Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
Strange, as man eradicated smallpox saving hundreds of millions of lives. Man is perfect as man does something about it :)
If your god created the universe, which their is no evidence for any uncaused cause anyway. And just sat and looked at the hundreds of millions of people dieing of smallpox...with 80% of infected children—dieing from the disease...how imperfect does that make your god. That he couldnt solve a simple problem if he is so superior
Human vs non-human is the wrong approach. What matters is intelligent vs unintelligent, autonomous vs non-autonomous, feeling vs unfeeling. It's worse to kill a lifeform with these levels at or surpassing those of humans even if it isn't human that it is to kill a human with no awareness, feeling, or individuality.
I disagree with your "only question that matters." I don't think it's a matter of the nature of the unborn as much as it is a matter of *when* we can say the unborn becomes something we can call "human." I agree with what Hitchens said here, but he has also said elsewhere that the idea of being human at conception is absurd. Now, the answer to just when a fetus becomes something deserving of human rights and protection from harm is extremely difficult to answer.
Either you're pro abortion or you're pro welfare. If an infant has a right to life, then you're gonna have to provide it mang. Put your money where your mouth is.
I agree that an unborn embryo growing within a human mother is human. Its the result of the union of two human beings, it has unique human DNA that if allowed to be born will grow up like any human being around it.
The issue is not the nature of the unborn, But what rights does it have.
Does it have a greater right to life than the mother for example?
We talk about HUMAN rights and the right to life, yet as a species we murder each other every day in Wars.
I agree that an unborn embryo growing within a human mother is human. Its the result of the union of two human beings, it has unique human DNA that if allowed to be born will grow up like any human being around it.
The issue is not the nature of the unborn, But what rights does it have.
Does it have a greater right to life than the mother for example?
We talk about HUMAN rights and the right to life, yet as a species we murder each other every day in Wars.
Yes but Hitchen approaches the idea of Pro-Life from the perspective of humanism, the human right to make up its own mind. recognising the rights of humans to live including the unborn child. Hitchens advocates abortion given circumstances that warrent it, I.E a threat to the life of the mother for example. However religious perspectives on Pro-Life are absolute and dictated by Dogma without the right for human perpsective to direct necessary action and adapt to circumstance.
@popeyroach But why though? What is it that makes you believe this? I am not being facetious, I honestly want to know why it is so easy for pro-choicers to define life as post-birth. When people write it off without justifying why they define life in this matter, as if it should be obvious to everyone and pro-lifers are just being willfully ignorant, I am repulsed, in much the same way I am repulsed by many pro-lifers' chauvinism and tendency to act as if pregnant women are by default immoral.
@popeyroach It just seems like the issue boils down to how people define life, a monumental task that seems impossible, honestly. Why is one person's clump of cells or "zygote" another person's child? Is brain activity the predominant way someone should define life? How can pro-lifers defend the belief that, since a fetus is a baby, a woman has no say in the matter, often with insulting language? How can pro-choicers simply say, "It is not alive" without explaining why?
@popeyroach For the record, I am an atheist, a humanist, and very liberal in nearly all of my positions. I am anti-death penalty, not opposed to euthanasia when it is an act of sincere compassion, pro-gay marriage, anti-war for the most part. But I have yet to hear an argument from either side on this issue that seems willing to acknowledge the complexity inherent.
Sorry if this was just a one-off comment and I'm blowing up your inbox needlessly, by the way.
I'm a Christian, have been my whole life. But there is an argument that is seriously making me consider going pro-choice.
First of all I think some of the reasons given by pro-choicers is complete bull. I think it's ludicrous to say that a woman should have an abortion in cases of rape because the unborn child reminds this woman of the rape. That would seem to me to be the same as being held at gun point by a criminal WITH my family present and then saying that I should kill my family...
... because they "remind" me of my near death experience. I've heard it argued that being raped makes you lose all sense of self-control, well guess what, being the victim of a hold up does that to, in the end we are all in control up to a certain point. The people at Virginia Tech didn't decide to kill each other because they reminded them of what happened during the massacre that took place 5 years ago.
With all that being said there are two arguments pro-choicers...
should use to convince Christians as to why abortion should be made legal and possibly (possibly) government funded.
The first is the case of a woman being told that if she carries the baby she will die. I can understand abortion being allowed in that case.
The second is that abortions are going to take place regardless and this is almost the clincher for me. Christians believe that every human life is valuable in the eyes of God, that it should be cherished. So, if..
...you ask me, would I rather have ONE person die, or TWO person die KNOWING that either option A or B will take place/happen, all Christians HAVE TO answer option A.
You can see then why I'm having a hard time with this issue. If people can prove to me that it's going to be inevitable that women will try to take the baby ON THEIR OWN WITH NO MEDICAL SUPERVISION, then I can understand legalizing abortion.
Point is, abortions aren't safe to perform without medical supervision and a woman could possibly kill herself, thus two lives are lost instead of one.
Imagine you decide to go for a drive. Due to circumstances beyond your immediate control, you have a car accident, and lose consciousness. You wake up in a hospital, connected by medical equipment to a child, which was injured in the other car. The doctor says you must remain connected to this child for 9 months for it to survive - you are the only match, no one else can bear this burden.
@JonathanLHartman It's analogous to the abortion issue. If we value freedom to choose what to do with ones own body, even in the face of saving another's life (for example, no one can force you to donate a kidney to someone in need,) then the abortion issue is settled. Pro choice wins.
@PhilosoBot Umm... I think the whole point of the entire issue is the fact that an INNOCENT CHILD is not the same as a KIDNEY. Your analogy doesn't hold any water because we're talking about two entirely different "choices": MURDER and organ donation. If your own mother chose to donate a kidney - no big deal. But if she chose to murder you...? Well, you should know the answer to that.
@Snackbar47 I wasn't comparing the child to a kidney. Reread my scenario. I compared the child to a *person who needed a kidney.* Both people need the bodily properties of someone else to survive. The analogy works.
If you needed your mothers kidney to survive, would she be legally obligated to donate to you, even if her declining to donate would result in your death? No. Neither is she legally obligated to donate her bodily fluids to an embryo, even if it would result in the embryo's death.
@PhilosoBot "Obligated to donate her bodily fluids to an embryo"... Are you serious??? If by "bodily fluids" you mean health, nutrition, and safety from chemical agents or body-ripping devices, then yes, the mother should provide all of the above. If you were in an accident and became a quadriplegic unable to feed and take care of yourself, is it suddenly okay to kill you?
1. If I was in an accident, then my family is not legally obligated to spend their resources to take care of me. As for the child under 1, when the parents take the child home from the hospital, they are implicitly agreeing to take care of it. If they don't want it, they don't have to take care of it because they can give it up for adoption.
@PhilosoBot Or what about any child under the age of 1 who can't take care of themselves? Are mothers justified in killing those children as well simply because their children need assistance?
@PhilosoBot I'm sorry, but I would say YES, a mother is legally obligated to NOT murder her own child. That certainly sounds like the most commonsensical answer to me. Unfortunately it doesn't jive with your agenda, so of course you're going to reject it as "intrusive" and "bigoted" and "anti-women" and whatnot. Seems to me you're anti-commonsense and anti-innocent-defenseless-child. Again, aren't you glad your mom didn't feel that same way?
2. I think you are failing to distinguish between "murder" and "declining to assist." If I needed a kidney to survive, and you were the only match in the world, would you be "murdering" me if you declined to donate your kidney to me and I died? Of course not. Likewise, if a woman declines to donate her body fluids to an embryo, I don't see it as murdering - I see it as declining to assist. The embryo dies, but it isn't murder.
@PhilosoBot 1. You are still avoiding the most obvious fact: Abortion isn't simply "withholding bodily fluids", it's the intentional killing of a child through dismemberment, poisoning or crushing.
@Snackbar47 1. Abortion is the mother declining to support the embryo with her body, then they take it out. The methods can be up for discussion. I think it's a discussion people should have. But a woman still has a right to detach someone else from her body - no one has the right to be attached to her body against her will.
@PhilosoBot Your rhetoric is sickening. Man up and call a spade a spade. The "embryo" in the mother's womb is an INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE that only needs time and nutrition until it is ready to be born. An abortion procedure is not just "taking it out" - it is, once again, the DISMEMBERMENT, POISONING, or CRUSHING of a human child. And "declining to support" one's own child is not all that's happening with abortion. A decision to forcefully murder a life is the final "choice" that's made.
@Snackbar47 Firstly, your personal opinion of my rhetoric is of little importance to me. Secondly, I never denied the humanity of the embryo - my argument works while granting it's personhood. Thirdly, an abortion is the removal of the embryo/fetus that the mother no longer wishes to support. The decision to remove an embryo which has no right to be attached to the mother's body to begin with is not murder - any person is well within their rights to decline access to their own body by others.
@PhilosoBot Sorry, I didn't mean for my rhetoric to sound so subjective. May I make myself a little clearer: Your rhetoric, objectively speaking, consistently avoids the most obvious things which you wish to not address. A baby, contrary to your attitude and thinking, is not a parasite. It's a human life which, like everyone, has a "right to life" which should be safeguarded for the sheer reason that it is the foundation of all other rights.
@Snackbar47 I answered your questions. I haven't failed to address anything. I never used the word parasite, and I also mentioned that the "right to life" doesn't include the "right to use another's body against their will." I've already addressed this in past comments.
@PhilosoBot 2. "A kidney exists for the health and proper functioning of the body of whomever it belongs to, but each month the uterus gets ready for someone else's body. So, while one does not have a right to another's kidney, the unborn do have a right to the uterus which exists for them." (Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform)
@Snackbar47 2. A quote from a pro-life organization won't help you here. While an embryo, if a person, can have a right to life, no person has the right to attach to another's body against their will.
3. I wasn't "avoiding" this question. Firstly, it wouldn't have been murder. Secondly, whether I am glad or not doesn't have any bearing on what someone's legal rights are or aren't.
@PhilosoBot Wait - what was that? Still avoiding the question? BEING ALIVE doesn't make any difference to you? Being crushed and sucked out of your own mother's womb wouldn't have been murder?? Good grief...
@Snackbar47 I didn't say it doesn't make a difference to me. I said it doesn't make a difference to what legal rights she has. For example, if I need a kidney, I would appreciate and even prefer for you to donate one, but it doesn't change your right to keep both your kidneys. Likewise, I appreciate that my mother had me, but I recognize that she was under no legal obligation to do so - my preference for life doesn't change the fact that she has a legal right to decline my access to her body.
@PhilosoBot Once again, you're still suggesting (without ever using the words, because you're too chicken to call it like it is) that directly murdering an innocent human being is okay. Your "declining access to bodily fluids" ridiculousness is an entirely other issue because a choice must still be made to purposefully kill the child (which you seem to believe is just fine and dandy).
@Snackbar47 As I've already explained - it isn't murder. If a woman doesn't want to support it, she is well within her rights to remove it from her body. Unfortunately, that results in the death of the embryo. But that doesn't mean it is murder.
If you were hooked up to me, and I was sucking your nutrients out, and the doc said if you disconnect yourself from me, that I'd die, would you have the right to remove me from your body? Would it be murder? No, of course not.
@PhilosoBot I would like to share a full rebuttal to your false analogies, but I'm not going to bother copy/pasting a detailed response into this comment section. Instead, I'll simply provide the following link: prolifetrainingDOTcom/Articles/46966-Advanced%20PL%20Apologetics%20Biola.pdf
@Snackbar47 Sorry, meant to also say that 1) You'll have to actually put a period where it says "DOT" since YouTube doesn't allow hyperlinks and 2) The argument can be found on pages 37-42.
Firstly, the article was surprisingly sophisticated. Unlike most other pro-life literature I’m familiar with, it actually had some interesting things to say. So thanks again for linking it.
Secondly, the analogy I defend (which I haven’t *fully* described in the comments) differs from Thompson’s - though the thrust of the argument is essentially the same. I had an easy time answering the article’s challenges to the comparability of abortion and my “bodily autonomy” analogy.
Thirdly, I found the counter-examples stimulating, because I hadn’t heard them before. After consideration, I think my analogy still holds up while still allowing me to take a reasonable position on the counter examples.
Obviously, I have not given you specifics. I can’t due to the nature of youtube comments - I’d have to write an article of my own. But I thought I owed it to you to let you know I did review the article, and found it quite good, though not without it’s faults.
@PhilosoBot Thanks for checking out the article. I just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate your apparent honesty and openness to seeking the truth. Unfortunately not many pro-abortionists act in such a manner (and yes, some pro-lifers don't fully know their facts and act like jerks at times as well).
@PhilosoBot@PhilosoBot All in all, thanks for having an open mind. I'm not going to request your rebuttals to every point in the document you read, but I sure hope you're continuing to be honest with yourself in saying that you actually have sound answers to everything you read.
@PhilosoBot And lastly, I thought you might be interested in a relatively short talk by Peter Kreeft. I'll post the link below. Click it, then scroll down and click "Pro-Life Philosophy - The Philosophical Case Against Abortion". Thanks again for having an open mind for truth and life! -Greg (peterkreeftDOTcom/audio_more.htm)
@PhilosoBot Sorry, don't know if that link is going to work. Here's a quick way to get to it: 1) Go to PeterKreeftDOTcom, 2) Click "Featured Audio" on the left, 3) Scroll down and click "Featured Audio—More" under the "Free Audio" heading, 4) Scroll down to the "Culture" section and click "Pro-Life Philosophy"
@Snackbar47 Thanks for the link. I opened it, and it looks like quite a large document. Care to tell me which part(s) specifically addresses my analogies? Or is the whole thing a response to them?
Evidently my mother chose to birth me and raise me. So what? Did you know that most pro-choice people have children of their own? I know I do.... and THEY are pro-choice, some with children of their own. It's a choice every pregnant woman makes every time - Will she give birth, or not....
@geezusispan "So what?" Are you serious?? Do you not understand that you would have been killed and wouldn't be alive today if your own mother did not choose to give you life?
@geezusispan "It's a choice every pregnant woman makes every time - Will she give birth, or not..." Hmm... what does "or not" phrase mean in your sentence? Oh yeah. It means intentionally choosing to murder an innocent human life. No wonder you didn't have the guts to finish your sentence.
@geezusispan First of all, even if that's true it doesn't prove or say anything about the inherent morality of killing an innocent human child. Secondly, it'd be nice to have some research to backup your claim. Care to provide some? (really, I'm curious)
@geezusispan I already tried to find proof for your claims about illegal abortion laws via Google... couldn't find anything to verify your statements, but am still interested in them. Surely you could find the sources of your own claims...?
@geezusispan Oh wow. You just said an awful lot about yourself with that sentence: "there is no inherent morality for anything". So there's nothing inherently wrong with rape, murder, racism, slavery, genocide, or infanticide? Sorry buddy, but moral relativism doesn't quite hold water like you'd like it to. It's more of a copout than anything else. Surely you don't believe "ANYthing goes", do you??
You do know what inherent means don't you? Murdering one in your tribe or family is as close to inherent as possible. The wolves, ants and piranha have that rule. that is the source.
Killing for a "good reason" is done daily by humans. War for example. Racism, rape genocide are also done daily. I have been through the abortion isn't legally murder with a pro-lifer who is also a lawyer. I don't remember where I got the info and don't care if you find it or not.
@geezusispan 1) Humans aren't wolves, ants, or piranhas. 2) The existence of killing, war, racism, rape, and genocide in the world has nothing to do with whether they are moral or not. 3) If you truly believe that murdering an innocent human life (which is what happens through abortion) is an okay thing to do, then what kind of reasoning would there be for anyone to not kill you, or a friend of yours, or me? Saying "there is no inherent morality for anything" has a great deal of consequences...
@Snackbar47 Human's are evolved animals and that's the beginning of morals, our ancestors. Do I have to take you by the hand and explain every little thing? Abortion is a form of birth control. Once one is born they are "in the club". When one inside of and literally growing from a woman, SHE has the say about birth. Morality is a human invention and the precise rules have varied from one extreme to another.
@geezusispan So what is precisely that makes one a part of "the club"? Is it the scissors which cut the umbilical cord? Is it the oxygen that the baby breathes in for the first time? Or is it something else? Seems to me that a beating heart would be indication enough that there is a real, living human being in there (which, by the way, can be detected 22 days after conception). Based on your pseudo-science and silly rhetoric, I'm guessing you've never seen an ultrasound before.
@Snackbar47 Being in the club is when the woman discovers she is pregnant and she decides she wants to birth a child. THAT is the choice. The embryo is alive and human but, if the woman, it is literally growing from, doesn't think now is the right time to give birth, then she can eject it.
@geezusispan Let me help you realize what you just said (because I'm pretty sure you don't even know how your foundational argument): You just admitted that the embryo is alive and human, and then insinuated that it is the mother's own THOUGHT that determines whether or not it is okay for her to murder her unborn baby. Using that logic, why couldn't the mother also think "It'd be good to crash a plane into the World Trade Center" or "I believe it's okay to poison my 3 year-old"...?
@Snackbar47 asks - Using that logic, why couldn't the mother also think "It'd be good to crash a plane into the World Trade Center" or "I believe it's okay to poison my 3 year-old"...?
l Anyone could decide to do anything, but there are societal rules aka, laws. Then there is the FACT that the embryo is literally GROWING FROM the woman. THAT is a special one of a kind condition. Why do think YOU have the right to tell a woman, you will never even ,that she has to give birth?
@geezusispan Furthermore, please don't cover up abortion with such a term as "ejection" ("then she can eject it"). Have the guts to call a spade a spade. Abortion is the dismemberment, poisoning or crushing of an innocent human life. It's not a bowel movement or the removal of a spleen or anything like that. It's the forced murder of a defenseless child.
@geezusispan So if morality is just a human invention (like you say it is), you're saying there is no REAL right or wrong (it just depends on feelings or something like that). Connect the dots and you'll soon realize that there is no actual justification to saying rape, incest, torture, genocide, etc. are morally wrong. That, to me, sounds like absolute nonsense.
Like I said, these morals or rules have been worked out over the ages. First by our ancestor animals then by our ancestor humans. Every way has been tried, and is still being played with. Every culture has come up with the so called "golden rule". So that's a tried and true good approach. There is NO absolute truth when it comes to the philosophy of ethics. It sounds like nonsense to you because you haven't thought about it through.
@geezusispan No, it IS nonsense. To suggest that morality is just something humans have been making up for thousands of years and that it changes based on culture and time is preposterous. No one would ever say that rape, incest, or the intentional murder of children could be wrong on Tuesday, but okay on Wednesday, or wrong in one country, but right in another simply because you crossed a border.
@geezusispan You said, "There is NO absolute truth when it comes to the philosophy of ethics." But wait a minute... You just made an absolute truth claim that there is no absolute truth. Pretty sure you just defeated your own argument. Nice going.
@Snackbar47 You said, "There is NO absolute truth when it comes to the philosophy of ethics." But wait a minute... You just made an absolute truth claim that there is no absolute truth. Pretty sure you just defeated your own argument. Nice going.
l
Are you really that stupid? Could my statement in any way be considered under the title of philosophy of ethics? All you want to do is play childish games....
@geezusispan Since you seem to have no understanding of why moral relativism is a ludicrous philosophy, I'd highly encourage you to Google the following: "a refutation of moral relativism peter kreeft transcription" (should be the first link)
@Snackbar47 Believing that YOUR moral fantasy are THE morals that ALL humans live by is ridiculous. All you have to do is look at the behavior of all the other humans. We all pretty much agree that murder is wrong, but in cases of war, self defense, Agent 007, etc,. etc. It's fine. YOU believe abortion is wrong FOR OTHER PEOPLE, and yet it's legal and even where it isn't legal actual women have them every day. You can decide for you and allow all the other women to decide for them.
@PhilosoBot 3. Still waiting for your answer to the following question (which you continue to avoid): Aren't you glad your mom didn't "choose" to murder you?
@BuecherFuerAlle If the embryo/fetus doesn't care AT ALL about being born, then why do you want women you've never seen and never will see to have children they don't want??
@geezusispan so what if they "don't care". if your best friend was standing on the ledge of a cliff, and about to jump off, he clearly doesn't care either. you'd still try to talk him out of it.
"...the part that has the capacity for rational thought. This is developed in the first trimester."
So you think that a new born baby is capable of rational thought? That just shows how ignorant you are.
"I will concede that a lump of genetic code is the basis for human life, but it is not human life." At fertilization a complete set of human genes exists. At fertilization it is alive. That is biological fact. If it wasn't alive it wouldn't be growing or using energy
@stupidfatuglybastard What makes a human truly human is that they have a full set of human DNA.
You speak of different levels of development but a human isn't fully developed(either physically or mentally) until years after they are born. They also can't Survive on their own and tell long after they are born. Following your logic it is perfectly acceptable for a mother to kill her child for quite awhile after it is born but I'm pretty sure you don't agree that it's ok to do that.
@jimv1983 asks - What about the choice of the new life?
l
An embryo can not choose, it doesn't have the mental equipment for that. They can be aborted and they will never even know the difference. Women have the right to decide if and when they reproduce.
it should eb similar for a man then, not give custody or support if he chooses not to, not only that the woman is not auto-conceiving, it takes two to make a life, so the decision should not be hers only.
and that why degenrate fucks like will be stopped from ur shit for brain mentality. It will change so that women cannot make the decision on her own, and certainly not get a child support if a man does not want to. The motherucking double standards. Life is not a product of one person, it's a product of two.
@Sam10947 Yeah, your an angry little peckerwood aren't you? Women do all the work in the process, maybe read a biology book? Who should support the child if the man doesn't want to? The government, perhaps? Let me know when you change the current reality.....hahahaha
the reality is already changing ding dong...divorce is all time high, marriage rate is all time low, men marrying foreigners, supereme court cases being turned to the benefit of fathers more and more, more association and attorneys r seeing the profit in this, all this and while men are slacking about this issue, the day we real men decide to flip the whole motherfucking system, ti will happen, cause men allow shit and prevent shit. got that ya fucking woman disgrace
Your such a tough guy typist! Delusional as well. Real man, huh? What is that a different term for misogynist? Get back to me when all these "changes" happen.
btw - What Supreme Court case is going to let deadbeat Dads off the hook?
i'm a Phd student..i read biology shit while i'm in the bathroom, the last frivilous shit i read about. Also as a mathematician and engineer by profession, so shut the fuck up, learn logic b4 u speak from ur shithole. First off, Abortion is killing, second if a woman does not want to carry the child, then similarly the man must not have the bearing if he's not ready for that job too..if u fail to understand that, u'r a hopeless gray matter lacking retard. continued
Great video, I think people fail to recognize the gravity of this issue. If the unborn isn't human then there is no problem with killing them, however, if they are human, than we are responsible for killing over 50 million people in the last 30 years, and we continue to kill 1 million every year. That puts us in the same category as Hitler in regards to the amount of people we've unjustly killed.
(red herring 2 : a diversion intended to distract attention from the real issue) — “Religion poisons everything”? What role has religion in the centralized, fractional-reserve banking of fiat money (money that represents debt, not capital; money that is created from nothing; money that accrues usurious interest)? What role does religion play in the Anglo-American Alliance’s master plan to create a planet-wide totalitarian government based on Malthusian eugenics? None.
Wikipedia: Hitchens has written of his homosexual experiences when in boarding school in his memoir, "Hitch-22." These experiences continued in his college years when he allegedly had relationships with two men who eventually became a part of the Thatcher government.
Part F. And as for an unwilling parent safely turning a child over to a responsible person? Can’t be done when you’re pregnant? Well, it doesn’t take a genius to know that you can wait a few months. Just like unwilling parents living isolated in the arctic must wait a few months until the thaw.
Part F. A human being to be a person must think, feel and have free will to the extent that it's an independent organism? How much? Certainly, a pre-born child normally has those attributes (in nascent form) enough to be viable in its natural environment. (Born humans have a wide range.) And who says that a human being must have them to a certain degree to be a person? (Seems to be an arbitrary value judgment.) Ah, but the pre-born human would be personally affected when you kill him or her.
Part E. A human embryo is a human being. What other kind of being would it be? Not a plant being. Not a rat being. There also is a difference between a newborn baby and a mature adult, but the difference does not mean we can kill one or the other.
Part D. Some abortion-choice folks (Judith Jarvis Thomson) for the sake of argument grant person status, but claim that the pre-born child does not have a right to occupy her mother’s body. This, of course, goes entirely against the tradition of our society to impose a duty upon even unwilling parents to not harm their child until they can safely turn the child over into the custody into a responsible person.
Part C. This position most certainly confuses the difference between biological development and artifactual development. Artifacts are put together piece by piece and the artifact is not “actual” until it has enough of the pieces to function as it was intended. Biological entities begin all at once and in time show us what they are. An early human embryo is a person in embryonic form, a form we all had for a time. The early human embryo is a person with the potential to develop more fully.
Part B. And when abortion-choice folks take the “not a person” position, they mean that the early human does not have certain attributes, or has these attributes to a lesser degree than “persons” do.
@UniversalDirt It means it's not a person, It does not have personhood in the sense that it cannot think or feel or have any free will at all, until it develops to the point where it can become an independent organism it does not have those attributes. If it doesn't have any qualities of personhood that allow it to be personally affected by what anyone does to it, then killing it has the same moral relevance as killing a plant. Anything else is just our own comfort zone.
Part A. When activists (like Justice Harry Blackmun) needed to justify legal abortion, they promulgated the notion “personhood.” But even now, most dictionaries still define “person” as human being, that is, a person is a human being and a human being is a person. Many unsophisticated abortion-choice folks argue that the early human embryo is not a human being—they may simply be ignorant of biology, or they may mean that the human embryo is not a person.
@UniversalDirt Except there's a difference between a human embryo and a human being. Just like there's a difference between a human corpse and a human being.
I want to ask all pro-lifers a question and I want an honest answer from anyone brave enough to give it. If a building was on fire, and there was a single 4 year old trapped inside of one room, but in another room there were multiple tubes containing viable embryos, and you can only either save the 4 year old child or the embryos, which do you save? If you consider embryos to be people, then you are morally obligated to allow the 4 year old to burn to death, so that you can save more "people."
@WerewolfOfTheWater Thats besides the point. In cases of choosing between life and abortion is the question Hitchens was asked and he has answered correctly. The concept of unborn child, a baby in the womb is a real one with real ethical and moral considerations. It is crassly anti-humanist to disregard the humanity of an unborn child, especially during the late terms of a pregnancy.
@hecdc It is far, far more anti-humanist to deny the reproductive rights of a fully grown woman and expect her to give up her rights for an insentient embryo.
I think morality is just another way of controlling people. Like, if we PHYSICALLY prevented a woman from having an abortion by imprisoning her, tying her down, or whatever most people would find that repugnant. So instead, we control her by saying abortions are "immoral." Its just another way of dominating people. I don't know what makes people think that our society or our government is privy to higher truths than the ones that proceded it. Leave people the fuck alone already.
@duckdown1993 What if your mother wanted to abort you? Babies have their own fingerprints and sexual organs in the second trimester, a beating heart and fully developed nervous system.
Don't get all angry and righteous with me, I am asking a simple question. As a baby in the womb, you are voiceless, defenseless and helpless. In that moment of extreme human vulnerability, would you accept being aborted and thrown in a plastic bag?
@hecdc If my mother aborted me then I wouldn't have ever existed and I wouldn't care, any more than I would if my parents simply never had sex and convinced me. That's the difference between an embryo and a person that you're missing. People have free wills and autonomy, while an embryo's "will" to survive is not conscious one, or anything more than base impulses.
@hecdc What if your parents wanted to use birth control on the night of your conception? What if they never had sex the time you were conceived? You wouldn't exist. Does that mean we should outlaw birth control too or force people to go through with sex once they start thinking about it?
@WerewolfOfTheWater Abortion after the second trimester is infanticide thats what I was saying, and thats the context of what I'm asking you.
The most base and technical definition of "personhood" is being conscious, responsive to stimuli and some would argue having your own fingerprints as an extension to your unique DNA.
At the second trimester, the baby has all those qualities and more. No one said anything about contraception. I'm talking late-term infanticide.
@hecdc The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, very few are "late term." Secondly, reacting to stimuli isn't the same as actually feeling it. A plant can "react to stimuli" but since it has no brain to receive the information, it isn't actually consciously feeling it in any real sense. Neither can an embryo until it has a working neocortex in the THIRD trimester.
@hecdc No they don't. It is it conscious and they don't "agree" on that, because it's IMPOSSIBLE for reasons I already explained. You're the one who's completely ignoring everything I said.
And no because late-term abortions are ALMOST NEVER done except to save the woman's life. Saving a woman's life isn't murder.
@WerewolfOfTheWater "late-term abortions are ALMOST NEVER done except to save the woman's life."
Liar.
Abortions into the third trimester, what is often called "partial-birth" abortion is infanticide practiced even when the mother's life is not in danger, its about choice remember.
Abortion into the second trimester is also infanticide, as the baby's personhood is fully developed and living. And yes they actually agree that the baby is conscious, do your research.
There's nothing to or to not accept. The baby has absolutely no say in this. Its definitely not a pretty side of human nature to be sure, but freedom isn't about producing a world that is fluffy and cute. Its about allowing people to have control over the circumstances of their own lives. If a woman isn't permitted to control the circumstances of her own body as a matter of law than thats a loss for freedom.
"If it is not human, no justification needed. If it is, no justification is sufficient." That statement is wrong, first even if it is not human does not mean we owe no moral consideration to it. Second even if it is a human does not mean that no justification is sufficient, because no human being has the right to use another human beings body against their will. It is a blind and ignorant of the state of ethical thought over the last 40 years.
@nospacesallowed So can we use that line of thinking to abolish the welfare state? If you tax my labor are you not using my body for your own purposes?
@EasyEs No that line of thinking would effectively abolish the entire government. We all use government services which we have to pay for and there is no way to determine between the money I pay to use the highway/defense of government and for programs like food stamps.
@nospacesallowed We have no choice but to use government services, the government has a monopoly on providing them. Also in no way do people pay for government services. The top 10% of income earners pay about 75% of their taxes. Human beings have organized them selves with out forced taxation before I don't know if they have ever existed with out women carrying to term. Also if a prenatal test for homosexuality is found do you support doing to them what is happening to fetus with downs?
@EasyEs First off we do give the government permission. We give our consent to our representatives to make laws and tax the people. The social contract is the bedrock of democratic systems.
Secondly what modern country has no taxes?
Thirdly progressive taxes make sense, the military, police, fire, are all designed to protect our wealth and the top 10% have about 71% of the wealth.
"I don't know if they have ever existed with out women carrying to term. " -What does this mean?
@nospacesallowed No governments assume a mandate to rule for the majority. Also 10% of income earners is a statistical category not a enduring class of people. It does not matter if it makes sense to you it still is using their labor against their will.
The point is that humans can and have organized with out taxation of their wealth, they can not with out normal biological breeding.
Just say what you mean, that you think using certain people is okay sometimes for certain social goals.
@EasyEs "governments assume a mandate" No the governments have a mandate, they achieve this through us electing representatives to be our voice in the government. We give our reps the ability to raise taxes, make laws ect. If someone doesn't like how our gov is formed, this is especially true for the richest, they can move or push to have people they like elected. What you are arguing against is the very nature of Democracy. That each person must vote on every existing tax law.
@EasyEs cont. "they can not with out normal biological breeding." Can not what? organize or raise taxes? I think what you mean is that humans must breed to survive, so therefore abortion is bad. If that is what you mean than it is neither valid nor sound. Just because we must breed to survive has no connection to the status or abortion. If it was valid than celibacy must also be bad. even if we accept that it is valid, it still is unsound. Even if abortion is legal we will still breed.
@nospacesallowed You make no sense. The point is clear. You have no problem with using other people to create government. However you state that no one can ever use someone else not even a fetus but you make the allowance for the creation of the state. You are inconsistent. I don't argue that the state is a bad thing, I just argue that the state violates a principal that you hold up to absurd levels to defend abortion.
Can a man deny a woman child support if he never agreed to the baby?
@EasyEs If the man who fathered the baby shouldn't have to help feed it, but the government shouldn't either, AND she shouldn't be allowed to terminate her pregnancy, you're suggesting the woman should just deal with it, no matter how low her income is? Do you realize how many women and children that would hurt? Charities usually don't have the funds to help everyone in substantial ways, what you are suggesting is abandoning the health and rights of women and children everywhere.
@EasyEs You might not think child support is "fair" but child support is nickles and dimes when you consider the cost of raising a child in this day and age. The man still isn't even required to be in that child's life. He can whoop it up and party all he wants, just having to write a check every month while the woman is at home with the baby. and many women don't even make the man pay child support if he's abusive and she's afraid of him. Republithugs are the enemies of women everywhere.
@nospacesallowed 2- You are just dishonest, you say that it is wrong for a fetus who never asked to be created to 'use' a woman because it violates your principal that no one can use another persons body. However you make an exception right out of the gate because you support a state and progressive taxation. Just be honest and say that you think it is okay to use the mind and body of some people based in their income or wealth.
@nospacesallowed Also your point about breeding is not needed as the argument is that there is no other option but to carry a child to term, where as humans do have other options as to how they organize in groups.
@EasyEs There is no other option... Abortion is another option.
There is no inconsistency. The government does what it does on behalf of the people. That is we give our rep the right to speak on our behalf. If the rep does things we do not like we elect him out of office. If we still feel the state doesn't represent us then we can demand a new government, like the founders did. I love how you glibly ignore the last 300 years of political thought, without making an argument. to be cont
@nospacesallowed This is getting absurd, democracy does not mean " everyone agrees" it is a comprimise people enter into. At the core peoples labor is used against their will all the time in a democracy. That is how it works. Yeah keep going on about 'will of the people'. I suppose the Japanese Americans interned in WW2 didn't have their personal freedoms violated because it came about via "will of the people". Just stop with the attempts at deflecting the main point.
@EasyEs Also stating that you are dishonest is not an argument it a statement I feel is supported by my argument oh wise creationist. Answer my question. Does a man who never agreed to support a child have to use his body and mind to support a woman who he impregnated?
Also should homosexual fetus (if a gene for homosexuality is found) be protected from eugenic abortion? If so why does this not extend to fetus with downs?
@EasyEs p1. First off I am not a creationist. This is just more bombast from a desperate troll who is ignorant of political philosophy and has no argument.
If a man gives up his rights to a child, then why should they have to pay? A mother can give her child up for adoption, why can't the man? If that is the case then if he requests to see the child or has any substantial personal contact with the child then the man has taken his rights back and should have to pay all previous child support.
@nospacesallowed If a woman has to carry that child for 9 months and risk permanent damage to her body and psche, then why shouldn't the man be forced through something similar?
p2. If a person aborts because they thing their child is gay that person is a bigoted prick, but that doesn't take their rights away. Further this is not "Eugenics". Eugenics applies to a social policy of stopping some genetic tendencies. Not a social program that allows you to have control over what genetic tendencies a child will have. If that is eugenics then sexual selection is also eugenics.
If we do not have rights to our own bodies, then by what means can we say slavery is wrong?
@nospacesallowed P1 I don't know where this idea of you being a creationist come from. I am not one and in no way did I suspect you to be one. Second I agree for the most part. P2 I agree, however people could argue that they are saving the child from a hard life etc. You are just splitting hairs here, I presumed that homosexuality was a genetic trait, it isn't that hard to see some societies wanting to attempt to eradicate those tendencies.
@nospacesallowed We are slaves to all kinds of bodily functions. Abortion is wrong in my view for a large number of reasons. A big one is that turns an intrinsic human right into an extrinsic human right. That alone will be catastrophic over the long term. Here in Canada a mother go zero jail time for killing her newborn and throwing it over the fence. The judge cited general support for abortion as a reason in her judgement. I suspect that things will get worse from here.
@EasyEs If abortion is only wrong because it might lead to things that you view as wrong, then that's not a very good argument against abortion -itself.- Women should not be slaves to pregnancy when options exist for them to terminate it, especially since pregnancy is a bodily function that can risk her health. Just because it's a bodily function doesn't mean it's healthy to go through with it for every particular person.
@EasyEs Women also have to go off of certain medications during pregnancy and sometimes they cannot afford to do so for their own sakes, such as depression meds. Diabetes makes pregnancy risky for women as well. Women also cannot obtain certain cancer screenings if she is pregnant; if she's pregnant and suspects she might have cancer, but isn't allowed to abort, you would just tell her she's shit outta luck. Worse yet if she is raped, you would tell her the same thing.
@EasyEs If you wanna play the "slippery slope" argument game, like how you say legalizing abortion would lead to more women killing newborns, I can play the same game. you know here in the US there was a few cases of women actually being arrested for having miscarriages. That is what an anti-abortion society looks like. Also, making abortion illegal would actually cause the scenario you described to happen more often. If a woman can't get abortion she'd be more likely to harm the actual child.
@EasyEs A woman should always have ultimate control over the fate of her own body, regardless of the reasons, whether it's a good reason or not. I wouldn't agree with her aborting an embryo (it's not a fetus until 8 weeks) if it's gay, but I wouldn't take away her right to do so. An embryo is not a person, she is not killing a gay person but preventing a gay person from being born. I don't like it or agree with it, but HER medical decisions are not my choice to make. They're not yours, either.
@WerewolfOfTheWater I am not sure how to best answer your ramblings but I will try to identify things in chronological order and order the responses A, B etc.
A. Right of the bat you make a flawed argument. A woman should always have control over their fate? Not a Person? So a unborn person does not have a right to determine their own fate? You can argue that they are not a person but can not make the argument that women can control the fate of another person.
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 4 days ago
@tigersforchrist
Strange, as man eradicated smallpox saving hundreds of millions of lives. Man is perfect as man does something about it :)
If your god created the universe, which their is no evidence for any uncaused cause anyway. And just sat and looked at the hundreds of millions of people dieing of smallpox...with 80% of infected children—dieing from the disease...how imperfect does that make your god. That he couldnt solve a simple problem if he is so superior
devante11 2 days ago
@tigersforchrist
Only a REAL FOOL would believe in primitive men he has never met. And in primitive books that cant even tell you about blood types.
devante11 2 days ago
Human vs non-human is the wrong approach. What matters is intelligent vs unintelligent, autonomous vs non-autonomous, feeling vs unfeeling. It's worse to kill a lifeform with these levels at or surpassing those of humans even if it isn't human that it is to kill a human with no awareness, feeling, or individuality.
belolacove 1 week ago
I disagree with your "only question that matters." I don't think it's a matter of the nature of the unborn as much as it is a matter of *when* we can say the unborn becomes something we can call "human." I agree with what Hitchens said here, but he has also said elsewhere that the idea of being human at conception is absurd. Now, the answer to just when a fetus becomes something deserving of human rights and protection from harm is extremely difficult to answer.
johnjsal 1 week ago
Either you're pro abortion or you're pro welfare. If an infant has a right to life, then you're gonna have to provide it mang. Put your money where your mouth is.
rokth 3 weeks ago
@rokth or adoption, SURPRISE SURPRISE
RayWilliamJohansen 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I agree that an unborn embryo growing within a human mother is human. Its the result of the union of two human beings, it has unique human DNA that if allowed to be born will grow up like any human being around it.
The issue is not the nature of the unborn, But what rights does it have.
Does it have a greater right to life than the mother for example?
We talk about HUMAN rights and the right to life, yet as a species we murder each other every day in Wars.
What is the value of human life?
CyberNeticRodent 1 month ago
I agree that an unborn embryo growing within a human mother is human. Its the result of the union of two human beings, it has unique human DNA that if allowed to be born will grow up like any human being around it.
The issue is not the nature of the unborn, But what rights does it have.
Does it have a greater right to life than the mother for example?
We talk about HUMAN rights and the right to life, yet as a species we murder each other every day in Wars.
What is the value of human life?
CyberNeticRodent 1 month ago
Yes but Hitchen approaches the idea of Pro-Life from the perspective of humanism, the human right to make up its own mind. recognising the rights of humans to live including the unborn child. Hitchens advocates abortion given circumstances that warrent it, I.E a threat to the life of the mother for example. However religious perspectives on Pro-Life are absolute and dictated by Dogma without the right for human perpsective to direct necessary action and adapt to circumstance.
CyberNeticRodent 1 month ago
Very rare that I just straight up disagree with Hitchens. I don't recognise the concept of an 'unborn child' when referring to a zygote.
popeyroach 1 month ago
@popeyroach But why though? What is it that makes you believe this? I am not being facetious, I honestly want to know why it is so easy for pro-choicers to define life as post-birth. When people write it off without justifying why they define life in this matter, as if it should be obvious to everyone and pro-lifers are just being willfully ignorant, I am repulsed, in much the same way I am repulsed by many pro-lifers' chauvinism and tendency to act as if pregnant women are by default immoral.
Schredkern 3 weeks ago
@popeyroach It just seems like the issue boils down to how people define life, a monumental task that seems impossible, honestly. Why is one person's clump of cells or "zygote" another person's child? Is brain activity the predominant way someone should define life? How can pro-lifers defend the belief that, since a fetus is a baby, a woman has no say in the matter, often with insulting language? How can pro-choicers simply say, "It is not alive" without explaining why?
Schredkern 3 weeks ago
@popeyroach For the record, I am an atheist, a humanist, and very liberal in nearly all of my positions. I am anti-death penalty, not opposed to euthanasia when it is an act of sincere compassion, pro-gay marriage, anti-war for the most part. But I have yet to hear an argument from either side on this issue that seems willing to acknowledge the complexity inherent.
Sorry if this was just a one-off comment and I'm blowing up your inbox needlessly, by the way.
Schredkern 3 weeks ago
Regardless, It isn't the governments position to make that decision. I like abortions. So why should your views trump my views?
nashkita77 1 month ago
Notice how Ben scumfuck Stein jumps at the chance to bring up abortion as soon as the word "child" is mentioned. Seriously, fuck that guy.
DaveDaviddsonn 1 month ago
I'm a Christian, have been my whole life. But there is an argument that is seriously making me consider going pro-choice.
First of all I think some of the reasons given by pro-choicers is complete bull. I think it's ludicrous to say that a woman should have an abortion in cases of rape because the unborn child reminds this woman of the rape. That would seem to me to be the same as being held at gun point by a criminal WITH my family present and then saying that I should kill my family...
cougarsrule45 1 month ago
@cougarsrule45
... because they "remind" me of my near death experience. I've heard it argued that being raped makes you lose all sense of self-control, well guess what, being the victim of a hold up does that to, in the end we are all in control up to a certain point. The people at Virginia Tech didn't decide to kill each other because they reminded them of what happened during the massacre that took place 5 years ago.
With all that being said there are two arguments pro-choicers...
cougarsrule45 1 month ago
@cougarsrule45
should use to convince Christians as to why abortion should be made legal and possibly (possibly) government funded.
The first is the case of a woman being told that if she carries the baby she will die. I can understand abortion being allowed in that case.
The second is that abortions are going to take place regardless and this is almost the clincher for me. Christians believe that every human life is valuable in the eyes of God, that it should be cherished. So, if..
cougarsrule45 1 month ago
@cougarsrule45
...you ask me, would I rather have ONE person die, or TWO person die KNOWING that either option A or B will take place/happen, all Christians HAVE TO answer option A.
You can see then why I'm having a hard time with this issue. If people can prove to me that it's going to be inevitable that women will try to take the baby ON THEIR OWN WITH NO MEDICAL SUPERVISION, then I can understand legalizing abortion.
cougarsrule45 1 month ago
@cougarsrule45
Point is, abortions aren't safe to perform without medical supervision and a woman could possibly kill herself, thus two lives are lost instead of one.
cougarsrule45 1 month ago
This video asks the wrong question.
An analogy:
Imagine you decide to go for a drive. Due to circumstances beyond your immediate control, you have a car accident, and lose consciousness. You wake up in a hospital, connected by medical equipment to a child, which was injured in the other car. The doctor says you must remain connected to this child for 9 months for it to survive - you are the only match, no one else can bear this burden.
The question: do you have the right to *choose*?
PhilosoBot 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot What a fucking idiotic comment.
JonathanLHartman 1 month ago
@JonathanLHartman It's analogous to the abortion issue. If we value freedom to choose what to do with ones own body, even in the face of saving another's life (for example, no one can force you to donate a kidney to someone in need,) then the abortion issue is settled. Pro choice wins.
PhilosoBot 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot Umm... I think the whole point of the entire issue is the fact that an INNOCENT CHILD is not the same as a KIDNEY. Your analogy doesn't hold any water because we're talking about two entirely different "choices": MURDER and organ donation. If your own mother chose to donate a kidney - no big deal. But if she chose to murder you...? Well, you should know the answer to that.
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47 I wasn't comparing the child to a kidney. Reread my scenario. I compared the child to a *person who needed a kidney.* Both people need the bodily properties of someone else to survive. The analogy works.
If you needed your mothers kidney to survive, would she be legally obligated to donate to you, even if her declining to donate would result in your death? No. Neither is she legally obligated to donate her bodily fluids to an embryo, even if it would result in the embryo's death.
PhilosoBot 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot "Obligated to donate her bodily fluids to an embryo"... Are you serious??? If by "bodily fluids" you mean health, nutrition, and safety from chemical agents or body-ripping devices, then yes, the mother should provide all of the above. If you were in an accident and became a quadriplegic unable to feed and take care of yourself, is it suddenly okay to kill you?
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47
1. If I was in an accident, then my family is not legally obligated to spend their resources to take care of me. As for the child under 1, when the parents take the child home from the hospital, they are implicitly agreeing to take care of it. If they don't want it, they don't have to take care of it because they can give it up for adoption.
PhilosoBot 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot Or what about any child under the age of 1 who can't take care of themselves? Are mothers justified in killing those children as well simply because their children need assistance?
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot I'm sorry, but I would say YES, a mother is legally obligated to NOT murder her own child. That certainly sounds like the most commonsensical answer to me. Unfortunately it doesn't jive with your agenda, so of course you're going to reject it as "intrusive" and "bigoted" and "anti-women" and whatnot. Seems to me you're anti-commonsense and anti-innocent-defenseless-child. Again, aren't you glad your mom didn't feel that same way?
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47
2. I think you are failing to distinguish between "murder" and "declining to assist." If I needed a kidney to survive, and you were the only match in the world, would you be "murdering" me if you declined to donate your kidney to me and I died? Of course not. Likewise, if a woman declines to donate her body fluids to an embryo, I don't see it as murdering - I see it as declining to assist. The embryo dies, but it isn't murder.
PhilosoBot 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot 1. You are still avoiding the most obvious fact: Abortion isn't simply "withholding bodily fluids", it's the intentional killing of a child through dismemberment, poisoning or crushing.
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47 1. Abortion is the mother declining to support the embryo with her body, then they take it out. The methods can be up for discussion. I think it's a discussion people should have. But a woman still has a right to detach someone else from her body - no one has the right to be attached to her body against her will.
PhilosoBot 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot Your rhetoric is sickening. Man up and call a spade a spade. The "embryo" in the mother's womb is an INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE that only needs time and nutrition until it is ready to be born. An abortion procedure is not just "taking it out" - it is, once again, the DISMEMBERMENT, POISONING, or CRUSHING of a human child. And "declining to support" one's own child is not all that's happening with abortion. A decision to forcefully murder a life is the final "choice" that's made.
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47 Firstly, your personal opinion of my rhetoric is of little importance to me. Secondly, I never denied the humanity of the embryo - my argument works while granting it's personhood. Thirdly, an abortion is the removal of the embryo/fetus that the mother no longer wishes to support. The decision to remove an embryo which has no right to be attached to the mother's body to begin with is not murder - any person is well within their rights to decline access to their own body by others.
PhilosoBot 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot Sorry, I didn't mean for my rhetoric to sound so subjective. May I make myself a little clearer: Your rhetoric, objectively speaking, consistently avoids the most obvious things which you wish to not address. A baby, contrary to your attitude and thinking, is not a parasite. It's a human life which, like everyone, has a "right to life" which should be safeguarded for the sheer reason that it is the foundation of all other rights.
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47 I answered your questions. I haven't failed to address anything. I never used the word parasite, and I also mentioned that the "right to life" doesn't include the "right to use another's body against their will." I've already addressed this in past comments.
PhilosoBot 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot 2. "A kidney exists for the health and proper functioning of the body of whomever it belongs to, but each month the uterus gets ready for someone else's body. So, while one does not have a right to another's kidney, the unborn do have a right to the uterus which exists for them." (Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform)
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47 2. A quote from a pro-life organization won't help you here. While an embryo, if a person, can have a right to life, no person has the right to attach to another's body against their will.
3. I wasn't "avoiding" this question. Firstly, it wouldn't have been murder. Secondly, whether I am glad or not doesn't have any bearing on what someone's legal rights are or aren't.
PhilosoBot 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot Wait - what was that? Still avoiding the question? BEING ALIVE doesn't make any difference to you? Being crushed and sucked out of your own mother's womb wouldn't have been murder?? Good grief...
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47 I didn't say it doesn't make a difference to me. I said it doesn't make a difference to what legal rights she has. For example, if I need a kidney, I would appreciate and even prefer for you to donate one, but it doesn't change your right to keep both your kidneys. Likewise, I appreciate that my mother had me, but I recognize that she was under no legal obligation to do so - my preference for life doesn't change the fact that she has a legal right to decline my access to her body.
PhilosoBot 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot Once again, you're still suggesting (without ever using the words, because you're too chicken to call it like it is) that directly murdering an innocent human being is okay. Your "declining access to bodily fluids" ridiculousness is an entirely other issue because a choice must still be made to purposefully kill the child (which you seem to believe is just fine and dandy).
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47 As I've already explained - it isn't murder. If a woman doesn't want to support it, she is well within her rights to remove it from her body. Unfortunately, that results in the death of the embryo. But that doesn't mean it is murder.
If you were hooked up to me, and I was sucking your nutrients out, and the doc said if you disconnect yourself from me, that I'd die, would you have the right to remove me from your body? Would it be murder? No, of course not.
PhilosoBot 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot I would like to share a full rebuttal to your false analogies, but I'm not going to bother copy/pasting a detailed response into this comment section. Instead, I'll simply provide the following link: prolifetrainingDOTcom/Articles/46966-Advanced%20PL%20Apologetics%20Biola.pdf
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47 Sorry, meant to also say that 1) You'll have to actually put a period where it says "DOT" since YouTube doesn't allow hyperlinks and 2) The argument can be found on pages 37-42.
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47 Okay, 37-42. I'll check it out.
PhilosoBot 1 month ago
@Snackbar47
Firstly, the article was surprisingly sophisticated. Unlike most other pro-life literature I’m familiar with, it actually had some interesting things to say. So thanks again for linking it.
Secondly, the analogy I defend (which I haven’t *fully* described in the comments) differs from Thompson’s - though the thrust of the argument is essentially the same. I had an easy time answering the article’s challenges to the comparability of abortion and my “bodily autonomy” analogy.
PhilosoBot 1 month ago
@Snackbar47
Thirdly, I found the counter-examples stimulating, because I hadn’t heard them before. After consideration, I think my analogy still holds up while still allowing me to take a reasonable position on the counter examples.
Obviously, I have not given you specifics. I can’t due to the nature of youtube comments - I’d have to write an article of my own. But I thought I owed it to you to let you know I did review the article, and found it quite good, though not without it’s faults.
PhilosoBot 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot Thanks for checking out the article. I just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate your apparent honesty and openness to seeking the truth. Unfortunately not many pro-abortionists act in such a manner (and yes, some pro-lifers don't fully know their facts and act like jerks at times as well).
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot @PhilosoBot All in all, thanks for having an open mind. I'm not going to request your rebuttals to every point in the document you read, but I sure hope you're continuing to be honest with yourself in saying that you actually have sound answers to everything you read.
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot And lastly, I thought you might be interested in a relatively short talk by Peter Kreeft. I'll post the link below. Click it, then scroll down and click "Pro-Life Philosophy - The Philosophical Case Against Abortion". Thanks again for having an open mind for truth and life! -Greg (peterkreeftDOTcom/audio_more.htm)
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot Sorry, don't know if that link is going to work. Here's a quick way to get to it: 1) Go to PeterKreeftDOTcom, 2) Click "Featured Audio" on the left, 3) Scroll down and click "Featured Audio—More" under the "Free Audio" heading, 4) Scroll down to the "Culture" section and click "Pro-Life Philosophy"
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47 Thanks for the link. I opened it, and it looks like quite a large document. Care to tell me which part(s) specifically addresses my analogies? Or is the whole thing a response to them?
PhilosoBot 1 month ago
@Snackbar47
Evidently my mother chose to birth me and raise me. So what? Did you know that most pro-choice people have children of their own? I know I do.... and THEY are pro-choice, some with children of their own. It's a choice every pregnant woman makes every time - Will she give birth, or not....
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan "So what?" Are you serious?? Do you not understand that you would have been killed and wouldn't be alive today if your own mother did not choose to give you life?
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@geezusispan "It's a choice every pregnant woman makes every time - Will she give birth, or not..." Hmm... what does "or not" phrase mean in your sentence? Oh yeah. It means intentionally choosing to murder an innocent human life. No wonder you didn't have the guts to finish your sentence.
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47
Did you know that even in countries where abortion is illegal, the women who abort are not charged with murder? I wonder why??
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan First of all, even if that's true it doesn't prove or say anything about the inherent morality of killing an innocent human child. Secondly, it'd be nice to have some research to backup your claim. Care to provide some? (really, I'm curious)
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47 Use your Google button for research of illegal abortion laws.
l Inherent morality of abortion? No. It isn't inherent, in fact there is no inherent morality for anything.
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan I already tried to find proof for your claims about illegal abortion laws via Google... couldn't find anything to verify your statements, but am still interested in them. Surely you could find the sources of your own claims...?
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@geezusispan Oh wow. You just said an awful lot about yourself with that sentence: "there is no inherent morality for anything". So there's nothing inherently wrong with rape, murder, racism, slavery, genocide, or infanticide? Sorry buddy, but moral relativism doesn't quite hold water like you'd like it to. It's more of a copout than anything else. Surely you don't believe "ANYthing goes", do you??
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47
You do know what inherent means don't you? Murdering one in your tribe or family is as close to inherent as possible. The wolves, ants and piranha have that rule. that is the source.
Killing for a "good reason" is done daily by humans. War for example. Racism, rape genocide are also done daily. I have been through the abortion isn't legally murder with a pro-lifer who is also a lawyer. I don't remember where I got the info and don't care if you find it or not.
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan 1) Humans aren't wolves, ants, or piranhas. 2) The existence of killing, war, racism, rape, and genocide in the world has nothing to do with whether they are moral or not. 3) If you truly believe that murdering an innocent human life (which is what happens through abortion) is an okay thing to do, then what kind of reasoning would there be for anyone to not kill you, or a friend of yours, or me? Saying "there is no inherent morality for anything" has a great deal of consequences...
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47 Human's are evolved animals and that's the beginning of morals, our ancestors. Do I have to take you by the hand and explain every little thing? Abortion is a form of birth control. Once one is born they are "in the club". When one inside of and literally growing from a woman, SHE has the say about birth. Morality is a human invention and the precise rules have varied from one extreme to another.
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan So what is precisely that makes one a part of "the club"? Is it the scissors which cut the umbilical cord? Is it the oxygen that the baby breathes in for the first time? Or is it something else? Seems to me that a beating heart would be indication enough that there is a real, living human being in there (which, by the way, can be detected 22 days after conception). Based on your pseudo-science and silly rhetoric, I'm guessing you've never seen an ultrasound before.
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47 Being in the club is when the woman discovers she is pregnant and she decides she wants to birth a child. THAT is the choice. The embryo is alive and human but, if the woman, it is literally growing from, doesn't think now is the right time to give birth, then she can eject it.
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan Let me help you realize what you just said (because I'm pretty sure you don't even know how your foundational argument): You just admitted that the embryo is alive and human, and then insinuated that it is the mother's own THOUGHT that determines whether or not it is okay for her to murder her unborn baby. Using that logic, why couldn't the mother also think "It'd be good to crash a plane into the World Trade Center" or "I believe it's okay to poison my 3 year-old"...?
Snackbar47 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snackbar47 asks - Using that logic, why couldn't the mother also think "It'd be good to crash a plane into the World Trade Center" or "I believe it's okay to poison my 3 year-old"...?
l Anyone could decide to do anything, but there are societal rules aka, laws. Then there is the FACT that the embryo is literally GROWING FROM the woman. THAT is a special one of a kind condition. Why do think YOU have the right to tell a woman, you will never even ,that she has to give birth?
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan Furthermore, please don't cover up abortion with such a term as "ejection" ("then she can eject it"). Have the guts to call a spade a spade. Abortion is the dismemberment, poisoning or crushing of an innocent human life. It's not a bowel movement or the removal of a spleen or anything like that. It's the forced murder of a defenseless child.
Snackbar47 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snackbar47 Have the guts to call a spade a spade. OK, Abortion is birth control....
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan So if morality is just a human invention (like you say it is), you're saying there is no REAL right or wrong (it just depends on feelings or something like that). Connect the dots and you'll soon realize that there is no actual justification to saying rape, incest, torture, genocide, etc. are morally wrong. That, to me, sounds like absolute nonsense.
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@Snackbar47
l
Like I said, these morals or rules have been worked out over the ages. First by our ancestor animals then by our ancestor humans. Every way has been tried, and is still being played with. Every culture has come up with the so called "golden rule". So that's a tried and true good approach. There is NO absolute truth when it comes to the philosophy of ethics. It sounds like nonsense to you because you haven't thought about it through.
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan No, it IS nonsense. To suggest that morality is just something humans have been making up for thousands of years and that it changes based on culture and time is preposterous. No one would ever say that rape, incest, or the intentional murder of children could be wrong on Tuesday, but okay on Wednesday, or wrong in one country, but right in another simply because you crossed a border.
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@geezusispan You said, "There is NO absolute truth when it comes to the philosophy of ethics." But wait a minute... You just made an absolute truth claim that there is no absolute truth. Pretty sure you just defeated your own argument. Nice going.
Snackbar47 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snackbar47 You said, "There is NO absolute truth when it comes to the philosophy of ethics." But wait a minute... You just made an absolute truth claim that there is no absolute truth. Pretty sure you just defeated your own argument. Nice going.
l
Are you really that stupid? Could my statement in any way be considered under the title of philosophy of ethics? All you want to do is play childish games....
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan Since you seem to have no understanding of why moral relativism is a ludicrous philosophy, I'd highly encourage you to Google the following: "a refutation of moral relativism peter kreeft transcription" (should be the first link)
Snackbar47 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snackbar47 Believing that YOUR moral fantasy are THE morals that ALL humans live by is ridiculous. All you have to do is look at the behavior of all the other humans. We all pretty much agree that murder is wrong, but in cases of war, self defense, Agent 007, etc,. etc. It's fine. YOU believe abortion is wrong FOR OTHER PEOPLE, and yet it's legal and even where it isn't legal actual women have them every day. You can decide for you and allow all the other women to decide for them.
geezusispan 1 month ago
@PhilosoBot 3. Still waiting for your answer to the following question (which you continue to avoid): Aren't you glad your mom didn't "choose" to murder you?
Snackbar47 1 month ago
liberals don't care a million abortions are performed every year in America, but god help anyone who tries to cut down a redwood tree.
tomthefunky 1 month ago 2
@tomthefunky Exactly!!!
hwAbdiel 1 month ago
Ask any embryo/fetus what they think about abortion. They couldn't care less....
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan dumbass.
BuecherFuerAlle 1 month ago
@BuecherFuerAlle If the embryo/fetus doesn't care AT ALL about being born, then why do you want women you've never seen and never will see to have children they don't want??
YOU are the real DUMB ASS! hahahahah
geezusispan 1 month ago
@geezusispan so what if they "don't care". if your best friend was standing on the ledge of a cliff, and about to jump off, he clearly doesn't care either. you'd still try to talk him out of it.
BuecherFuerAlle 1 month ago
@geezusispan Aren't you glad your own mother didn't think that way?
Snackbar47 1 month ago
@stupidfatuglybastard
"...the part that has the capacity for rational thought. This is developed in the first trimester."
So you think that a new born baby is capable of rational thought? That just shows how ignorant you are.
"I will concede that a lump of genetic code is the basis for human life, but it is not human life." At fertilization a complete set of human genes exists. At fertilization it is alive. That is biological fact. If it wasn't alive it wouldn't be growing or using energy
jimv1983 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So called pro-lifers only see women's bodies as incubators...
geezusispan 2 months ago
@stupidfatuglybastard What makes a human truly human is that they have a full set of human DNA.
You speak of different levels of development but a human isn't fully developed(either physically or mentally) until years after they are born. They also can't Survive on their own and tell long after they are born. Following your logic it is perfectly acceptable for a mother to kill her child for quite awhile after it is born but I'm pretty sure you don't agree that it's ok to do that.
jimv1983 2 months ago
Of course, it's human, but the woman still can choose not to give birth if she feels now is not the right time.
geezusispan 2 months ago
@geezusispan What about the choice of the new life?
jimv1983 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimv1983 asks - What about the choice of the new life?
l
An embryo can not choose, it doesn't have the mental equipment for that. They can be aborted and they will never even know the difference. Women have the right to decide if and when they reproduce.
geezusispan 2 months ago
@geezusispan
it should eb similar for a man then, not give custody or support if he chooses not to, not only that the woman is not auto-conceiving, it takes two to make a life, so the decision should not be hers only.
Sam10947 2 months ago
@Sam10947
When men can become pregnant and give birth, then they can have the same choice as women.
geezusispan 2 months ago
@geezusispan
and that why degenrate fucks like will be stopped from ur shit for brain mentality. It will change so that women cannot make the decision on her own, and certainly not get a child support if a man does not want to. The motherucking double standards. Life is not a product of one person, it's a product of two.
Sam10947 2 months ago
@Sam10947 Yeah, your an angry little peckerwood aren't you? Women do all the work in the process, maybe read a biology book? Who should support the child if the man doesn't want to? The government, perhaps? Let me know when you change the current reality.....hahahaha
geezusispan 2 months ago
Comment removed
Sam10947 2 months ago
@geezusispan
the reality is already changing ding dong...divorce is all time high, marriage rate is all time low, men marrying foreigners, supereme court cases being turned to the benefit of fathers more and more, more association and attorneys r seeing the profit in this, all this and while men are slacking about this issue, the day we real men decide to flip the whole motherfucking system, ti will happen, cause men allow shit and prevent shit. got that ya fucking woman disgrace
Sam10947 2 months ago
@Sam10947 hahahahah
Your such a tough guy typist! Delusional as well. Real man, huh? What is that a different term for misogynist? Get back to me when all these "changes" happen.
btw - What Supreme Court case is going to let deadbeat Dads off the hook?
geezusispan 2 months ago
@geezusispan
get in touch with reality then...since when cunts speak sense.
Sam10947 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sam10947 says - get in touch with reality then...since when cunts speak sense.
l
Is English your second language, or are you just uneducated?
geezusispan 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@geezusispan
i'm a Phd student..i read biology shit while i'm in the bathroom, the last frivilous shit i read about. Also as a mathematician and engineer by profession, so shut the fuck up, learn logic b4 u speak from ur shithole. First off, Abortion is killing, second if a woman does not want to carry the child, then similarly the man must not have the bearing if he's not ready for that job too..if u fail to understand that, u'r a hopeless gray matter lacking retard. continued
Sam10947 2 months ago
Great video, I think people fail to recognize the gravity of this issue. If the unborn isn't human then there is no problem with killing them, however, if they are human, than we are responsible for killing over 50 million people in the last 30 years, and we continue to kill 1 million every year. That puts us in the same category as Hitler in regards to the amount of people we've unjustly killed.
philosophizer149 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(red herring 2 : a diversion intended to distract attention from the real issue) — “Religion poisons everything”? What role has religion in the centralized, fractional-reserve banking of fiat money (money that represents debt, not capital; money that is created from nothing; money that accrues usurious interest)? What role does religion play in the Anglo-American Alliance’s master plan to create a planet-wide totalitarian government based on Malthusian eugenics? None.
procommenter 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wikipedia: Hitchens has written of his homosexual experiences when in boarding school in his memoir, "Hitch-22." These experiences continued in his college years when he allegedly had relationships with two men who eventually became a part of the Thatcher government.
procommenter 2 months ago
...*then* no justification is necessary.
bwallace722 2 months ago
Rip
ieatwiteoutforfun 2 months ago
Nothing new here. I remember reading an essay in Vanity Fair back in 1995 in which he declared himself a pro-lifer.
JeanCocteau777 2 months ago
Correction: previous post is Part G.
UniversalDirt 2 months ago
Part F. And as for an unwilling parent safely turning a child over to a responsible person? Can’t be done when you’re pregnant? Well, it doesn’t take a genius to know that you can wait a few months. Just like unwilling parents living isolated in the arctic must wait a few months until the thaw.
UniversalDirt 2 months ago
Part F. A human being to be a person must think, feel and have free will to the extent that it's an independent organism? How much? Certainly, a pre-born child normally has those attributes (in nascent form) enough to be viable in its natural environment. (Born humans have a wide range.) And who says that a human being must have them to a certain degree to be a person? (Seems to be an arbitrary value judgment.) Ah, but the pre-born human would be personally affected when you kill him or her.
UniversalDirt 2 months ago
Part E. A human embryo is a human being. What other kind of being would it be? Not a plant being. Not a rat being. There also is a difference between a newborn baby and a mature adult, but the difference does not mean we can kill one or the other.
UniversalDirt 2 months ago
Part D. Some abortion-choice folks (Judith Jarvis Thomson) for the sake of argument grant person status, but claim that the pre-born child does not have a right to occupy her mother’s body. This, of course, goes entirely against the tradition of our society to impose a duty upon even unwilling parents to not harm their child until they can safely turn the child over into the custody into a responsible person.
UniversalDirt 2 months ago
@UniversalDirt You can't do that when you're pregnant, genius.
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 months ago
Part C. This position most certainly confuses the difference between biological development and artifactual development. Artifacts are put together piece by piece and the artifact is not “actual” until it has enough of the pieces to function as it was intended. Biological entities begin all at once and in time show us what they are. An early human embryo is a person in embryonic form, a form we all had for a time. The early human embryo is a person with the potential to develop more fully.
UniversalDirt 2 months ago
Part B. And when abortion-choice folks take the “not a person” position, they mean that the early human does not have certain attributes, or has these attributes to a lesser degree than “persons” do.
UniversalDirt 2 months ago
@UniversalDirt It means it's not a person, It does not have personhood in the sense that it cannot think or feel or have any free will at all, until it develops to the point where it can become an independent organism it does not have those attributes. If it doesn't have any qualities of personhood that allow it to be personally affected by what anyone does to it, then killing it has the same moral relevance as killing a plant. Anything else is just our own comfort zone.
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 months ago
Part A. When activists (like Justice Harry Blackmun) needed to justify legal abortion, they promulgated the notion “personhood.” But even now, most dictionaries still define “person” as human being, that is, a person is a human being and a human being is a person. Many unsophisticated abortion-choice folks argue that the early human embryo is not a human being—they may simply be ignorant of biology, or they may mean that the human embryo is not a person.
UniversalDirt 2 months ago
@UniversalDirt Except there's a difference between a human embryo and a human being. Just like there's a difference between a human corpse and a human being.
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 months ago
I want to ask all pro-lifers a question and I want an honest answer from anyone brave enough to give it. If a building was on fire, and there was a single 4 year old trapped inside of one room, but in another room there were multiple tubes containing viable embryos, and you can only either save the 4 year old child or the embryos, which do you save? If you consider embryos to be people, then you are morally obligated to allow the 4 year old to burn to death, so that you can save more "people."
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 months ago
@WerewolfOfTheWater Thats besides the point. In cases of choosing between life and abortion is the question Hitchens was asked and he has answered correctly. The concept of unborn child, a baby in the womb is a real one with real ethical and moral considerations. It is crassly anti-humanist to disregard the humanity of an unborn child, especially during the late terms of a pregnancy.
hecdc 2 months ago
@hecdc It is far, far more anti-humanist to deny the reproductive rights of a fully grown woman and expect her to give up her rights for an insentient embryo.
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 months ago
I think morality is just another way of controlling people. Like, if we PHYSICALLY prevented a woman from having an abortion by imprisoning her, tying her down, or whatever most people would find that repugnant. So instead, we control her by saying abortions are "immoral." Its just another way of dominating people. I don't know what makes people think that our society or our government is privy to higher truths than the ones that proceded it. Leave people the fuck alone already.
duckdown1993 2 months ago
@duckdown1993 What if your mother wanted to abort you? Babies have their own fingerprints and sexual organs in the second trimester, a beating heart and fully developed nervous system.
Don't get all angry and righteous with me, I am asking a simple question. As a baby in the womb, you are voiceless, defenseless and helpless. In that moment of extreme human vulnerability, would you accept being aborted and thrown in a plastic bag?
After all, you were an abortable fetus once.
hecdc 2 months ago
@hecdc If my mother aborted me then I wouldn't have ever existed and I wouldn't care, any more than I would if my parents simply never had sex and convinced me. That's the difference between an embryo and a person that you're missing. People have free wills and autonomy, while an embryo's "will" to survive is not conscious one, or anything more than base impulses.
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 months ago
@hecdc What if your parents wanted to use birth control on the night of your conception? What if they never had sex the time you were conceived? You wouldn't exist. Does that mean we should outlaw birth control too or force people to go through with sex once they start thinking about it?
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 months ago
@WerewolfOfTheWater Abortion after the second trimester is infanticide thats what I was saying, and thats the context of what I'm asking you.
The most base and technical definition of "personhood" is being conscious, responsive to stimuli and some would argue having your own fingerprints as an extension to your unique DNA.
At the second trimester, the baby has all those qualities and more. No one said anything about contraception. I'm talking late-term infanticide.
hecdc 2 months ago
@hecdc The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, very few are "late term." Secondly, reacting to stimuli isn't the same as actually feeling it. A plant can "react to stimuli" but since it has no brain to receive the information, it isn't actually consciously feeling it in any real sense. Neither can an embryo until it has a working neocortex in the THIRD trimester.
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 months ago
@WerewolfOfTheWater You're dodging the question. All doctors agree and legal experts agree that a baby after the second trimester is a human.
Beating heart.
Conscious
Responds to stimuli
Proactive physically
Reproductive organs
Unique fingertips (the basis of a legally seperate identity)
the only difference? The baby's life is dependent on the mother, and thats exactly what it is: a seperate life in the womb.
Early abortions can be justified, late-term is murder. Agree?
hecdc 2 months ago
@hecdc No they don't. It is it conscious and they don't "agree" on that, because it's IMPOSSIBLE for reasons I already explained. You're the one who's completely ignoring everything I said.
And no because late-term abortions are ALMOST NEVER done except to save the woman's life. Saving a woman's life isn't murder.
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 months ago
@WerewolfOfTheWater "late-term abortions are ALMOST NEVER done except to save the woman's life."
Liar.
Abortions into the third trimester, what is often called "partial-birth" abortion is infanticide practiced even when the mother's life is not in danger, its about choice remember.
Abortion into the second trimester is also infanticide, as the baby's personhood is fully developed and living. And yes they actually agree that the baby is conscious, do your research.
hecdc 2 months ago
@hecdc
There's nothing to or to not accept. The baby has absolutely no say in this. Its definitely not a pretty side of human nature to be sure, but freedom isn't about producing a world that is fluffy and cute. Its about allowing people to have control over the circumstances of their own lives. If a woman isn't permitted to control the circumstances of her own body as a matter of law than thats a loss for freedom.
duckdown1993 2 months ago
sadly, most of atheists wants to kill human fetuses
trifulquita15 3 months ago
"If it is not human, no justification needed. If it is, no justification is sufficient." That statement is wrong, first even if it is not human does not mean we owe no moral consideration to it. Second even if it is a human does not mean that no justification is sufficient, because no human being has the right to use another human beings body against their will. It is a blind and ignorant of the state of ethical thought over the last 40 years.
nospacesallowed 4 months ago 2
@nospacesallowed So can we use that line of thinking to abolish the welfare state? If you tax my labor are you not using my body for your own purposes?
EasyEs 3 months ago
@EasyEs No that line of thinking would effectively abolish the entire government. We all use government services which we have to pay for and there is no way to determine between the money I pay to use the highway/defense of government and for programs like food stamps.
nospacesallowed 3 months ago
@nospacesallowed We have no choice but to use government services, the government has a monopoly on providing them. Also in no way do people pay for government services. The top 10% of income earners pay about 75% of their taxes. Human beings have organized them selves with out forced taxation before I don't know if they have ever existed with out women carrying to term. Also if a prenatal test for homosexuality is found do you support doing to them what is happening to fetus with downs?
EasyEs 3 months ago
@EasyEs First off we do give the government permission. We give our consent to our representatives to make laws and tax the people. The social contract is the bedrock of democratic systems.
Secondly what modern country has no taxes?
Thirdly progressive taxes make sense, the military, police, fire, are all designed to protect our wealth and the top 10% have about 71% of the wealth.
"I don't know if they have ever existed with out women carrying to term. " -What does this mean?
nospacesallowed 3 months ago
@nospacesallowed No governments assume a mandate to rule for the majority. Also 10% of income earners is a statistical category not a enduring class of people. It does not matter if it makes sense to you it still is using their labor against their will.
The point is that humans can and have organized with out taxation of their wealth, they can not with out normal biological breeding.
Just say what you mean, that you think using certain people is okay sometimes for certain social goals.
EasyEs 3 months ago
@EasyEs "governments assume a mandate" No the governments have a mandate, they achieve this through us electing representatives to be our voice in the government. We give our reps the ability to raise taxes, make laws ect. If someone doesn't like how our gov is formed, this is especially true for the richest, they can move or push to have people they like elected. What you are arguing against is the very nature of Democracy. That each person must vote on every existing tax law.
to be cont.
nospacesallowed 3 months ago
@EasyEs cont. "they can not with out normal biological breeding." Can not what? organize or raise taxes? I think what you mean is that humans must breed to survive, so therefore abortion is bad. If that is what you mean than it is neither valid nor sound. Just because we must breed to survive has no connection to the status or abortion. If it was valid than celibacy must also be bad. even if we accept that it is valid, it still is unsound. Even if abortion is legal we will still breed.
nospacesallowed 3 months ago
@nospacesallowed You make no sense. The point is clear. You have no problem with using other people to create government. However you state that no one can ever use someone else not even a fetus but you make the allowance for the creation of the state. You are inconsistent. I don't argue that the state is a bad thing, I just argue that the state violates a principal that you hold up to absurd levels to defend abortion.
Can a man deny a woman child support if he never agreed to the baby?
EasyEs 3 months ago
@EasyEs If the man who fathered the baby shouldn't have to help feed it, but the government shouldn't either, AND she shouldn't be allowed to terminate her pregnancy, you're suggesting the woman should just deal with it, no matter how low her income is? Do you realize how many women and children that would hurt? Charities usually don't have the funds to help everyone in substantial ways, what you are suggesting is abandoning the health and rights of women and children everywhere.
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 months ago
@WerewolfOfTheWater D. I will get to this later I have a schwarma to eat.. is that how you spell it?
EasyEs 2 months ago
@EasyEs You might not think child support is "fair" but child support is nickles and dimes when you consider the cost of raising a child in this day and age. The man still isn't even required to be in that child's life. He can whoop it up and party all he wants, just having to write a check every month while the woman is at home with the baby. and many women don't even make the man pay child support if he's abusive and she's afraid of him. Republithugs are the enemies of women everywhere.
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 months ago
@nospacesallowed 2- You are just dishonest, you say that it is wrong for a fetus who never asked to be created to 'use' a woman because it violates your principal that no one can use another persons body. However you make an exception right out of the gate because you support a state and progressive taxation. Just be honest and say that you think it is okay to use the mind and body of some people based in their income or wealth.
EasyEs 3 months ago
@nospacesallowed Also your point about breeding is not needed as the argument is that there is no other option but to carry a child to term, where as humans do have other options as to how they organize in groups.
EasyEs 3 months ago
@EasyEs There is no other option... Abortion is another option.
There is no inconsistency. The government does what it does on behalf of the people. That is we give our rep the right to speak on our behalf. If the rep does things we do not like we elect him out of office. If we still feel the state doesn't represent us then we can demand a new government, like the founders did. I love how you glibly ignore the last 300 years of political thought, without making an argument. to be cont
nospacesallowed 3 months ago
@nospacesallowed This is getting absurd, democracy does not mean " everyone agrees" it is a comprimise people enter into. At the core peoples labor is used against their will all the time in a democracy. That is how it works. Yeah keep going on about 'will of the people'. I suppose the Japanese Americans interned in WW2 didn't have their personal freedoms violated because it came about via "will of the people". Just stop with the attempts at deflecting the main point.
EasyEs 3 months ago
@EasyEs Also stating that you are dishonest is not an argument it a statement I feel is supported by my argument oh wise creationist. Answer my question. Does a man who never agreed to support a child have to use his body and mind to support a woman who he impregnated?
Also should homosexual fetus (if a gene for homosexuality is found) be protected from eugenic abortion? If so why does this not extend to fetus with downs?
EasyEs 3 months ago
@EasyEs p1. First off I am not a creationist. This is just more bombast from a desperate troll who is ignorant of political philosophy and has no argument.
If a man gives up his rights to a child, then why should they have to pay? A mother can give her child up for adoption, why can't the man? If that is the case then if he requests to see the child or has any substantial personal contact with the child then the man has taken his rights back and should have to pay all previous child support.
nospacesallowed 3 months ago
@nospacesallowed If a woman has to carry that child for 9 months and risk permanent damage to her body and psche, then why shouldn't the man be forced through something similar?
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 months ago
p2. If a person aborts because they thing their child is gay that person is a bigoted prick, but that doesn't take their rights away. Further this is not "Eugenics". Eugenics applies to a social policy of stopping some genetic tendencies. Not a social program that allows you to have control over what genetic tendencies a child will have. If that is eugenics then sexual selection is also eugenics.
If we do not have rights to our own bodies, then by what means can we say slavery is wrong?
nospacesallowed 3 months ago
@nospacesallowed P1 I don't know where this idea of you being a creationist come from. I am not one and in no way did I suspect you to be one. Second I agree for the most part. P2 I agree, however people could argue that they are saving the child from a hard life etc. You are just splitting hairs here, I presumed that homosexuality was a genetic trait, it isn't that hard to see some societies wanting to attempt to eradicate those tendencies.
EasyEs 3 months ago
@nospacesallowed We are slaves to all kinds of bodily functions. Abortion is wrong in my view for a large number of reasons. A big one is that turns an intrinsic human right into an extrinsic human right. That alone will be catastrophic over the long term. Here in Canada a mother go zero jail time for killing her newborn and throwing it over the fence. The judge cited general support for abortion as a reason in her judgement. I suspect that things will get worse from here.
EasyEs 3 months ago
@EasyEs If abortion is only wrong because it might lead to things that you view as wrong, then that's not a very good argument against abortion -itself.- Women should not be slaves to pregnancy when options exist for them to terminate it, especially since pregnancy is a bodily function that can risk her health. Just because it's a bodily function doesn't mean it's healthy to go through with it for every particular person.
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 months ago
@EasyEs Women also have to go off of certain medications during pregnancy and sometimes they cannot afford to do so for their own sakes, such as depression meds. Diabetes makes pregnancy risky for women as well. Women also cannot obtain certain cancer screenings if she is pregnant; if she's pregnant and suspects she might have cancer, but isn't allowed to abort, you would just tell her she's shit outta luck. Worse yet if she is raped, you would tell her the same thing.
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 months ago
@EasyEs If you wanna play the "slippery slope" argument game, like how you say legalizing abortion would lead to more women killing newborns, I can play the same game. you know here in the US there was a few cases of women actually being arrested for having miscarriages. That is what an anti-abortion society looks like. Also, making abortion illegal would actually cause the scenario you described to happen more often. If a woman can't get abortion she'd be more likely to harm the actual child.
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 months ago
@EasyEs A woman should always have ultimate control over the fate of her own body, regardless of the reasons, whether it's a good reason or not. I wouldn't agree with her aborting an embryo (it's not a fetus until 8 weeks) if it's gay, but I wouldn't take away her right to do so. An embryo is not a person, she is not killing a gay person but preventing a gay person from being born. I don't like it or agree with it, but HER medical decisions are not my choice to make. They're not yours, either.
WerewolfOfTheWater 2 months ago
@WerewolfOfTheWater I am not sure how to best answer your ramblings but I will try to identify things in chronological order and order the responses A, B etc.
A. Right of the bat you make a flawed argument. A woman should always have control over their fate? Not a Person? So a unborn person does not have a right to determine their own fate? You can argue that they are not a person but can not make the argument that women can control the fate of another person.
EasyEs 2 months ago