Whether is be hormonally, physically, emotionally...no one birth control is ever perfect. There are too many side effects. I am not fully against birth control however...I do think there are SOME benefits. I don't think sex is just meant for babies. I think sex is a very sacred, intimate bonding between a married couple. I have abused that privilege in the past and won't ever agian. My point is though, sex is to be enjoyed...cont...
@surgicalbassist ....by a husband and wife...keeping in mind that there is the possibility for pregnancy. If they choose to use birth control, condoms, whatever method...its all fine and dandy..but they should know that gas can make fire...sperm makes babies!
@surgicalbassist Funny, I'd say sex can be enjoyed by a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, married or not. Marriage has nothing to do with the topic here--stay on topic yourself. No, birth control isn't perfect, but it does have its benefits, like preventing unwanted babies, and therefore lots and lots of otherwise-would-be abortions. Oh, yeah, and um what about...eggs? Those are kind of necessary for babies too you know.
@surgicalbassist You will have to pluck harder than that if you want to convince me that we should all agree that women should be punished for falling pregnant.
Punishment being 9 months of forced labour and an unwanted child at the end of it,
the taking away of autonomous rights to independence, intimacy, and privacy. No woman agrees to sex with the idea of getting an abortion later.
@Salinity1001 Falling pregnant? Like it was an accident? or an airborne virus? When you play with fire...you can get burned! Everyone knows that sex can and does lead to pregnancy. To "fall" pregnant is merely a natural effect to a natural cause. If you have unprotected sex, and get pregnant...you are responsible for that new life. it isn't forced labor..the options are clear...no sex=no labor...no contraceptives=baby...pretty simple.......more to come....
if you don't want the child,put it up for adoption.there are plenty of responsible adults out there that are willing to step up and be a decent human being for those who aren't capable! Autonomous rights to independence?Murder is a right?killing something because it is an inconvenience to you is a right? Intimacy?privacy? Grow up! That's life! if you want privacy and intimacy, buy a door lock! If you aren't old enough to accept the responsibility to have a kid, you aren't old enough to have sex!
@surgicalbassist If you dont want the child adoption is an option, and if the female doesn't want to be pregnant abortion is an option.
Murder is not a right, get a dictionary. Killing something in your body is a right. Having sex is life, I'm grown up plenty there's time for you yet.
When you were a teen, you ever go to adult films, smoke, drink, do anything reckless? I'm guessing yes, cos thats the majority. Looking back - hypocrite much?
Is it a case for sex responsibility teaching @ puberty?
@surgicalbassist Oh yeah, because there aren't enough unwanted children in the world already. We take unwanted animals off the street and put them to sleep, because it's kinder than letting them starve, but you think it's more humane to bring a child into the world, then pawn it off onto someone else? I won't even sell my horse for chrissakes; why would I give a child away?
@Kolibri2005 Well I am glad you can tell there is an epidemic sweeping across the world! People aren't responsible. That doesn't mean others have to die for someone else's mistakes. As far as the animal thing, which I agree is sad, two wrongs don't make a right. If will kill starving animals that are DISEASED most of the time, it doesn't make it right to kill babies. I believe it is more humane to put a child up for adoption rather than murder. don't compare apples and oranges..stay on topic!
@surgicalbassist I never said I thought there was any sort of epidemic. My stance is that it's better to put an animal to sleep rather than let it suffer, including strays. And not all strays are diseased--many are not. I'm not comparing apples and oranges, I'm saying that that is my stance. It is more responsible to know what happens to your child than to simply pawn it off on someone else.
@surgicalbassist Pregnancy can often be an accident. Birth control isn't 100% effective, even when used correctly. Even the most careful people will sometimes get very, very, VERY unlucky. Are you going to punish them for being unlucky? As for your stupid fire analogy...in this situation, it's impossible for men to get burned.
@Kolibri2005 Pregnancy is NEVER an accident! Pregnancy by accident would assume that the woman sat on a dirty toilet seat. Or was taking a bath is a dirty bathtub. Or just woke up pregnant because she didn't brush her teeth. When you have sex...you CAN and WILL get pregnant. Its simple science. If you aren't responsible enough for kids, you aren't responsible enough for sex. Men get burned all of the time from sex. Men sometimes have forced child support, no chance to see the child...continued..
@surgicalbassist .....dealing with the pregnant woman for 10 months! Having the ability to carry a child is a woman's privilege, not a curse. Luck has nothing to do with getting pregnant. Luck doesn't exist at all. Life is what YOU MAKE OF IT! If you have sex..you get babies...you get STDs...that's life! If you don't have sex..you don't get those things. Pretty easy equation.
@surgicalbassist You have no right to say carrying a child is a privilege until you are able to carry one yourself. You obviously are more stupid than I gave you credit for, if you believe luck doesn't exist. Tell that to the people who get lung cancer that never smoked. Tell that to the people who just happened to get in the way of a drunk driver. Tell that to the victims of an earthquake that struck. The victims of a tornado. Luck is always part of life.
@Kolibri2005 I'm not even going to respond to most of your comments, for they are uneducated, full of personal bias and not evidence. I will repsond however to the comments about luck. Luck doesn't exist. Its called LIFE. Life happens. Lung Cancer that never smoked...what about breast cancer...prostate cancer...those things don't have causes..sometimes people just get cancer. It is part of life, not luck!
@surgicalbassist ...as far as drunk drivers...stay off of the road if you aren't willing to take risks..it isn't luck..it is LIFE...earthquakes and tornados are indeed disasters that are horrible...but luck has nothing to do with it...it is part of life. if you don't want to be affected by such natural disasters..don't live in tornado alley or on a fault line! grow up!
@surgicalbassist Any person who lives in the REAL world will tell you that luck is a very real part of life. Statistics are the best way we have of mathematically estimating luck, but they only do a half-ass job. Oh, and I live in CT, asshole, it was just an example. And despite that, we have had tornadoes, earthquakes and hurricanes. Is that my fault as well? Of course it is, because luck doesn't exist! Yeah, right, you make so much sense.
@surgicalbassist Now you're just arguing semantics. The word you use to describe it, life or luck, is irrelevant. You do recognize that there are events that happen in a person's life that they have no control over, and many of these are due to "life" or "luck", whatever you want to call it. As such, there are occasions when a person did everything they could to shield themselves from pregnancy and still became pregnant. Way to dodge the point with a semantics argument.
@surgicalbassist Tell you what, when I decide I want to have a kid, you can carry it for me and then tell me how great it was. Until then, stop trying to take away a woman's right to control her own body!
@Kolibri2005 you are very ill informed about the life of an embryo/fetus and your opinion of what makes a human a human is sick and is a very rocky one! I can flip your whole argument around on you and use your views of humans to say that babies aren't fully developed humans...get off of your high horse in thinking that a life is less important than your body..which you clearly take for granted!
@surgicalbassist What if I told you that I thought it was unethical for you to have testicles and not use them as much as possible. You either have to attempt to have a kid every time you have sex, or you have to be castrated. And I want to make it a LAW. That is the position you are attempting to force women into, and we WILL NOT HAVE IT!
@surgicalbassist Flip away. Give me the best you've got; I've got nothing better to do right now. This should be entertaining. To quote my favorite game critic, when it comes to the anti-choice argument, "the level of doofy the doofuses exhibit makes it hard to take seriously." Now, go carry somebody's baby for 9 months and then tell me what a joy pregnancy is.
@teton99 If it is a demand of justice, why would you impose delivering a baby on a woman or girl if the conception was a mistake? Just for ultimate proof?
Why throw hands in the air like a resigned fatalist saying there is nothing I can do. Do we do that with any other possible life changing event?
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.
This is because if the being naturally initiates the change, it must be in its nature from the beginning to do so. If it is in its nature to do so, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life
The underlying premise in the arguments pro-abortionists give against fetal personhood is that non-persons can change into persons. They are saying that a living being can undergo a radical, essential change in its nature during its lifetime.
But there is a logical problem here. If the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature.
Obviously personhood doesn't start at conception, it cannot start before 30 weeks at least, and it would be just a start, so abortion is just a neutral and ok procedure!!
What's insalting is you. You are setting up women for heart ache. Funerals for tampons? You are just sick. People like her put more effort in saving stay cats and dogs lives than human children. Trader! Also not every pro LIFE person is Christan. My sister finds your baby killing to be most disgusting. She's not a Christan. Maybe you should try your scare tactic on some other group.
There's too much dishonesty here to know where to start!
No one disputes that life itself began a very long time ago.
But you have deliberately confused this with INDIVIDUAL unique human lives that indisputably began at conception.
Whilst it's admirable and civilised to protect all human life WHERE POSSIBLE we must retain the common sense to accept that some lives will always be naturally lost ,but that in no way detracts from the fact that all human lives are equally precious and unique..
What a load of bloody shit. Even we know when our unborn baby which my missus is having (and we're both very proud) began it's life. When my sperm fertilized my wife's egg. You lot kill your kids off, you'll just die out while we pro-life people just keep having our babies.
who cares why women have an abortion? if a woman decides she wants to remove an unwanted growth from her own body, then that's betwwen her and her doctor. if you dont like it, dont have one. simple.
@bcmasta1returns it is moraly wrong to abuse REAL children or indeed any REAL people, egg babies are not real, they are just propaganda tools, I,d feed them to a dog. I am at least glad that we agree that one cant force ones oppinions on others, sorry, I thought you you were anti choice.
@bcmasta1returns what is only my oppinion? that child abuse is wrong? actually I think you'll find its the law in every civilised democracy in the world. admittedly it's legal in some backward countries run by religious zealots, (abortion is illegal in those same countries). To compare abusing a REAL child to the removal of an unwanted growth, just shows how little you care for real children.
The only country where abortion is fully illegal is Chile, and I think you will find child abuse is very illegal there. Anyway, you have completely avoided the question. Child abuse is wrong in your opinion like abortion is wrong in mine. What gives you the right to force your opinions on others?
@bcmasta1returns NOTHING gives me me the right to FORCE my oppinions on others, the most you acn accuse me of is defending people's rights to act on their own oppinions. nice try though
@bcmasta1returns you really cant see any difference between the safe and legal jettisonning of an unwanted embryo, and the sexual abuse of children? let's just clear that up
The only difference I see is age and the form of abuse. One is beating or sexually molesting a baby or child and the other is extracting and tearing apart an embryo or fetus.
@bcmasta1returns so you spend your time whinning on youtube about "children" being "torn apart"? SRSLY? what are you going to do if some kills your mum the tday before you get your allowance? write a stern letter to your local radion station?
* I'm guessing you dont believe your own crapaganda
@bcmasta1returns "murder"? you want to discuss murder now? I agree with you on murder it's terrible, if someone was being murdered I would certainly do a lot more than sit around moaning on youtube to prevent it. and "world crisis"? you mean malaria? you could sell your computer and easily save at least ten REAL children easily if you cared, anyway back to abortion good eh
Think about this. Lets say we are not sure when soul/life/humanbeing begins. Should we not always default to saving an unique human life developing in utero? If there is any doubt what so ever? It is a bad argument by saying we should have mini funerals for sperm or ova because by themselves, they would never be a developing unique person.
@cottoncandicane - It is because we are not sure when soul/life/person begins that we defer to the personal beliefs of the individual. There is no doubt, what-so-ever that each person has a personal belief on the matter. It is a bad argument to claim that everyone should have a mini-funeral for a zygote, embryos &/or fetus merely because you have a personal belief system which allows you to believe that a person has died.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Some choicers say that a child does not have person-hood until 2 yrs old. Since you cannot remember really anything before that and since the child is not cognitive. It should not matter how many cells the human life form has in it. The point is, is that the cells that have taken hold inside the womb will never be anything but a person. There are a lot of strawmans in this video, very weak and slighted arguments.
@cottoncandicane - So, different people hold differing beliefs, what does that have to do with anything? The straw-man argument would be the one which involves these elusive "choicers" who believe that actual citizens of this country aren't people... Boo!
@cottoncandicane - Seriously? Are you actually claiming that those of us who are pro-choice do not believe that 2 year old children are persons? Are you for real?
yes, sadly I am. I have read several articles from atheist pro-choicers that have stated due to lack or remembering anything before 2 and no cognizance of self that they are NOT true persons yet.
@cottoncandicane - Hey, it takes all kinds, right? You've read of atheists who think they aren't people & I've read of anti-abortion activists who believe that the biological life of a zygote is more compelling than the life of a woman. Go figure, eh?
kcsorci- compelling than the life of a woman-How could that be? If the woman dies then the baby couldn't be born, both would die. Unless, you are speaking of Lisa Childress- Baylor Health Care System: One woman's ultimate gift- She found out she was pregnant with her baby and that she also has liver cancer. The Dr. advised her to abort since the HGH will cause tumors to grow quickly. She choose her babies life over hers. Wow imagine that self sacrifice.
@cottoncandicane - Ms. Childress, like Tammy Watts, Viki Wilson, Vikki Stella, Lynda Waddington, Susan Ito (who opted to terminate their pregnancies), are stories of how each woman made their own personal decisions regarding their individual pregnancy and self-sacrifice. And is a reminder that no one choice is more "appropriate" or "better" than another and should only be made by each individual pregnant woman, in consultation with her family & doctor(s).
kcsorci - it takes all kinds, right? As a pro-choice advocate when do you think life begins? Why? When does personhood begin and why? This video does not answer that. Why not default on the side of the growing child? What makes a born child anymore important? Why? It is still in stages of developement, right? From zygote,embryo,fetus,baby,toddler,child,preteen, teen,adult. What makes one stage more important than the next, why?
cottoncandicane - My personal beliefs regarding "life" &/or "personhood" are only relevant to me and and my loved ones; I would never suggest that my beliefs should be legislated. We should always, always trust the pregnant woman and "default" on her "side" as her personal beliefs are not only relevant but significant within the realm of her life & her reproduction. That last question of your was quite the strawman; as you're the only person who has suggested that "one stage [is] more important"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
kcsorci- statistics say: 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).The sources I located by google. Sources located in research only go to 2005Census /guttmacher. In cases of rape/incest/medical I can understand more, for convenience, no that is an awful reason/implication!
@cottoncandicane - The myth that women have abortions for "convenience" reasons is a favorite anti-abortion tactic used in order to portray women who terminate their pregnancies as selfish women who think of no one but themselves. The studies done clearly indicate that women consider their families/loved ones (60% of women who terminate their pregnancies have one or more children) and their economic situation when deciding whether or not to bring another child into their family.
@cottoncandicane - You may opine that not being able to care for a(nother) child or being unable to afford a(nother) child are mere inconveniences but rest assure, your opinion is totally irrelevant to those women.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Good reasoning but the pregnancy test actually shows the rise of hormones in your urine to keep the new life alive. I do believe that human life should be protected though. I do believe a new lifeform which is human begins at conception.
@cottoncandicane - Conception is when the sperm & ova unite... pregnancy is when an embryo has successfully attached itself to the uterus of the pregnant woman. So you believe that a "new lifeform" is present prior to a pregnancy? Obviously there is nothing wrong with holding that personal belief, however, you absolutely cannot compel others to lay aside their personal beliefs in order to satisfy yours.
@spastikmunky - Scientifically, a zygote is present prior to pregnancy. Scientifically, a sperm & an ova are present prior to fertilization. Scientifically, germ cells are present prior to gametogenesis. None of this has any bearing on the fact that the pregnant woman is the most qualified person to making decisions regarding her pregnancy.
You forgot to mention that scietifically the zygote is alive and a unique human being. If it dies because it is not attached to life support then that is what happens (simular to when someone gets taken off life support in the hospital) However, once attached in utero it is the mothers obligation to care for the child. This is another LIFE we should ALWAYS choose life. It seems topsy turvy to say kill the innocents even if they are in your body. It's there life too, not just yours anymore
@cottoncandicane - I've absolutely mentioned that they zygote is alive (it's certainly not dead or inanimate) and if the zygote was formed by the union of two human gametes, it would also be considered a human zygote. The zygote is absolutely as alive and human as the sperm & ova which combined to form it. And while it may be your personal belief that women should procreate, I must remind you that no woman is "obligated" to procreate... how you feel about pregnancy is irrelevant to other women.
It is relevant in the murdering of innocents and that makes it my business. The Catholics in Hitlers time should have taken a stand against Hitler. Hitler murdered thousands and it was legal. Women are murdering their babies & that is legal. Just because it is legal does not make it right. Again, it should be a default to life.
@cottoncandicane - It is merely your personal belief that "innocents" are being "murder[ed]" whenever a woman opts to end her pregnancy. Logical fallacies do not make for effective arguments; point in case: comparing the death of an embryo/fetus to people who were literally worked to death, raped, tortured, shot en mass and buried while still alive & forced to work in crematoriums burning bodies of their friends/loved ones. When you do that, you're trivializing the holocaust... way yik.
I am pro choice and even I disagree with the "fertalized egg is not a person" I believe that I have had a human body whether it was two cells or two billion cells- none of that changes the fact that no person, no matter how small or what relation they are to me has a right to use my body for any reason without my expressed ongoing consent.
the ability to feel or perceive subjectively. - is a 3 month old child able to do this, what about a 45 year old woman in a vegetative state. Maybe the difference can be made in my use of the word "person" rather than "human" I am human whether or no i have 2 cells or 2 billion, i exist.
Wow, did this lady even learn science in school? I mean really? "sperm and egg have different DNA from the person they come from" lol no. their called haploids, same DNA, same content, pinched in half. 2n vs. n.... What creds dose she have to be giving a talk on this anyway? she's got a english major for pete's sakes. I didn't even have a stance on the subject. just the misimformation really make you wonder...
WELL TWINS ARE SEPERATE, JUST TELL ME WHY EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS THEIR VERY OWN UNIQUE FINGERPRINTS!
carmel350 2 months ago
Hehe, we can have tampon or pad funerals. There should be a law that every woman must submit her used pads and tampons to make sure that embryo or excuse me person got a right to a funeral.
If a woman's body naturally prevents implantation and thus the killing of a person, should all women be in jail. Oh wait that's why our monthly cycle is so dirty and in the Bible men have to avoid a woman during and up to 7 days after her period and that women are property because we're natural murderers.
breemystic 7 months ago
How dare you impose your belief that rape is wrong on me, if you don't like rape then don't rape anyone but don't tell people what they can and cannot do.
BenjaminWirtz 9 months ago
Well your point of view is definently pro-choice. Although through most of the video you stuck to the personhood arguement, but At 3:12 you stated that no one thinks that life begins at conception. This is wrong. I am a biology grad student and I have a pro-choice professor major. I asked him if I was correct in believing that according to biology a new life began at conception and he agreed. But just like you he believes that not all human life should get thre repect of personhood.
God Bless
nomyturn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"you don't law at all, hell you don't even know that 13th amendment is about"
The Supreme Court, the government body charged with the task of interpreting the constitution, is a body made up of people far more intelligent and comprehensive than either you or I. You put yourself before them, saying you understand the constitution better than they. And then you skip right over my acknowledgement of Roe v. Wade, claiming I ignored it.
I think we're done here.
Orjahlian 3 months ago
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. writes: "The underlying premise in the arguments pro-abortionists give against fetal personhood is that non-persons can change into persons. They are saying that a living being can undergo a radical, essential change in its nature during its lifetime. But there is a logical problem here. If the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature. This is because if the being naturally initiates the change,
teton99 1 year ago
It must be in its nature from the beginning to do so. If it is in its nature to do so, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life. This means that if we are persons with the right to be free from aggression later in life, we are persons even at conception." "A False Assumption," Libertarians for Life,
teton99 1 year ago
@teton99 From that same premise I should be entitled to senior benefits from the get go. Because it is a biologically inevitable change from conception and not a change in essential nature.
I do not consider fetuses "People" until they can act like one. Usually around 3-ish.
SheepeXero 1 year ago
@teton99 From that same premise I should be entitled to senior benefits from the get go. Because it is a biologically inevitable change from conception and not a change in essential nature.
I do not consider fetuses "People" until they can act like one. Usually around 3-ish
SheepeXero 1 year ago
Life begins at Fertilization, final conclusion
crushboy555 1 year ago
I'm confused. Which one is supposed to be "right" here? Neither one of them made a logically sound point in that video.
Teletheus 1 year ago
@Teletheus the video's pro-choice.
Usually the counter-arguments are presented first so a counter can be formed. At least logical progression says it's pro-choice.
But yes, it's a fairly light argument, not much logic within each side's "argument"
SuperInfective 1 year ago
Please support our new Christian Political Party in TN ChristianPartyTn . com Our goal is to end abortion, end gay marriage, lower the tax rate to 10%, etc. God Bless America!
Noahedwinbeach2 1 year ago
@Noahedwinbeach2
if you want a religious state, move to........ IRAN?
zegatone 1 year ago 2
@zegatone or...Christians can take this country back
Noahedwinbeach2 1 year ago
@Noahedwinbeach2
gawd bwess america? how secular of u! that is actually more a patriotic statement than a religious statement...and more prideful than religious
you fundies are so funny!
HaveAnAbortion 1 year ago
HAHAHAHAHA this video sure does a good job repeating all the same ole pro-abort talking points. For a video daring to call itself "reality check" they sure are lacking in the reality arena.
shardoin 1 year ago
Birth control means controlling births. Does the woman have the right to decide when to reproduce? The woman literally controls this function and before 24 weeks there is zero chance of the fetus living outside her womb. If she decides to abort, who can argue with her?? It is her body and her fetus, her life choice, her consequences. That's why choice is best, it should NOT be a government decision.
jesusisbling 1 year ago
@jesusisbling
Sure, I agree. Women do have the right to choose when to reproduce; when they have sex. If you're willing to have sex, you should be willing to accept any consequences as such. I'm not totally against abortions, and not near foolish enough to assume I can tell a woman what to do with her body. It does, however, piss me off any less that people aren't willing to accept goddamn consequences anymore.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
I was pretty good with all of this, despite respectfully disagreeing with most of her view, up until she said "Unless they're looking for a reason to restrict women's rights." And then I realized I was listening to a feminazi.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian Soooo, to you if a woman doesn't want her rights stepped on that makes her a Nazi?? Forcing women to give birth against their will...is this YOUR Utopian idea??
jesusisbling 1 year ago
@jesusisbling
Nah, my utopian ideal is a place where people aren't hyper-fucking suspicious about everything. "THIS DOESN'T GO WITH WHAT I WANT AS A WOMAN THAT'S SEXISM" or "OH THIS DOESN'T SUPPORT MY RACE THIS IS RACIST" both piss me off.
Get the broom out of your ass, you self-pretentious bitch.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian
Broom in YOUR ass YOU bitch...
Try growing up or least learn to communicate with written language. Didn't your momma tell you to use your words??
jesusisbling 1 year ago
@jesusisbling
Funny how you tell me to learn to communicate, yet use incomplete sentences and unnecessary punctuation.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian
lmfao...who the fuck are u to call others pretentious? YOU are the one getting anal about others sex lives.
Wanting to take away a womans right IS sexist..doesnt matter if its from a pissed male that cant get any or a fat woman that needs to suck up to men in hopes of getting any.
It's a womans body, a womans choice. But I guess you have more respect for humanity than say amnesty int'l or WHO---both of which are prochoice
have a lovely prochoice day
HaveAnAbortion 1 year ago
@HaveAnAbortion
The point I was TRYING to make is that just because someone is pro-life, doesn't mean their sexist and have some sort of hidden "OPPRESS ALL WOMEN" agenda as this retarded bitch implies. The fact that you dipshits can't accept the slightest hint of responsibility is totally unrelated to my original message.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian
yes, you DO want to "OPPRESS ALL WOMEN" with you're bullshit morality.
abortion IS taking responsibility, you just DON'T approve of it---when abortion is a civil and constitutionally supported (13th and 14th amendment) right.
your bullshit morality has nothing to do with rights----talk to a lawyer!
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
I am bullshit morality?
Oh! I'm sorry, give me a few minutes to parse your horrid English. You meant to say "your bullshit morality." Which still doesn't make a whole lot of sense when it gets down to it.
13th amendment? You mean the one that abolished slavery? You're being very liberal in your interpretation of that one. Now the 14th amendment I could see being interpreted as such, but even then it's a very thin argument.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian
thank you for conceding, because you had really nothing to attack my position with except for your bullshit morality against another citizen's will, civil, and constitutional (13th and 14th amendment) right to have an abortion.
you don't even know how your constitution works.
13th: said that involuntary servitude w/o due process is prohibited, so there is no law preventing a woman from having an abortion= NO DUE PROCESS= abortion is CONSTITUTIONAL.
IT'S THE SAME WITH THE 14TH.
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
I never said it wasn't constitutional.
But you're implying it's a guaranteed right, which is downright retarded.
And I conceded that you weren't a faggot, but simply a zeitgeist nut. I wouldn't really like to use an ad hominem argument here, but it's really hard to listen to and believe someone who thinks the world is controlled by a secret society.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian
"I never said it wasn't constitutional."
really? then why did you write this: "You're being very liberal in your interpretation of that one." = an indirect denial of how OUR constitutions on YOUR part.
and NOW, again another lame-ass childish attack calling me a faggot and talking about my beliefs because YOU CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG! BTW, that you are doing is an ad hominem attack called "poising the well" and most ppl can right thought it.
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
Congratulations on not using the phrase "your bullshit morality" in those two posts. I mean, I had a shot glass ready and everything.
What I meant when I said that was "it's not against the constitution." It's not supported by the constitution, either.
And no shit I was using an ad hominem. I even said "I wouldn't like to, but..."
Now, the reason you seem to believe I can't prove you wrong is that you're not even bothering noting my arguments.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian
wow, with all your emo-bullshit you still can't prove me wrong. why is that?!
abortion is supported by the constitution because any involuntary servitude (13th) and liberty (14th) w/o due process is prohibited by it.
so abortion IS supported by the constitution, duh!
wrong again, you do know that "viability" is at the 24 week= the state has no interest before it? read roe vs. wade.
maybe you should stop bitching about my english and study abortion laws BEFORE commenting.
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
I'm bitching about your comprehension and your English. So let's try this one more time, and I'll make it as clear as I can.
The actions leading up to pregnancy are obvious, and rape cases aside, are 100% voluntary. Therefore, it does not fit the definition of "involuntary" servitude.
Honestly I don't know how many times I've repeated this, and if you can't get it through your thick skull there's absolutely no hope for you.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@O
ok, again maybe you should study CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BEFORE BITCHING ABOUT my comprehension--- which, is nothing more that an strawman attack because you can't defeat me with logic and laws.
again, states has no LEGAL AUTHORITY OVER A WOMAN'S PREGNANCY UNTIL VIABILITY AT THE STATE'S DISCRETION, THEREFORE FORCING A WOMAN TO STAY PREGNANT= INVOLUNATRY SERTIVUDE.
IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE 13TH AMENDMENT.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WOMAN GETTING PREGNANT BUT THE STATE OVER HER BODY
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
@O
" Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
AND THAT SUPPORTS ABORTION AND OTHER THING THAT STATE HAS NO RIGHTS OVER YOUR BODY W/O DUE PROCESS.
you can't even prove your own argument, but don't worry, just because you don't know wtf you're talking about when it comes to abortion----doesn't mean we all don't. :)
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
Once again, let me tell you, the supreme court has yet to accept that argument to this date. They've accepted the constitutional right to privacy as an argument for abortion, but not the amendments which you so adamantly refer to. The law is on my side, there.
Your comprehension skills are coming into question, AGAIN, because you can't seem to COMPREHEND the arguments I put forth, or just blatantly ignore them.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian
"supreme court has yet to accept that argument to this date"
what? it doesn't need them....it's COMMON SENSE: THERE IS NO LAW FORCING A WOMAN TO STAY PREGNANT AGAINST HER WILL, CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BEFORE VIABILITY HINT: ROE VS WADE, IF THE STATE DOES THAT, IT'S A VIOLATION OF 13TH AMENDMENT'S INVOLUNTARY SERTIVUDE.
you don't law at all, hell you don't even know that 13th amendment is about.
the 13th is about what the state CANT do to you, duh!
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
@Or
" Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
13th amendment.
so roe vs wade + 13th amendment= forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will, civil, constitutional rights before viability is a violation of the 13th's involuntary sertivude ....it's pretty fucking simple.
it has nothing to voluntary sex, dumbass.
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
"you don't law at all, hell you don't even know that 13th amendment is about"
The Supreme Court, the government body charged with the task of interpreting the constitution, is a body made up of people far more intelligent and comprehensive than either you or I. You put yourself before them, saying you understand the constitution better than they. And then you skip right over my acknowledgement of Roe v. Wade, claiming I ignored it.
I think we're done here.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian
nice cop-out, but anyone who can read the 13th amendment can see that it supports abortion after roe vs wade.
why couldn't you? oh, it was because you didn't want to.
thank you for conceding.
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
Now, even though the law is on my side there, let me ask you once why it should be that voluntary sex, leading to pregnancy, should be considered involuntary servitude?
If you refuse to answer this question a third (or was it fourth?) time, I'm going to assume you're a dumbass who's baiting me for the fun of it. In which case, bravo.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
"you can't even prove your own argument, but don't worry, just because you don't know wtf you're talking about when it comes to abortion----doesn't mean we all don't. :)"
Big words coming from a man who ignores his opponent's arguments, can't spell, and cites improperly.
I've displayed both conventional logic, not relying on the opinion of other's to fuel it, and, corrected your ignorance to the fact that the law is not on your side. Your turn.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
These are not abortion laws. These are amendments to the constitution, and even if they did deal with abortion (they don't), to call them abortion laws would be misleading at best, and downright fucking retarded at worst.
Your comprehension skills are in question because they are what helps someone interpret writings; you consistently failed to note my argument, and repeated the same mantra over and over. You think you can interpret the mother-fucking constitution?
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian I I may be walking into the mine field here but, why should abortions be illegal then? I'm not really gong to go back and read 7 + pages of comments on you tube.
Please keep in mind that there is a separation of church and state in the US. So any reason dealing with a what ever belief system you are apart of isn't a vaild enough reason.
kmfdmman 1 year ago
@kmfdmman
Not at all. You're seemingly less retarded than most of my debate subjects thus far. It's nice to change up partners, innit?
I never claimed they should be illegal, especially not when considering the few cases of rape etc. that actually happen.
By-the-by, I am an atheist.
Now, my argument is more along the lines of defending a human life. But before you say "IT'S JUST A FETUS LOL" it still qualifies as a life form, one that I believe deserves a chance at life.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@kmfdmman
I base that argument on the fact that it will, if it doesn't already, qualify as a human. It is a direct product of a voluntary action, and there are alternatives to keeping it if one can not afford to raise it.
Now, this is affected by my atheist views, but as I believe in no higher cause or being, I only have humanity's interests at heart. I believe human life is sacred seeing as it's only going to be lived once. To terminate one early is a cruel a fate as any.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian It's pretty hard to write a law based on view of what may happen, or more likely in this case what something maybe come. To me it is almost like saying that it would be fine to put away a young child that steals after they become an adult because they will be a thief when they are older.
I will always stand by another human beings right to choice, and especially in a matter as personal as this.
By the way, thanks for the back handed comment about me seemingly less retarded.
kmfdmman 1 year ago
@kmfdmman
that's what trolls do when they have no arugment.
that fucktard doesn't know what the 13th amendment is about, even when i pasted the whole thing.
it can't understand that it's protecting you from the state by making you do things w/o due process, and he trying to make it into individual actions.
he refuses to acknowlegde roe vs wade.
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
Comment removed
Orjahlian 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kmfdmman
You're welcome. Don't take it personally; believe it or not it was a compliment.
And it's true, it's hard to base a law on what may happen, or may not. No arguments there. It was actually quite a relief to see someone not regurgitate bullshit.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kmfdmman
You're welcome. Don't take it personally; believe it or not it was a compliment.
And it's true, it's hard to base a law on what may happen, or may not. No arguments there. It was nice to see someone not regurgitating bullshit; like this fellow.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
Also, where the fuck did you get emo out of my posts?
Goddamn I hope you're just an awesome troll.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
Comment removed
Orjahlian 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FREEAMERICANOW69
How does that have nothing to due with what you cited? It says "Involuntary servitude without due process is prohibited" not "voluntary servitude."
I'd try to argue with the rest of your post but dear lord I don't understand it. You're contradicting yourself in half of it, misspelling everything, and dear lord your grammar is atrocious.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian
"Consensual sex is hardly involuntary."
wow, again you know NOTHING about OUR constitution...13th said that involuntary servitude W/O due process is prohibited, duh!
NO law preventing abortions= No due process= abortion is constitutional.
before RvW, there were unconstitutional laws= they couldn't use the 13th....but those laws were overturned by RvW= now abortion is supported by the 13th, duh!
you don't know due process is? RvW was roe( norma) due process rights.
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
Comment removed
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
Honestly your lack of comprehension skills is amazing. Just a quick FYI, there's a difference between being a good debater and being too retarded to understand your opponent's position and declaring yourself the winner.
Now, if you want to use Roe v Wade, it's supposed to balance the interests between prenatal life and that of the mother, and seeing as 90% of abortions are done out of convenience rather than necessity, this seems like unbalanced interests.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
Also, I sincerely hope English isn't your first language. If so that would excuse you for most of your poor debating skills.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
Pregnancy is servitude? Well, while it technically fits the definition, it certainly doesn't meet the "involuntary" standard. Consensual sex is hardly "involuntary."
Sounds like you really don't know how to interpret the English language, to be honest, let alone the constitution. I mean, I've never heard of "Due process" being synonymous with abortions.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
Speaking of legal arguments, by the by, no U.S. court has accepted that "13th amendment grants abortion rights" bullshit, either. So far the law disagrees with you, it seems.
Also, I'm going to start a drinking game based off this argument. Every time you use the phrase "your bullshit morality" I'll take a shot. I'll be hammered by the time this is over.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
Now to take you on a very, very short look into history on the origins of law, which is mostly based upon, and rooted in morals!
Now if you're going to try to cite the constitution again, I want you to read it, and find me lines that guarantee an abortion. I mean, really, that's just silly. Try harder, dipshit.
Now try to counter-attack without using a straw man. We'll think of this as a learning experience, shall we?
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
Oh fuck, I forgot to add something insulting to my argument.
Uh.
You're a faggot.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69
Actually, I take that back. You're not a faggot. I just noticed your profile, you have a much worse disease. I'm very sorry to hear that you're a Zeitgeist nut. :(
Orjahlian 1 year ago
In an abortion a baby is killed and the mother gets screwed up. SAVE THE BABIES!!!
rustydog008 1 year ago
What makes a person a person? Is a person different that a human? A human would be characterized by their DNA structure...one that no other species fully contains. A human has all of their DNA for every developmental stage of life at CONCEPTION. A fetus is fully human...just because you claim it isn't a person doesn't hold a fair argument. For the comment below that asks whether or not delivering a baby should be forced on a woman...the answer is yes..don't have sex if you can't pay the price!
surgicalbassist 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist Let me guess, you're against birth control, you're a man and since you've pulled the DNA argument...each and every egg and sperm has its own DNA. Does that make eggs and sperm also people? Is a man committing mass murder every time he ejaculates? Is a woman responsible for the eggs that aren't fertilized?
Kolibri2005 1 year ago
@Kolibri2005 Wrong you are! I am not against birth control...although I do find it very harmful to women to take birth control. yes, I am a man..and I pulled the DNA argument...the argument which you didn't fully understand I guess. A fertilized egg has a fully human DNA structure..therefore is fully human. An unfertilized egg, and or sperm, only have HALF of a human DNA structure. Therefore not human. Otherwirse it would be genocide to ejaculate or have a period.
surgicalbassist 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist Errrr, most cells in your body have a "fully human" DNA structure, but that doesn't make each one of them a human (noun), only human (adjective). These cells are alive (adjective), but they are not each a life (noun).
madoogliani 1 year ago
@madoogliani errr...the fertilized egg as a whole is a human(noun). abortion doesn't destroy human(adj) parts, it destroys the human(noun). Cells can be removed and destroyed..happens all of the time on a daily basis with every human/non-human...destroying cells without destroying the entire being isn't at question...the destruction of the ENTIRE human(noun) is the issue.
surgicalbassist 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist I disagree. A fertilised egg a.k.a. zygote containing a human genome is human, yes, but not _a_ human. It has to make it through many critical stages to become one. To my thinking, a foetus becomes _a_ bonafide person once it physically separates from its mother; becomes a single, independent unit (albeit still dependent, but now on anyone as opposed to only on the one it was inside of). There's no fixed time for this, as the age of birth varies, but 22 wks is earliest atm.
madoogliani 1 year ago
@madoogliani Well, whatever your thinking might be doesn't justify what is ultimately right and wrong! Same goes for my opinion. From your argument one could say that Humans are separated from other species because we can walk upright. Well..Babies don't walk upright! Heck..they can't even crawl! They must not be human. Humans communicate, humans work, humans have fully operational organ systems. Babies don't have all of that yet. They must not be human..lets just kill newborns!
surgicalbassist 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist But I already agreed that all life-stages are human, adjective, the term you have applied to crawling babies. I have also already indicated a crawling baby is _a_ human, noun, as well, by dint of it having physically separated.
Until a foetus becomes that single-unit-human, it isn't a person, so isn't afforded the same legal status as people. Killing people is wrong, yes, but as foetuses aren't people, then that's not why killing foetuses is wrong. Other reasons, maybe.
madoogliani 1 year ago
@madoogliani
Yes and no. Technically, when killing a pregnant lady, the murder is upgraded to a double-homicide, is it not? The fetus is therein granted legal status as a human.
Semi-related note, it seems to me that people think of a developing child as a "Fetus" if it inconveniences them, and a "Baby" if they're willing to accept it. Terribly selfish, innit?
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian Not always; can depend if the woman knew she was pregnant or not, how far along etc.
People, because people aren't being rigorous, also use terms like "negative energy" when really, there's no such thing, at least, certainly not in the context they're using it. People who use the term foetus generally mean it and use it accurately; people who use the term baby aren't so particular in their application. Whether you think it is a baby or not, a foetus is still a foetus.
madoogliani 1 year ago
@madoogliani
A valid point. No further objections.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist Yes, what a surprise, you're a man. A man who feels that women should be punished for having sex, when men get off scot-free. It's not like a man's birth control is ever going to fail. If he gets a disease from a broken condom, you're not going to fight to keep him from getting treated, because it wasn't his fault and that's just silly. We don't give bacteria or viruses any rights (which are more alive (or as alive) as a zygote or early-term embryo).
Kolibri2005 1 year ago
@Kolibri2005 what a silly argument. If a guy gets a disease from a busted condom...oh well..that's his fault. That is a consequence of having sex. I feel no sorrow for men or women that get STDs outside of marital sex. Bacteria and viruses don't form into children/adults. Bacteria and viruses are mostly harmful and UNAVOIDABLE! And they aren't more alive than an embryo...quit making up "facts". An embryo has a heart beat at 6 weeks! viruses don't!
surgicalbassist 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist Guess what? You can just as easily get disease from marital sex. Actually, most bacteria are beneficial, or at the very least harmless. Bacteria are, from the first moment of formation, a fully formed being that is capable of reproducing and has all the signs of life. An embryo is not a fully formed life form. Therefore, a bacteria is more alive than an embryo. Viruses are questionable, I'll agree with that.
Kolibri2005 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist Birth control is often used to treat reproductive diseases, and as long as the woman finds a birth control that matches her body, it isn't particularly damaging. So, now what, you think women shouldn't have sex until they want to get pregnant? Again, what about the men?
Kolibri2005 1 year ago
@Kolibri2005 Birth control is ALWAYS harmful to a woman's body. Whether is be hormonally, physically, emotionally...no one birth control is ever perfect. There are too many side effects. I am not fully against birth control however...I do think there are SOME benefits. I don't think sex is just meant for babies. I think sex is a very sacred, intimate bonding between a married couple. I have abused that privilege in the past and won't ever agian. My point is though, sex is to be enjoyed...cont...
surgicalbassist 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist ....by a husband and wife...keeping in mind that there is the possibility for pregnancy. If they choose to use birth control, condoms, whatever method...its all fine and dandy..but they should know that gas can make fire...sperm makes babies!
surgicalbassist 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist Funny, I'd say sex can be enjoyed by a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, married or not. Marriage has nothing to do with the topic here--stay on topic yourself. No, birth control isn't perfect, but it does have its benefits, like preventing unwanted babies, and therefore lots and lots of otherwise-would-be abortions. Oh, yeah, and um what about...eggs? Those are kind of necessary for babies too you know.
Kolibri2005 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist You will have to pluck harder than that if you want to convince me that we should all agree that women should be punished for falling pregnant.
Punishment being 9 months of forced labour and an unwanted child at the end of it,
the taking away of autonomous rights to independence, intimacy, and privacy. No woman agrees to sex with the idea of getting an abortion later.
Salinity1001 1 year ago 2
@Salinity1001 Falling pregnant? Like it was an accident? or an airborne virus? When you play with fire...you can get burned! Everyone knows that sex can and does lead to pregnancy. To "fall" pregnant is merely a natural effect to a natural cause. If you have unprotected sex, and get pregnant...you are responsible for that new life. it isn't forced labor..the options are clear...no sex=no labor...no contraceptives=baby...pretty simple.......more to come....
surgicalbassist 1 year ago
if you don't want the child,put it up for adoption.there are plenty of responsible adults out there that are willing to step up and be a decent human being for those who aren't capable! Autonomous rights to independence?Murder is a right?killing something because it is an inconvenience to you is a right? Intimacy?privacy? Grow up! That's life! if you want privacy and intimacy, buy a door lock! If you aren't old enough to accept the responsibility to have a kid, you aren't old enough to have sex!
surgicalbassist 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist If you dont want the child adoption is an option, and if the female doesn't want to be pregnant abortion is an option.
Murder is not a right, get a dictionary. Killing something in your body is a right. Having sex is life, I'm grown up plenty there's time for you yet.
When you were a teen, you ever go to adult films, smoke, drink, do anything reckless? I'm guessing yes, cos thats the majority. Looking back - hypocrite much?
Is it a case for sex responsibility teaching @ puberty?
Salinity1001 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist Oh yeah, because there aren't enough unwanted children in the world already. We take unwanted animals off the street and put them to sleep, because it's kinder than letting them starve, but you think it's more humane to bring a child into the world, then pawn it off onto someone else? I won't even sell my horse for chrissakes; why would I give a child away?
Kolibri2005 1 year ago
@Kolibri2005 Well I am glad you can tell there is an epidemic sweeping across the world! People aren't responsible. That doesn't mean others have to die for someone else's mistakes. As far as the animal thing, which I agree is sad, two wrongs don't make a right. If will kill starving animals that are DISEASED most of the time, it doesn't make it right to kill babies. I believe it is more humane to put a child up for adoption rather than murder. don't compare apples and oranges..stay on topic!
surgicalbassist 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist I never said I thought there was any sort of epidemic. My stance is that it's better to put an animal to sleep rather than let it suffer, including strays. And not all strays are diseased--many are not. I'm not comparing apples and oranges, I'm saying that that is my stance. It is more responsible to know what happens to your child than to simply pawn it off on someone else.
Kolibri2005 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist Pregnancy can often be an accident. Birth control isn't 100% effective, even when used correctly. Even the most careful people will sometimes get very, very, VERY unlucky. Are you going to punish them for being unlucky? As for your stupid fire analogy...in this situation, it's impossible for men to get burned.
Kolibri2005 1 year ago
@Kolibri2005 Pregnancy is NEVER an accident! Pregnancy by accident would assume that the woman sat on a dirty toilet seat. Or was taking a bath is a dirty bathtub. Or just woke up pregnant because she didn't brush her teeth. When you have sex...you CAN and WILL get pregnant. Its simple science. If you aren't responsible enough for kids, you aren't responsible enough for sex. Men get burned all of the time from sex. Men sometimes have forced child support, no chance to see the child...continued..
surgicalbassist 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist .....dealing with the pregnant woman for 10 months! Having the ability to carry a child is a woman's privilege, not a curse. Luck has nothing to do with getting pregnant. Luck doesn't exist at all. Life is what YOU MAKE OF IT! If you have sex..you get babies...you get STDs...that's life! If you don't have sex..you don't get those things. Pretty easy equation.
surgicalbassist 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist You have no right to say carrying a child is a privilege until you are able to carry one yourself. You obviously are more stupid than I gave you credit for, if you believe luck doesn't exist. Tell that to the people who get lung cancer that never smoked. Tell that to the people who just happened to get in the way of a drunk driver. Tell that to the victims of an earthquake that struck. The victims of a tornado. Luck is always part of life.
Kolibri2005 1 year ago
@Kolibri2005 I'm not even going to respond to most of your comments, for they are uneducated, full of personal bias and not evidence. I will repsond however to the comments about luck. Luck doesn't exist. Its called LIFE. Life happens. Lung Cancer that never smoked...what about breast cancer...prostate cancer...those things don't have causes..sometimes people just get cancer. It is part of life, not luck!
surgicalbassist 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist ...as far as drunk drivers...stay off of the road if you aren't willing to take risks..it isn't luck..it is LIFE...earthquakes and tornados are indeed disasters that are horrible...but luck has nothing to do with it...it is part of life. if you don't want to be affected by such natural disasters..don't live in tornado alley or on a fault line! grow up!
surgicalbassist 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist Any person who lives in the REAL world will tell you that luck is a very real part of life. Statistics are the best way we have of mathematically estimating luck, but they only do a half-ass job. Oh, and I live in CT, asshole, it was just an example. And despite that, we have had tornadoes, earthquakes and hurricanes. Is that my fault as well? Of course it is, because luck doesn't exist! Yeah, right, you make so much sense.
Kolibri2005 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist Now you're just arguing semantics. The word you use to describe it, life or luck, is irrelevant. You do recognize that there are events that happen in a person's life that they have no control over, and many of these are due to "life" or "luck", whatever you want to call it. As such, there are occasions when a person did everything they could to shield themselves from pregnancy and still became pregnant. Way to dodge the point with a semantics argument.
Kolibri2005 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist Tell you what, when I decide I want to have a kid, you can carry it for me and then tell me how great it was. Until then, stop trying to take away a woman's right to control her own body!
Kolibri2005 1 year ago
@Kolibri2005 you are very ill informed about the life of an embryo/fetus and your opinion of what makes a human a human is sick and is a very rocky one! I can flip your whole argument around on you and use your views of humans to say that babies aren't fully developed humans...get off of your high horse in thinking that a life is less important than your body..which you clearly take for granted!
surgicalbassist 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist What if I told you that I thought it was unethical for you to have testicles and not use them as much as possible. You either have to attempt to have a kid every time you have sex, or you have to be castrated. And I want to make it a LAW. That is the position you are attempting to force women into, and we WILL NOT HAVE IT!
Kolibri2005 1 year ago
@surgicalbassist Flip away. Give me the best you've got; I've got nothing better to do right now. This should be entertaining. To quote my favorite game critic, when it comes to the anti-choice argument, "the level of doofy the doofuses exhibit makes it hard to take seriously." Now, go carry somebody's baby for 9 months and then tell me what a joy pregnancy is.
Kolibri2005 1 year ago
@A'BortionKB You've got nothing AKB, you're a lame duck, trying to repress women and their choices at every opportunity
Salinity1001 1 year ago 2
@Salinity1001 lame ducks quack quack quack
Diannakw 1 year ago
Choose life!
AbortionKillsBabies 1 year ago
Protection of innocent human life is not an
imposition of personal religious conviction but a demand of justice.
teton99 1 year ago
@teton99 If it is a demand of justice, why would you impose delivering a baby on a woman or girl if the conception was a mistake? Just for ultimate proof?
Why throw hands in the air like a resigned fatalist saying there is nothing I can do. Do we do that with any other possible life changing event?
Salinity1001 1 year ago 2
Prof Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.
teton99 1 year ago
This means that if we are persons with the right to be free from aggression later in life, we are persons even at conception
teton99 1 year ago
This is because if the being naturally initiates the change, it must be in its nature from the beginning to do so. If it is in its nature to do so, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life
teton99 1 year ago
@teton99 Acorn is not an oak tree.
RyddelIsFree 1 year ago 2
The underlying premise in the arguments pro-abortionists give against fetal personhood is that non-persons can change into persons. They are saying that a living being can undergo a radical, essential change in its nature during its lifetime.
But there is a logical problem here. If the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature.
teton99 1 year ago
So what about all of those miscarriages and fertilized eggs and cryogenically preserved embryos that will never see the light of day?
CatholicCoatHanger 1 year ago
fantastic video. an actual reality check people should pay attention to.
Diannakw 1 year ago
Comment removed
Diannakw 1 year ago
Obviously personhood doesn't start at conception, it cannot start before 30 weeks at least, and it would be just a start, so abortion is just a neutral and ok procedure!!
MrsTardbuster1 1 year ago
What's insalting is you. You are setting up women for heart ache. Funerals for tampons? You are just sick. People like her put more effort in saving stay cats and dogs lives than human children. Trader! Also not every pro LIFE person is Christan. My sister finds your baby killing to be most disgusting. She's not a Christan. Maybe you should try your scare tactic on some other group.
Vada4 1 year ago
There's too much dishonesty here to know where to start!
No one disputes that life itself began a very long time ago.
But you have deliberately confused this with INDIVIDUAL unique human lives that indisputably began at conception.
Whilst it's admirable and civilised to protect all human life WHERE POSSIBLE we must retain the common sense to accept that some lives will always be naturally lost ,but that in no way detracts from the fact that all human lives are equally precious and unique..
AbortionKillsBabies 1 year ago
What a load of bloody shit. Even we know when our unborn baby which my missus is having (and we're both very proud) began it's life. When my sperm fertilized my wife's egg. You lot kill your kids off, you'll just die out while we pro-life people just keep having our babies.
rustydog008 1 year ago
I believe the woman with the brown hair is not a person. Can I shoot her?
bcmasta1returns 1 year ago
Hadley Arkes "Natural Rights and the Right to Choose"
or
Hadley Arkes "First Things"
larkydozer 1 year ago
who cares why women have an abortion? if a woman decides she wants to remove an unwanted growth from her own body, then that's betwwen her and her doctor. if you dont like it, dont have one. simple.
choicemeansdemocracy 1 year ago
@choicemeansdemocracy If you don't like child abuse, don't abuse your child! simple.
bcmasta1returns 1 year ago
@bcmasta1returns what REAL children? or the egg babies that anti-choice retards believe in?
choicemeansdemocracy 1 year ago
Any child. It is your moral opinion child abuse is wrong. So you can't force that on others.
bcmasta1returns 1 year ago
@bcmasta1returns it is moraly wrong to abuse REAL children or indeed any REAL people, egg babies are not real, they are just propaganda tools, I,d feed them to a dog. I am at least glad that we agree that one cant force ones oppinions on others, sorry, I thought you you were anti choice.
choicemeansdemocracy 1 year ago
@choicemeansdemocracy But that is only your opinion you are forcing on other parents who believe it is morally acceptable.
bcmasta1returns 1 year ago
@bcmasta1returns what is only my oppinion? that child abuse is wrong? actually I think you'll find its the law in every civilised democracy in the world. admittedly it's legal in some backward countries run by religious zealots, (abortion is illegal in those same countries). To compare abusing a REAL child to the removal of an unwanted growth, just shows how little you care for real children.
choicemeansdemocracy 1 year ago
The only country where abortion is fully illegal is Chile, and I think you will find child abuse is very illegal there. Anyway, you have completely avoided the question. Child abuse is wrong in your opinion like abortion is wrong in mine. What gives you the right to force your opinions on others?
bcmasta1returns 1 year ago
@bcmasta1returns "the only country wher abortion is fully illegal is Chille", wrong again.
choicemeansdemocracy 1 year ago
@bcmasta1returns NOTHING gives me me the right to FORCE my oppinions on others, the most you acn accuse me of is defending people's rights to act on their own oppinions. nice try though
choicemeansdemocracy 1 year ago
Ok, so your against people going to prison for child abuse then. Just wanted to clarify on that.
bcmasta1returns 1 year ago
@bcmasta1returns you really cant see any difference between the safe and legal jettisonning of an unwanted embryo, and the sexual abuse of children? let's just clear that up
choicemeansdemocracy 1 year ago
The only difference I see is age and the form of abuse. One is beating or sexually molesting a baby or child and the other is extracting and tearing apart an embryo or fetus.
bcmasta1returns 1 year ago
@bcmasta1returns so you spend your time whinning on youtube about "children" being "torn apart"? SRSLY? what are you going to do if some kills your mum the tday before you get your allowance? write a stern letter to your local radion station?
* I'm guessing you dont believe your own crapaganda
choicemeansdemocracy 1 year ago
Wow, so its unusual to think murder is wrong and speak out against a world crisis?
bcmasta1returns 1 year ago
@bcmasta1returns "murder"? you want to discuss murder now? I agree with you on murder it's terrible, if someone was being murdered I would certainly do a lot more than sit around moaning on youtube to prevent it. and "world crisis"? you mean malaria? you could sell your computer and easily save at least ten REAL children easily if you cared, anyway back to abortion good eh
choicemeansdemocracy 1 year ago
Think about this. Lets say we are not sure when soul/life/humanbeing begins. Should we not always default to saving an unique human life developing in utero? If there is any doubt what so ever? It is a bad argument by saying we should have mini funerals for sperm or ova because by themselves, they would never be a developing unique person.
cottoncandicane 1 year ago
@cottoncandicane - It is because we are not sure when soul/life/person begins that we defer to the personal beliefs of the individual. There is no doubt, what-so-ever that each person has a personal belief on the matter. It is a bad argument to claim that everyone should have a mini-funeral for a zygote, embryos &/or fetus merely because you have a personal belief system which allows you to believe that a person has died.
kcsorci 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Some choicers say that a child does not have person-hood until 2 yrs old. Since you cannot remember really anything before that and since the child is not cognitive. It should not matter how many cells the human life form has in it. The point is, is that the cells that have taken hold inside the womb will never be anything but a person. There are a lot of strawmans in this video, very weak and slighted arguments.
cottoncandicane 1 year ago
@cottoncandicane - So, different people hold differing beliefs, what does that have to do with anything? The straw-man argument would be the one which involves these elusive "choicers" who believe that actual citizens of this country aren't people... Boo!
kcsorci 1 year ago 2
Ksorci- WHHAATT? Are you crazy? LOL
Ok. So the Choicers do believe they are people?
cottoncandicane 1 year ago
@cottoncandicane - Seriously? Are you actually claiming that those of us who are pro-choice do not believe that 2 year old children are persons? Are you for real?
kcsorci 1 year ago
yes, sadly I am. I have read several articles from atheist pro-choicers that have stated due to lack or remembering anything before 2 and no cognizance of self that they are NOT true persons yet.
cottoncandicane 1 year ago
@cottoncandicane - Hey, it takes all kinds, right? You've read of atheists who think they aren't people & I've read of anti-abortion activists who believe that the biological life of a zygote is more compelling than the life of a woman. Go figure, eh?
kcsorci 1 year ago
kcsorci- compelling than the life of a woman-How could that be? If the woman dies then the baby couldn't be born, both would die. Unless, you are speaking of Lisa Childress- Baylor Health Care System: One woman's ultimate gift- She found out she was pregnant with her baby and that she also has liver cancer. The Dr. advised her to abort since the HGH will cause tumors to grow quickly. She choose her babies life over hers. Wow imagine that self sacrifice.
cottoncandicane 1 year ago
@cottoncandicane - Ms. Childress, like Tammy Watts, Viki Wilson, Vikki Stella, Lynda Waddington, Susan Ito (who opted to terminate their pregnancies), are stories of how each woman made their own personal decisions regarding their individual pregnancy and self-sacrifice. And is a reminder that no one choice is more "appropriate" or "better" than another and should only be made by each individual pregnant woman, in consultation with her family & doctor(s).
kcsorci 1 year ago
kcsorci - it takes all kinds, right? As a pro-choice advocate when do you think life begins? Why? When does personhood begin and why? This video does not answer that. Why not default on the side of the growing child? What makes a born child anymore important? Why? It is still in stages of developement, right? From zygote,embryo,fetus,baby,toddler,child,preteen, teen,adult. What makes one stage more important than the next, why?
cottoncandicane 1 year ago
cottoncandicane - My personal beliefs regarding "life" &/or "personhood" are only relevant to me and and my loved ones; I would never suggest that my beliefs should be legislated. We should always, always trust the pregnant woman and "default" on her "side" as her personal beliefs are not only relevant but significant within the realm of her life & her reproduction. That last question of your was quite the strawman; as you're the only person who has suggested that "one stage [is] more important"
kcsorci 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
kcsorci- statistics say: 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).The sources I located by google. Sources located in research only go to 2005Census /guttmacher. In cases of rape/incest/medical I can understand more, for convenience, no that is an awful reason/implication!
cottoncandicane 1 year ago
@cottoncandicane - The myth that women have abortions for "convenience" reasons is a favorite anti-abortion tactic used in order to portray women who terminate their pregnancies as selfish women who think of no one but themselves. The studies done clearly indicate that women consider their families/loved ones (60% of women who terminate their pregnancies have one or more children) and their economic situation when deciding whether or not to bring another child into their family.
kcsorci 1 year ago
@cottoncandicane - You may opine that not being able to care for a(nother) child or being unable to afford a(nother) child are mere inconveniences but rest assure, your opinion is totally irrelevant to those women.
kcsorci 1 year ago
Life begins from the moment of conception. The same person that
is in the mother's womb is the same
person that will be born. Pregnancy tests
show what? That new life has begun.
If there wasn't new life then the test would
show nothing. God gives each one of us
a soul because He is the giver of life.
Repent and allow God to renew your
life.
2000yrCatholic 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Good reasoning but the pregnancy test actually shows the rise of hormones in your urine to keep the new life alive. I do believe that human life should be protected though. I do believe a new lifeform which is human begins at conception.
cottoncandicane 1 year ago
@cottoncandicane - Conception is when the sperm & ova unite... pregnancy is when an embryo has successfully attached itself to the uterus of the pregnant woman. So you believe that a "new lifeform" is present prior to a pregnancy? Obviously there is nothing wrong with holding that personal belief, however, you absolutely cannot compel others to lay aside their personal beliefs in order to satisfy yours.
kcsorci 1 year ago
So you believe that a "new lifeform" is present prior to a pregnancy? Scientifically, Yes. It is a new lifeform.
spastikmunky 1 year ago
@spastikmunky - Scientifically, a zygote is present prior to pregnancy. Scientifically, a sperm & an ova are present prior to fertilization. Scientifically, germ cells are present prior to gametogenesis. None of this has any bearing on the fact that the pregnant woman is the most qualified person to making decisions regarding her pregnancy.
kcsorci 1 year ago
You forgot to mention that scietifically the zygote is alive and a unique human being. If it dies because it is not attached to life support then that is what happens (simular to when someone gets taken off life support in the hospital) However, once attached in utero it is the mothers obligation to care for the child. This is another LIFE we should ALWAYS choose life. It seems topsy turvy to say kill the innocents even if they are in your body. It's there life too, not just yours anymore
cottoncandicane 1 year ago
@cottoncandicane - I've absolutely mentioned that they zygote is alive (it's certainly not dead or inanimate) and if the zygote was formed by the union of two human gametes, it would also be considered a human zygote. The zygote is absolutely as alive and human as the sperm & ova which combined to form it. And while it may be your personal belief that women should procreate, I must remind you that no woman is "obligated" to procreate... how you feel about pregnancy is irrelevant to other women.
kcsorci 1 year ago
It is relevant in the murdering of innocents and that makes it my business. The Catholics in Hitlers time should have taken a stand against Hitler. Hitler murdered thousands and it was legal. Women are murdering their babies & that is legal. Just because it is legal does not make it right. Again, it should be a default to life.
cottoncandicane 1 year ago
@cottoncandicane - It is merely your personal belief that "innocents" are being "murder[ed]" whenever a woman opts to end her pregnancy. Logical fallacies do not make for effective arguments; point in case: comparing the death of an embryo/fetus to people who were literally worked to death, raped, tortured, shot en mass and buried while still alive & forced to work in crematoriums burning bodies of their friends/loved ones. When you do that, you're trivializing the holocaust... way yik.
kcsorci 1 year ago 4
I am pro choice and even I disagree with the "fertalized egg is not a person" I believe that I have had a human body whether it was two cells or two billion cells- none of that changes the fact that no person, no matter how small or what relation they are to me has a right to use my body for any reason without my expressed ongoing consent.
sarakai 2 years ago
Most people reserve the term person for a sentient being.
Fuctmentality 2 years ago 2
the ability to feel or perceive subjectively. - is a 3 month old child able to do this, what about a 45 year old woman in a vegetative state. Maybe the difference can be made in my use of the word "person" rather than "human" I am human whether or no i have 2 cells or 2 billion, i exist.
sarakai 2 years ago
Wow, did this lady even learn science in school? I mean really? "sperm and egg have different DNA from the person they come from" lol no. their called haploids, same DNA, same content, pinched in half. 2n vs. n.... What creds dose she have to be giving a talk on this anyway? she's got a english major for pete's sakes. I didn't even have a stance on the subject. just the misimformation really make you wonder...
BluxComet 2 years ago
Can I ask you a question. When chatting or debating pro-lifers, what religion or religions are they usually? Why is that?
ChulaKirby 2 years ago