Disabling the comments was actually very mature because the pro Childers were saying fucked up things. Free speech means just because you can say something doesn't mean you sould.
Martin Luther King was only a man? Well, so are you! And a lesser one at that. I'm sure you enjoy being alive.... Why shouldn't you give every child that chance?
Good argument! A child's argument on abortion--speaking out on such a complex subject by one who hasn't even reached puberty, cannot be considered anything but absurd. Those who agree with her argument will find it adorable and God-inspired. Those who are not rabid christians will find the whole affair reprehensible. This, in my opinion, is child abuse...at the very least indoctrination. In any case, the girl's argument is certainly not based on life experience.
@Damis10001 I'm glad you agree with me about the argument itself, but I think you're being unfair to the girl. You should not discount her opinion simply because she hasn't yet reached puberty.
If she was fed these arguments and then regurgitated them then yes, it is indoctrination. But if she found these arguments on her own, which is entirely possible, I think she deserves credit for that.
@MTGandP usually, I take sides with Men's Rights Activists. However, this is one exception. And, I must say: most young guys are for abortion just because they wanna get fukked. It's really that simple. So, in your mind, this will increase your sexual activity.
@topgamelord MRAs? Oh Lord. They want women to be servile baby factories with no rights to their reproduction or their children. Glad to hear you at least dissagree with them on the abortion issue. You are almost equitable.
Vert interesting argument :) I have recently become facinated with the subject of abortion and am happy to say I am pro choice. BUT honestly if it was me even if I was raped I would NEVER have an abortion unless the baby was going to be born as a stillborn and I new for sure it would.
@MTGandP Ok, my moms friends unborn babies are more important in this life then my dog...it just makes sense...and this is getting kinda boring so im just gonna end the conversation like this........Nice Chat...Peace:)
@MTGandP I understand where your coming from, but i dont agree. I think unborn babies are more important then animals, because their humans, and i think humans have more purpose and potential then animals...:)
@bieberkkaylawashere1 I do think that humans are more important than other animals, but I think that my reasons are different from yours. Specifically, I don't think that unborn babies are more important than adult animals of some other species.
@MTGandP Seriously. By that i meant personality, and like, I cant really explain it, but people are way more important then animals lets just put it that way.
@MTGandP Well, humans have souls and personalities, humans can make a difference or do something big....and i highly doubt a frog or a cat will do that. :)
@bieberkkaylawashere1 Animals have personalities. To say that animals, especially domesticated, don't, shows you've never had a pet. Ask those who have seen firsthand the love of animals -perhaps inmates condemned to life in prison, even if reformed and repented, or a person suffering in the hospital- about the importance of animals. I'll focus on dogs, as I have personal experience there. Animals can love, regardless of looks, voice, wealth, politics, etc. People are not always so caring.
@MTGandP No, because humans have potential...and souls...and anyway people dont give frogs abortions, that would just be weird,lol. but we dont even know if animals have souls.
Abortion is not fair!If I killed a baby,that was younger but just as important as me,would that be fair that i got to live and the baby didnt?No,I dont think so!If it has a beating heart,its an alive human and baby has a beating heart 18 days after it is conceived.All humans have the right to live,no one human is more important then the other.A baby with a beating heart is just as important as an 80 year old human with a beating heart even if it still is in the womb.Abortion Is Murderanditswrong
Oh my word, you're such a dick. She's 12 years old, she can stop people posting rude comments if she wants to. Do you not realise that when the baby can still leagally be aborted it has a beating heart and a brain? It's a person. Accept it. Grow up.
@LucyHS123 I would kill a mouse (not happily) if it would require a huge investment of my time and energy over the next 18 years in order to keep it alive.
@LucyHS123 I don't support people having abortions just for fun. Even though a fetus isn't worth as much as a person, I don't think that it should simply be killed just for the heck of it. But I'm not going to stop people from killing fetuses for the heck of it if that means I also have to stop people from getting abortions when they really need to.
@mamasmither At what point did I call a fetus a bacterium? They are clearly not the same, although there is a point at which a fetus is only about as complex as a bacterium.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about threatening. Could you rephrase it?
In short, to support abortion is to be a party to genocide & an enabler of abuse, specifically child abuse. While the issues facing women's health are serious and need to be addressed; if termination of the pregnancy is the ultimate solution then the answer needs to lie in the creation of the artificial womb and not the genocide of 10s of millions of innocent people- otherwise we're no better than Hitler and the Nazis.
Child abuse-either negligently or deliberately inflicting harm on a child(general term,not scientific)by a parent or another adult to satisfy their own needs/wants/desires.Killing a child through dismemberment/poisoning due to the parent's own wants fits into this category.Even if you were to try & claim they weren't a child,it's still abuse in the general sense as without the full facts as to the child's awareness,it still fits into the negligent end of the spectrum.
@Bowspearer It is abuse, but it is completely justified abuse, and not really abuse in the same way that people usually think of it. The fetus is harmed, yes; but the fetus does not have the same rights as the mother.
You should look up Thomson's Violinist. I don't have room to explain it here, but it is a rather good argument for abortion.
@MTGandP The Jews didn't have the same rights as non-Jewish Germanic peoples in Nazi Germany; slaves didn't have the same rights as their European masters, indigenous populations didn't have the same rights as European colonists who invaded their lands- all completely legal, yet all violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights- just as abortion does. You make the critical mistake that assuming that legal rights are always just.
@MTGandP Again, prove they are not self-aware. All you've given me so far is blind ideological belief, based in absolutely no hard scientific evidence. For someone who claimjs to love logical arguments, your own personal standards appear to be slipping.
@Bowspearer You are making an appeal to ignorance. Infants are not self-aware. They have failed every test devised to test for self-awareness.
Do not argue that our tests may be flawed, therefore we should assume that fetuses are self-aware. Sure, our tests may be flawed, but the theory of gravity might be wrong too. We go with where the evidence points.
@MTGandP Furthermore if you justify abortion as abuse, you effectively justify any child abuse where a parent is unstable, by the logic you're using. Here's an interesting thought for you- the Nazis thought that by killing 5 million Jews they were actually saving the world, which again, by your logic would make the Holocaust justified. But then it's so much easier to justify the unjustifiable, when the victims are incapable of speaking out.
@Bowspearer You do not seem to understand the point. My point isn't that fetuses are just like other people and other children, but we can abort them anyway. My point is that fetuses are NOT just like other people. If they ARE just like other people, then abortion is still not justified -- see Thomson's violinist.
@MTGandP But again, that's clear cut dehumanisation & by what grounds do you class them as being not like a regular person? By the time they're fetuses, & even still in the embryonic stages they posess clearly human physical traits & human physiology & their neurology is developed enough (simply by the formation of synapses alone) to imply that there is a clear self awareness there to enough of a degree to warrant investigation. I completely get your point- including how baseless & flawed it is.
@Bowspearer Since when do fetuses possess self-awareness? Since when do they possess all these traits that make them so human? In the first trimester, they have not yet formed into a coherent mass of cells. By the second trimester they are starting to look human, but their brains are far from fully developed. Merely having synapses is not indicative of self-awareness.
Genocide- the mass murder of a group of individuals based on a common set of traits, be they political, religious, racial, developmental, or age-based, usually steeped heavily in some variant of social Darwinistic pseudo-science- either driven by the stage, or encouraged by the state and performed collectively by individuals within that society. Abortion fits this on the ground developmentally and on the grounds of age.
@Bowspearer Then slaughtering cattle is genocide. Pulling up weeds is genocide. Throwing around inapplicable definitions is never going to get you anywhere.
@MTGandP Wrong, Genocide only applies to humans. If you weren't so fundamentally guilty of continuous dehumanisation of the unborn child, you might actually start to grasp that cold hard truth.
@Bowspearer Since when are you allowed to draw lines, but I'm not? "Genocide only applies to humans." Nazis said that genocide only applies to Germans. Europeans who invaded the Americas said that genocide only applies to Europeans.
@MTGandP I never said you weren't allowed to draw lines, just that your scientific methodology was non-existent and that your logic is completely and utterly flawed. Furthermore the term genocide only applies to human beings, along with terms such as massacre.
@Bowspearer "Furthermore the term genocide only applies to human beings, along with terms such as massacre." Which is exactly the sort of argument that Nazis used. Oh, the term genocide doesn't apply to Jews.
Stop hiding behind your definitions and make an actual argument. Explain WHY genocide only applies to humans.
Dehumanisation- the process by which members of a group of people assert the "inferiority" of another group through subtle or overt acts or statements. Usually the process is used to justify the violation of said group's human rights by implying that said group of human beings aren't people or aren't humans. If you want proof of how this relates to abortion, just look at your own statements here. This leads to the fundamental thing which abortion is- genocide and child abuse.
@Bowspearer By that definition, I agree that fetuses are being dehumanized. And they deserve to be dehumanized. You are not remotely addressing the issue; you are only dancing around definitions.
@MTGandP Wrong, I'm calling a spade a spade- you're just so passive-agressively sociopathic that you're completely blind to it. Also the Nazis said the same thing about the Jews; the KKK say the same thing about African Americans, so what does that say abotu you?
@MTGandP I've addressed it plenty of times, but you clearly lack the logic and the intellect to grasp it. However the point still stands- if you weren't clearly passive-aggressively sociopathic, you'd recognise that. I'm not saying that to be nasty- that's literally how you're behaving.
@Bowspearer Simply because you think it's true doesn't mean that it's not still demeaning. I really don't mind the insults so much on their own, but insults do not qualify as arguments. All you are doing is using definitions of words, and then calling me names when I call you out on it.
Your other point here directly dehumanises the child.Basic scientific method states that to conclusively prove something, you must conclusively disprove every other alternate possiblity.Medical science has only proven that consciousness can be measured from a certain point, not that it can be disproved before that, & under medical ethics, that means that the child must be regarded as being aware until such time as that is disproven.Again you fail to recognise the disposition of the unborn child.
@Bowspearer So you're saying we should believe something with no evidence at all, just because it /might/ be true? By your given definition, it seems impossible to ever prove that a fetus is not self-aware.
A rock may be self-aware. It's certainly never been proven to be, but it /might/ be. We should give rocks all the rights that we bestow upon humans.
@MTGandP You have it completely the wrong way round.The burden of proof here isn't on me to prove awareness(which means that abortions cause distress-they certainly have been proven to cause agony in the 2nd trimester),but it's on you to disprove it.If you want abortion to be treated as a legitimate medical practice then you have to expect it to pass harm assessment test just like any other medical procedure or drug that gets released.Noone has suceeded in doing so,yet but you're welcome to try.
@Bowspearer Irrespective of burden of proof, to argue that fetuses are self-aware is rather absurd. Infants consistently do not pass self-awareness tests, and fetuses' mental capacities are even less developed than infants'. By what grounds do you suppose that fetuses may be self-aware?
@MTGandP Again, prove it, show me a longitudinal study disproving their self awareness before you say it exists. As for the grounds, synapses and neurons form thin 21 days, a brain within 5-7 weeks. That's enough evidence along to warrant investigation and conclusive evidence, but then unlike you, I'm interested in facts, not genocidal propaganda.
@Bowspearer The burden of proof you're giving me is ridiculous. It's pretty well-established that infants have failed to demonstrate self-awareness. If you think that fetuses are self-aware, then why don't you give me some evidence? Or at least give some evidence that infants are self-aware, since then we would at least be uncertain regarding the self-awareness of infants instead of being relatively sure of their non-awareness.
@MTGandP Yet it's the burden of proof which medical ethics requires- for a medical procedure to be deemed ethical, it must not cause harm. In this case to meet that requirement you must conclusively disprove that the child feels not just pain but distress during an abortion in order for it to be medically ethical. In order to do that you must conclusively disprove the existence of self awareness at all stages in question during pregnancy. Until you can do that, your argument is flawed.
@Bowspearer It's a good thing I already did it, then.
Let me say it again: infants have failed every solid self-awareness test in existence. Fetuses have less mental capacity than infants, as they are less developed. Therefore, it is completely reasonable to conclude that fetuses are not self-aware.
@MTGandP Furthermore, it might interest you to learn that no such studies have ever been conducted, that there is a growing consesus amongst neuroscientists that consciousness is a gradual process starting at 3 weeks as reported by the NY times and that i nthe western world, abortions are performed when children could be born prematurely and survive. The medical ethics regarding abortion, as I have demonstrated here again, are at best, incredibly shakey.
Also the disposition of an ovum is not human, the disposition of a fetus is, so your claims about fertilising ovum really are a ludicrous point. As for your point about Latin; Latin is the accurate terminology, because every piece of medical terminology is Latin, as it was the Romans who first pioneered medical research and those who followed in their footsteps were proficient latin speakers, thus those who labeled a fetus a fetus arguably knew exactly what the term meant.
@Bowspearer 1. An ovum is only half genetically human, but why draw the abortion line at the point where you come genetically human? I would rather draw the line at the point where you become emotionally human.
2. You seriously think that the Romans had better medical technology than we today do? They didn't even know what a protein was, much less DNA.
@MTGandP For someone who keeps wanting to draw lines at certain points you clearly have no idea of how to properly acertain when those points actually exist. It's not enough to simply pick a measurable point, measure from there while strictly adhering to a scientific model (which will only ever be an extremely rough guide relating to even the most basic of situations), but it must be acertained as to when what you're measuring clearly DOES NOT TAKE PLACE- not where you simply can't measure it.
1. You are dropping your argument about ova versus fertilized eggs?
2. So you're saying that we should treat rocks as though they are self-aware? We have never actually proven that they aren't self-aware, we are just unable to measure their potential self-awareness.
When you start making the sorts of arguments that you are making, the logical conclusions are absurd.
@MTGandP 1. At the end of the day, I'd already won the argument on reproductive components vs unborn children- the former does not have human disposition, the later does. Case close, you lose.
2. When a rock starts having not only human DNA but also human disposition, you'll actually have a point here that isn't completely moot.
As for your "absurd" remark, you might want to try making intelligent well thought out and logical points before playing the logic card. You fail at life.
@Bowspearer 1. An ovum has half the genes of a human. If you were to follow your own standard of proof, then you need to prove that ova are not human.
2. So you're saying that ONLY those beings with a human disposition can possibly be self-aware? You have no evidence whatsoever for this assertion. You have not proved that only humans can be self-aware, and until you do, your argument about rocks not having a human disposition holds no weight.
@MTGandP The ovum has human DNA but not human disposition- the fact that you're arguing this point tells me you don't understand the concept of disposition. Also rocks have never developed in the course of their existences to demonstrate self awareness. Human beings have countless times, and so your rock point is moot. Clearly you fail to grasp what disposition is.
@Bowspearer Rocks have never demonstrated self awareness. Sure, I'll concede that. But neither have fetuses. If that's our standard, then you must concede that fetuses are not self-aware.
@MTGandP Furthermore, I never said it was the Romans who necessarily coined the term- just those who were proficient in Latin, which if you had half a clue about academia, you would know was pretty much every single academic up until roughly the last century.
Once more though, you've been exposed as someone who is ignorant and deals in child abuse and genocide. Oh yes, I almost forgot to greet you in the fitting manner, how remiss of me. Sig heil!
@Bowspearer The term was probably coined by the Romans. If not, then technology has certainly advanced since the term was coined. Try using actual evidence, instead of appealing to the once-held meanings of words.
@MTGandP And yet, if the terminology was proved completely wrong it would have been completely changed. As for evidence, I'm drawing on medical ethics which you seem to completely bypass. Or is your whole view so completely irational that you believe that abortion should be exempt from the same assessment criteria as any other medical procedure or drug currently available or being evaluated.
@Bowspearer Why? Why would it be changed? First, the name is in common usage, so it would be very difficult to artificially modify it. Second, it's only a term, not an indication of the childhood of such a being (a "fetus"), so there is really no point in changing it.
I hardly see how you've drawn on medical ethics. I've seen you use Latin words as though they somehow support your case, and I've seen you repeatedly make an appeal to ignorance. That's about it.
@MTGandP You're asking why it would be changed- are you even remotely aware of the science of classification, because when you ask such absurd questions, I honestly have to wonder.
As for my drawing on medical ethics, I've already discussed harm assessment here and the fact that you fail to grasp it says how truly ignorant and spoonfed you are in terms of your own thoughts an knowledge.
@Bowspearer Ah, so my question is absurd. So medical scientists, because they are using this definition, must believe that fetuses are the same as children. All these medical scientists, a good half of whom (if not more) are pro-abortion. Yeah. Makes perfect sense.
You seem to spend a whole lot more time talking about how ignorant of science I am than you do actually talking about science.
Actually making threats of harm against a 12 year old is child abuse, so comments being blocked was a good move. Furthermore, you have just dehumanised an unborn child by comparing them to bacteria. Furthermore the "evidence" on a child's self awareness is only an estimate based on scientific models- no actual studies have been taken to prove otherwise, which under medical ethics, means that we should err on the side of self-awareness by the unborn child.
@Bowspearer Actually, if you were listening, you would have heard me explain why it's a good thing to dehumanize unborn children (not quite in those words, though).
It is pretty well known that children below a certain age are not self-aware. I hardly see how fetuses, who are even less developed, could be self-aware either.
@MTGandP Prove it-pull up a single longitudinal study where embryos & fetuses had neurological readings taken.Until then all you have is dehumanising pseudo science(if you wish to dispute that then you clearly don't understand the term)which,as abortion IS genocide,makes you no better than the modern day equivalent of a member of the Nazi Party.Oh & before you try & quote Godwin's law here,I should point out that abortion IS a subject which directly relates to the holocaust so it doesn't apply.
@Legionaryb (Small correction: it was the Latini, not the Latins.)
I assume your reaction is because you think that Latin was developed by the Romans. In fact, it was originally spoken by the Latini in a tribe which later became part of Rome.
Actually, my reaction was due to the fact that I thought your pluralisation was incorrect.
Also, it is incorrect to say that the Latini developed all of latin, due to the multiple stages of development. This is as incorrect as to claim that the speakers of old English developed all of the English language.
I appreciate your articulate, thoughtful, and logical response! It's nice to hear young people who take the time to counter well-spoken but emotional content with something more rational and objective.
I completely agree that fetuses are genetically human. But I do not agree that merely being genetically human is a sufficient basis for human rights. (In this case, "human rights" is a bit of a misnomer.) I think that rights should be given to people who can think and feel to a complete extent. First-term fetuses have not yet developed nervous systems, much less higher intelligence, and do not suffer when they are killed. My reasons for later terms are more complex.
oh and by the way, murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of another human being with intent". you agreeing that the fetus is a human being only revokes your arguments
ok i made it through half your video... barely. The girl says "Don't kill the ALREADY FERTILIZED babies" not "FERTILIZE ALL THE BABIES". Second, the fact that your calling the miracle of conception as meaningless as bacteria is childish and stupid. I know none of this is relevant to you bc you've already made up your mind, but "I'm just stating my beliefs on the subject." The girl is right in my opinion, and you are ridiculous.
I believe that as soon as the baby is concieved, it is a human with rights. I don't care if it can feel or think or contribute to society. If that's what you believe, then wouldn't it be less dangerous to just wait the full term and just birth the babies and chop off their heads once their out of the womb? is that what your saying? Conception is a miracle, and should be embraced. All abortion does is give women an out from their responsibilities as adults. If you don't want the baby, don't do it
"If that's what you believe, then wouldn't it be less dangerous to just wait the full term and just birth the babies and chop off their heads once their out of the womb?"
No, that would actually be completely contrary to my point. What I'm saying is that it is okay to kill early fetuses because they cannot feel or think. Babies after they are born can certainly feel AND think.
what about some stroke victims and/or people with brain damage? You gonna kill all of them because they're too much of a hassle? They can't think or feel or take care of themselves. Same concept
My reasons there are rather complicated. I will explain it if you really want to, but I'm warning you. I don't really want to delve that deep unless you are really interested in prolonging this discussion.
Infants cannot observe their own condition for several months, and many mentally retarded people can't either.
When I say "rights", I'm using shorthand to refer to the obligation that we, as human beings, ought to treat one another with kindness or, at the very least, respect (as in not being unnecessarily violent).
Your position, on the other hand, is that anyone who does not measure up to your standard of mental adequacy is undeserving of even the most basic respect.
I don't think you adequately understand my position. Our moral goal should be to maximize happiness and minimize suffering; this means that all conscious beings deserve a certain level of treatment, while self-aware beings deserve a higher level.
But you didn't answer my question. What do you believe rights are based on?
Technically, I think that all species should respect their own and build systems to enforce this principle, but, given as you seem to be a human, I'll say that the answer to your question practically, for us, is membership in the human species.
Yes, it is better. Non-sentient beings are unable to suffer, or at least their capacity for suffering is far reduced. Harming them doesn't really do harm.
1: I could give you some complex definition, but nothing that would be better than the common intuitive understanding of suffering.
2: Because I uphold the moral tenet that suffering should be reduced. Don't you agree? If a being cannot suffer, then there is no use trying to reduce its suffering.
1: So if I were to kill you with a quick, painless shot between the eyes that would be okay?
2: This is certainly not a tenet I share, and so it is circular reasoning to argue from it. I could drug you to the point at which you could not suffer. This would not make it okay to kill you.
All you need to do is look at the evolution of morality, natural law, etc.. To justify my stance.
I think we can agree to disagree, however. My only two beefs with you would be these: One, if you actually acted upon your beliefs and killed an infant/retarded person/alzheimer's patient. And two, if you start getting all cocky and act like you're a better or smarter person for supporting infanticide.
I fail to understand your link, but I'm kinda sleepy now. Explain?
Okay, I agree to disagree. I'm not planning on killing any babies any time soon. (And I don't really support infanticide either...)
I won't be able to explain the link here any better than I did there. Read it when you're not sleepy, and if you still don't understand it then ask me then.
Second: I never said it does. But a broad viewpoint is closer to being objective than a narrow one.
Third: Your viewpoint doesn't do what's best for all living beings. Every individual wants what's best for itself, so the broadest thing to do is to do what's best for as many individuals as possible to the greatest extent possible.
@MTGandP 1: The descriptive/prescription distinction doesn't imply that objective is better.
2: All morality is subjective by definition. I could say my view is all blue things have rights. That's broad yet arbitrary.
3: But being unable to want doesn't mean you have no rights.
4: I'm saying see the blueness example. Arbitrarily picking an objective meter for morality is subjective because of the subjectivity of which axiom to pick.
1. Correct. But do you not agree that if there is some set of objective moral rules, we should follow them?
2. Yes, but a broad subjective view is closer to an objective view. You are misunderstanding my meaning of "broad": I do not mean that it apples to as many entities as possible, but that it incorporates the moral wants of as many entities as possible.
1. Why would the universe implode? What about the Twin Paradox? The universe hasn't imploded from that.
2. An objective view is a view that doesn't come from any particular perspective: it's true no matter what your perspective is. So a subjective view that comes from a wide variety of perspectives is closer to objectivity.
3. No, because my conscious mind right now doesn't want that. But if someone was in a lifelong coma, then perhaps.
2. No, because an objective fact is one that everyone agrees on.
3. But it would be a disrespect to the conscious me to mess with the unconscious me. The knowledge that you might do something to me would upset the conscious me. Also, it might upset other people who would become worried that you may do the same thing to them if they ever become comatose.
2. They agree on PERSONAL suffering-based morality, i.e. I personally should be as happy as possible. The best thing overall is to maximize overall happiness.
3. If no one finds out, even me after I potentially wake up, then sure, do whatever you want.
@MTGandP Your blog post jumped from the difference between prescriptive to descriptive rules to saying that objectivity is better to saying that broad axioms are better to saying that morality is based on suffering.
NONE of those leaps were justified and it was probably the least coherent thing I've ever read.
On the fifth hand, my first beef still stands. You are pretty cocky in this video.
She likely has a different moral axiom for you (say, the libertarian non-aggression axiom). So, assuming she's stupid for not following an axiom she doesn't believe to its conclusion is absurd.
@MTGandP@MTGandP I could say to you, for example, "infants are smaller than a microwave oven". How much consideration do we give to the rights of a microwave oven?
Without first establishing the importance of size, my logic is not sound.
Infants are not self-aware and cannot contribute to society. Neither are/can Alzheimer's patients. Flowers do not have beating hearts.
Also, women are not informed of the possible side effects. And post-abortive women can tell you about the drugs and alcohol were caused by the abortion.
If women are not informed of the possible side effects, the solution isn't to make abortion illegal. The solution is to inform them of the possible side effects.
I'll give you one thing, you have raised logical debate.
Your refutation of the sweet girl's analogy was interesting but refutable. I think that after some thought you would agree that a fetus DOES have an ability
to contribute to society. A fetus has a complete set of human DNA and is currently developing; so thus, once he/she has fully developed, he/she CAN contribute to society.
I can understand why you came to your conclusion although your conclusion is not irrefutable. We should talk.
A fetus does have the potential to contribute to society. I think that you did not view my argument carefully enough. My word choice was not the best, but the concept is the same.
By the same logic, every single egg and sperm ever produced has the potential to contribute to society. Yes, it is true that they do not have a complete set of DNA, but they easily could. Therefore, by your logic, it is our duty to extract every egg from every woman every month and fertilize it with healthy sperm, thus ensuring that every such being may grow up to contribute to society.
I am sorry, but your argument presents a rather large fallacy. A sperm or ova (gametes) merely contain one half of a genetic code. A zygote contains a full set of characteristics for a human being. Thus, the destruction of a gamete is permissible while the destruction of a zygote is, in essence, the destruction of a human. Your counter logic for my logic thus does not apply.
You completely misunderstood my point. Your premise is that if a being can contribute to society, then it should be allowed to grow up. It therefore follows that a gamete -- already "halfway" a human being -- should be fertilized and be allowed to grow into an adult human being, and not to do so is to deprive the human race of a productive person.
Your article is nice, yet it doesn't answer a fundamental question... why is abortion even necessary? If a woman wishes not to have a child, then she either shouldn't have intercourse, or, in the event that she already has had intercourse, then she should send her child to an adoption agency. Why not let the child live?
That's not really the point. I might as well say, why is it necessary for you to eat fruit? You can live just fine by eating other sorts of foods. So you won't mind if I make it illegal to eat fruit, will you?
No, because that analogy simply doesn't apply in this situation.
The main flaw with most of your arguments is that you do not see the value of a human. You seem to think that we are comparable to bacteria and fruits. Unfortunately if you do not see that a human is more important than a fruit, then you will not see the logic in my arguments as my arguments require a sense of human decency and a value of human life.
(I do not intend on attacking you, I am pleased to have had this talk.)
An egg doesn't have potential alone. an egg doesn't have human potential. A person has potential and a fetus is not bacteria but it is human.
lolo101long 4 weeks ago
Disabling the comments was actually very mature because the pro Childers were saying fucked up things. Free speech means just because you can say something doesn't mean you sould.
MrAwesomesauce101 2 months ago
Martin Luther King was only a man? Well, so are you! And a lesser one at that. I'm sure you enjoy being alive.... Why shouldn't you give every child that chance?
Ringybear 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
your mom should have swallowed you.
randomgal1322 5 months ago
where's the "awesome" button? ^^
bK8y 6 months ago 2
LOVED the video!
doothewoo 6 months ago
Well done.
XdisXesXwhyXimXhawtX 7 months ago
I agree!
JohnWhitworth800 1 year ago
Good argument! A child's argument on abortion--speaking out on such a complex subject by one who hasn't even reached puberty, cannot be considered anything but absurd. Those who agree with her argument will find it adorable and God-inspired. Those who are not rabid christians will find the whole affair reprehensible. This, in my opinion, is child abuse...at the very least indoctrination. In any case, the girl's argument is certainly not based on life experience.
Damis10001 1 year ago 3
@Damis10001 I'm glad you agree with me about the argument itself, but I think you're being unfair to the girl. You should not discount her opinion simply because she hasn't yet reached puberty.
If she was fed these arguments and then regurgitated them then yes, it is indoctrination. But if she found these arguments on her own, which is entirely possible, I think she deserves credit for that.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP usually, I take sides with Men's Rights Activists. However, this is one exception. And, I must say: most young guys are for abortion just because they wanna get fukked. It's really that simple. So, in your mind, this will increase your sexual activity.
topgamelord 1 year ago
@topgamelord MRAs? Oh Lord. They want women to be servile baby factories with no rights to their reproduction or their children. Glad to hear you at least dissagree with them on the abortion issue. You are almost equitable.
CamillaCalamity 8 months ago
Vert interesting argument :) I have recently become facinated with the subject of abortion and am happy to say I am pro choice. BUT honestly if it was me even if I was raped I would NEVER have an abortion unless the baby was going to be born as a stillborn and I new for sure it would.
LooksLikeARainstorm 1 year ago
Wow.....Yeah, Im the "arrogant" one. You gus act like people arnt even important. Thats ridiculous.
bieberkkaylawashere1 1 year ago
@Motive11331 Actually I have 6 dogs. Yeah they have personalities, I was just using that do get my point across. I couldnt find the right words.
bieberkkaylawashere1 1 year ago
@MTGandP Ok, my moms friends unborn babies are more important in this life then my dog...it just makes sense...and this is getting kinda boring so im just gonna end the conversation like this........Nice Chat...Peace:)
bieberkkaylawashere1 1 year ago
@MTGandP I understand where your coming from, but i dont agree. I think unborn babies are more important then animals, because their humans, and i think humans have more purpose and potential then animals...:)
bieberkkaylawashere1 1 year ago
@bieberkkaylawashere1 Purpose and potential to do what?
MTGandP 1 year ago
@bieberkkaylawashere1 You are arrogant if you believe humans are better than animals. Humans are the worst animals on the planet.
Charmedlassie18 1 year ago
@MTGandP Really, seriously.....you dont think that humans are more important then animals. Wow. :\
bieberkkaylawashere1 1 year ago
@bieberkkaylawashere1 I do think that humans are more important than other animals, but I think that my reasons are different from yours. Specifically, I don't think that unborn babies are more important than adult animals of some other species.
MTGandP 1 year ago 2
@MTGandP Seriously. By that i meant personality, and like, I cant really explain it, but people are way more important then animals lets just put it that way.
bieberkkaylawashere1 1 year ago
@bieberkkaylawashere1 I don't see why. What makes humans more important than other animals, other than that we are humans?
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP btw, thats not what i said. And mentally disabled people can make a difference too. :)
bieberkkaylawashere1 1 year ago
@bieberkkaylawashere1 But what does a sol have to do with abortion?
MTGandP 1 year ago
If you kill a baby you should die. BABY KILLERS.
blklab32 1 year ago
@MTGandP Well, humans have souls and personalities, humans can make a difference or do something big....and i highly doubt a frog or a cat will do that. :)
bieberkkaylawashere1 1 year ago
@bieberkkaylawashere1 But what does that have to do with souls?
Are you saying that people who CAN'T make a difference, such as the mentally disabled, are okay to kill?
MTGandP 1 year ago
@bieberkkaylawashere1 Animals have personalities. To say that animals, especially domesticated, don't, shows you've never had a pet. Ask those who have seen firsthand the love of animals -perhaps inmates condemned to life in prison, even if reformed and repented, or a person suffering in the hospital- about the importance of animals. I'll focus on dogs, as I have personal experience there. Animals can love, regardless of looks, voice, wealth, politics, etc. People are not always so caring.
Motive11331 1 year ago
@MTGandP No, because humans have potential...and souls...and anyway people dont give frogs abortions, that would just be weird,lol. but we dont even know if animals have souls.
bieberkkaylawashere1 1 year ago
@bieberkkaylawashere1 Explain what having a soul has to do with it, please.
MTGandP 1 year ago
Abortion is not fair!If I killed a baby,that was younger but just as important as me,would that be fair that i got to live and the baby didnt?No,I dont think so!If it has a beating heart,its an alive human and baby has a beating heart 18 days after it is conceived.All humans have the right to live,no one human is more important then the other.A baby with a beating heart is just as important as an 80 year old human with a beating heart even if it still is in the womb.Abortion Is Murderanditswrong
bieberkkaylawashere1 1 year ago
@bieberkkaylawashere1 Is a cat or a frog with a beating heart just as important as a baby with a beating heart?
MTGandP 1 year ago
I would very much like to hear your arguments for pro choice. Perhaps it will be far less absurd as the many overflowing on this world forum.
SinphonicHarmonic 1 year ago
You sir are certanly a credit to your side. Its refreshing to hear an anti-abortionist tear down their commonly faulty logic many of them utilize.
SinphonicHarmonic 1 year ago
dude, abortion is a REAL issue! OPEN YOUR MIND!!! do you want to be a baby killer?!?!?!?!?!?
7JesusLuvr 1 year ago
yo are an idiot, your out of ur mind
shes 12 and a brilliant girl, leave her alone dick
petobrad871 1 year ago
Oh my word, you're such a dick. She's 12 years old, she can stop people posting rude comments if she wants to. Do you not realise that when the baby can still leagally be aborted it has a beating heart and a brain? It's a person. Accept it. Grow up.
LucyHS123 1 year ago 2
@LucyHS123 Mice have beating hearts and brains. Cockroaches have beating hearts and brains. What's your point?
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP So you're saying you'd happly kill a mouce?
LucyHS123 1 year ago
@LucyHS123 I would kill a mouse (not happily) if it would require a huge investment of my time and energy over the next 18 years in order to keep it alive.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@LucyHS123 I don't support people having abortions just for fun. Even though a fetus isn't worth as much as a person, I don't think that it should simply be killed just for the heck of it. But I'm not going to stop people from killing fetuses for the heck of it if that means I also have to stop people from getting abortions when they really need to.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP You know what the thought that comforts me is? The fact that you will never get the chance to make a choice about abortion.
LucyHS123 1 year ago
why didnt you mother abort you. one less stupid person
reefi786 1 year ago
@reefi786 So then you agree with my arguments in support of abortion?
MTGandP 1 year ago
This is laughable. The sarasm is unfortunate.
jenner2483 1 year ago
Great video dude
Zonde32 1 year ago
@mamasmither At what point did I call a fetus a bacterium? They are clearly not the same, although there is a point at which a fetus is only about as complex as a bacterium.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about threatening. Could you rephrase it?
MTGandP 1 year ago
I very much dislike burritos.
Nulono 1 year ago
In short, to support abortion is to be a party to genocide & an enabler of abuse, specifically child abuse. While the issues facing women's health are serious and need to be addressed; if termination of the pregnancy is the ultimate solution then the answer needs to lie in the creation of the artificial womb and not the genocide of 10s of millions of innocent people- otherwise we're no better than Hitler and the Nazis.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
Child abuse-either negligently or deliberately inflicting harm on a child(general term,not scientific)by a parent or another adult to satisfy their own needs/wants/desires.Killing a child through dismemberment/poisoning due to the parent's own wants fits into this category.Even if you were to try & claim they weren't a child,it's still abuse in the general sense as without the full facts as to the child's awareness,it still fits into the negligent end of the spectrum.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer It is abuse, but it is completely justified abuse, and not really abuse in the same way that people usually think of it. The fetus is harmed, yes; but the fetus does not have the same rights as the mother.
You should look up Thomson's Violinist. I don't have room to explain it here, but it is a rather good argument for abortion.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP The Jews didn't have the same rights as non-Jewish Germanic peoples in Nazi Germany; slaves didn't have the same rights as their European masters, indigenous populations didn't have the same rights as European colonists who invaded their lands- all completely legal, yet all violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights- just as abortion does. You make the critical mistake that assuming that legal rights are always just.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer The problem is, Jews, slaves, and indigenous peoples are all self-aware and have fully developed emotions. Fetuses are not and do not.
When did I once refer to the legality of abortion to make my argument?
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP Again, prove they are not self-aware. All you've given me so far is blind ideological belief, based in absolutely no hard scientific evidence. For someone who claimjs to love logical arguments, your own personal standards appear to be slipping.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer You are making an appeal to ignorance. Infants are not self-aware. They have failed every test devised to test for self-awareness.
Do not argue that our tests may be flawed, therefore we should assume that fetuses are self-aware. Sure, our tests may be flawed, but the theory of gravity might be wrong too. We go with where the evidence points.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP Furthermore if you justify abortion as abuse, you effectively justify any child abuse where a parent is unstable, by the logic you're using. Here's an interesting thought for you- the Nazis thought that by killing 5 million Jews they were actually saving the world, which again, by your logic would make the Holocaust justified. But then it's so much easier to justify the unjustifiable, when the victims are incapable of speaking out.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer You do not seem to understand the point. My point isn't that fetuses are just like other people and other children, but we can abort them anyway. My point is that fetuses are NOT just like other people. If they ARE just like other people, then abortion is still not justified -- see Thomson's violinist.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP But again, that's clear cut dehumanisation & by what grounds do you class them as being not like a regular person? By the time they're fetuses, & even still in the embryonic stages they posess clearly human physical traits & human physiology & their neurology is developed enough (simply by the formation of synapses alone) to imply that there is a clear self awareness there to enough of a degree to warrant investigation. I completely get your point- including how baseless & flawed it is.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer Since when do fetuses possess self-awareness? Since when do they possess all these traits that make them so human? In the first trimester, they have not yet formed into a coherent mass of cells. By the second trimester they are starting to look human, but their brains are far from fully developed. Merely having synapses is not indicative of self-awareness.
MTGandP 1 year ago
Genocide- the mass murder of a group of individuals based on a common set of traits, be they political, religious, racial, developmental, or age-based, usually steeped heavily in some variant of social Darwinistic pseudo-science- either driven by the stage, or encouraged by the state and performed collectively by individuals within that society. Abortion fits this on the ground developmentally and on the grounds of age.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer Then slaughtering cattle is genocide. Pulling up weeds is genocide. Throwing around inapplicable definitions is never going to get you anywhere.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP Wrong, Genocide only applies to humans. If you weren't so fundamentally guilty of continuous dehumanisation of the unborn child, you might actually start to grasp that cold hard truth.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer Since when are you allowed to draw lines, but I'm not? "Genocide only applies to humans." Nazis said that genocide only applies to Germans. Europeans who invaded the Americas said that genocide only applies to Europeans.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP I never said you weren't allowed to draw lines, just that your scientific methodology was non-existent and that your logic is completely and utterly flawed. Furthermore the term genocide only applies to human beings, along with terms such as massacre.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer "Furthermore the term genocide only applies to human beings, along with terms such as massacre." Which is exactly the sort of argument that Nazis used. Oh, the term genocide doesn't apply to Jews.
Stop hiding behind your definitions and make an actual argument. Explain WHY genocide only applies to humans.
MTGandP 1 year ago
Dehumanisation- the process by which members of a group of people assert the "inferiority" of another group through subtle or overt acts or statements. Usually the process is used to justify the violation of said group's human rights by implying that said group of human beings aren't people or aren't humans. If you want proof of how this relates to abortion, just look at your own statements here. This leads to the fundamental thing which abortion is- genocide and child abuse.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer By that definition, I agree that fetuses are being dehumanized. And they deserve to be dehumanized. You are not remotely addressing the issue; you are only dancing around definitions.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP Wrong, I'm calling a spade a spade- you're just so passive-agressively sociopathic that you're completely blind to it. Also the Nazis said the same thing about the Jews; the KKK say the same thing about African Americans, so what does that say abotu you?
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer Now you're just insulting me. Try addressing the actual issue.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP I've addressed it plenty of times, but you clearly lack the logic and the intellect to grasp it. However the point still stands- if you weren't clearly passive-aggressively sociopathic, you'd recognise that. I'm not saying that to be nasty- that's literally how you're behaving.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer Simply because you think it's true doesn't mean that it's not still demeaning. I really don't mind the insults so much on their own, but insults do not qualify as arguments. All you are doing is using definitions of words, and then calling me names when I call you out on it.
MTGandP 1 year ago
Your other point here directly dehumanises the child.Basic scientific method states that to conclusively prove something, you must conclusively disprove every other alternate possiblity.Medical science has only proven that consciousness can be measured from a certain point, not that it can be disproved before that, & under medical ethics, that means that the child must be regarded as being aware until such time as that is disproven.Again you fail to recognise the disposition of the unborn child.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer So you're saying we should believe something with no evidence at all, just because it /might/ be true? By your given definition, it seems impossible to ever prove that a fetus is not self-aware.
A rock may be self-aware. It's certainly never been proven to be, but it /might/ be. We should give rocks all the rights that we bestow upon humans.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP You have it completely the wrong way round.The burden of proof here isn't on me to prove awareness(which means that abortions cause distress-they certainly have been proven to cause agony in the 2nd trimester),but it's on you to disprove it.If you want abortion to be treated as a legitimate medical practice then you have to expect it to pass harm assessment test just like any other medical procedure or drug that gets released.Noone has suceeded in doing so,yet but you're welcome to try.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer Irrespective of burden of proof, to argue that fetuses are self-aware is rather absurd. Infants consistently do not pass self-awareness tests, and fetuses' mental capacities are even less developed than infants'. By what grounds do you suppose that fetuses may be self-aware?
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP Again, prove it, show me a longitudinal study disproving their self awareness before you say it exists. As for the grounds, synapses and neurons form thin 21 days, a brain within 5-7 weeks. That's enough evidence along to warrant investigation and conclusive evidence, but then unlike you, I'm interested in facts, not genocidal propaganda.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer The burden of proof you're giving me is ridiculous. It's pretty well-established that infants have failed to demonstrate self-awareness. If you think that fetuses are self-aware, then why don't you give me some evidence? Or at least give some evidence that infants are self-aware, since then we would at least be uncertain regarding the self-awareness of infants instead of being relatively sure of their non-awareness.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP Yet it's the burden of proof which medical ethics requires- for a medical procedure to be deemed ethical, it must not cause harm. In this case to meet that requirement you must conclusively disprove that the child feels not just pain but distress during an abortion in order for it to be medically ethical. In order to do that you must conclusively disprove the existence of self awareness at all stages in question during pregnancy. Until you can do that, your argument is flawed.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer It's a good thing I already did it, then.
Let me say it again: infants have failed every solid self-awareness test in existence. Fetuses have less mental capacity than infants, as they are less developed. Therefore, it is completely reasonable to conclude that fetuses are not self-aware.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP Furthermore, it might interest you to learn that no such studies have ever been conducted, that there is a growing consesus amongst neuroscientists that consciousness is a gradual process starting at 3 weeks as reported by the NY times and that i nthe western world, abortions are performed when children could be born prematurely and survive. The medical ethics regarding abortion, as I have demonstrated here again, are at best, incredibly shakey.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer No such studies?
The Second Year: The Emergence of Self-Awareness, by Jerome Kagan
Five Levels of Self-Awareness as They Unfold Early in Life by Philippe Rochat
I could name more, but the point is that there are not "no such studies".
MTGandP 1 year ago
Comment removed
Bowspearer 1 year ago
Also the disposition of an ovum is not human, the disposition of a fetus is, so your claims about fertilising ovum really are a ludicrous point. As for your point about Latin; Latin is the accurate terminology, because every piece of medical terminology is Latin, as it was the Romans who first pioneered medical research and those who followed in their footsteps were proficient latin speakers, thus those who labeled a fetus a fetus arguably knew exactly what the term meant.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer 1. An ovum is only half genetically human, but why draw the abortion line at the point where you come genetically human? I would rather draw the line at the point where you become emotionally human.
2. You seriously think that the Romans had better medical technology than we today do? They didn't even know what a protein was, much less DNA.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP For someone who keeps wanting to draw lines at certain points you clearly have no idea of how to properly acertain when those points actually exist. It's not enough to simply pick a measurable point, measure from there while strictly adhering to a scientific model (which will only ever be an extremely rough guide relating to even the most basic of situations), but it must be acertained as to when what you're measuring clearly DOES NOT TAKE PLACE- not where you simply can't measure it.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer
1. You are dropping your argument about ova versus fertilized eggs?
2. So you're saying that we should treat rocks as though they are self-aware? We have never actually proven that they aren't self-aware, we are just unable to measure their potential self-awareness.
When you start making the sorts of arguments that you are making, the logical conclusions are absurd.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP 1. At the end of the day, I'd already won the argument on reproductive components vs unborn children- the former does not have human disposition, the later does. Case close, you lose.
2. When a rock starts having not only human DNA but also human disposition, you'll actually have a point here that isn't completely moot.
As for your "absurd" remark, you might want to try making intelligent well thought out and logical points before playing the logic card. You fail at life.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer 1. An ovum has half the genes of a human. If you were to follow your own standard of proof, then you need to prove that ova are not human.
2. So you're saying that ONLY those beings with a human disposition can possibly be self-aware? You have no evidence whatsoever for this assertion. You have not proved that only humans can be self-aware, and until you do, your argument about rocks not having a human disposition holds no weight.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP The ovum has human DNA but not human disposition- the fact that you're arguing this point tells me you don't understand the concept of disposition. Also rocks have never developed in the course of their existences to demonstrate self awareness. Human beings have countless times, and so your rock point is moot. Clearly you fail to grasp what disposition is.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer Rocks have never demonstrated self awareness. Sure, I'll concede that. But neither have fetuses. If that's our standard, then you must concede that fetuses are not self-aware.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP Furthermore, I never said it was the Romans who necessarily coined the term- just those who were proficient in Latin, which if you had half a clue about academia, you would know was pretty much every single academic up until roughly the last century.
Once more though, you've been exposed as someone who is ignorant and deals in child abuse and genocide. Oh yes, I almost forgot to greet you in the fitting manner, how remiss of me. Sig heil!
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer The term was probably coined by the Romans. If not, then technology has certainly advanced since the term was coined. Try using actual evidence, instead of appealing to the once-held meanings of words.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP And yet, if the terminology was proved completely wrong it would have been completely changed. As for evidence, I'm drawing on medical ethics which you seem to completely bypass. Or is your whole view so completely irational that you believe that abortion should be exempt from the same assessment criteria as any other medical procedure or drug currently available or being evaluated.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer Why? Why would it be changed? First, the name is in common usage, so it would be very difficult to artificially modify it. Second, it's only a term, not an indication of the childhood of such a being (a "fetus"), so there is really no point in changing it.
I hardly see how you've drawn on medical ethics. I've seen you use Latin words as though they somehow support your case, and I've seen you repeatedly make an appeal to ignorance. That's about it.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP You're asking why it would be changed- are you even remotely aware of the science of classification, because when you ask such absurd questions, I honestly have to wonder.
As for my drawing on medical ethics, I've already discussed harm assessment here and the fact that you fail to grasp it says how truly ignorant and spoonfed you are in terms of your own thoughts an knowledge.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer Ah, so my question is absurd. So medical scientists, because they are using this definition, must believe that fetuses are the same as children. All these medical scientists, a good half of whom (if not more) are pro-abortion. Yeah. Makes perfect sense.
You seem to spend a whole lot more time talking about how ignorant of science I am than you do actually talking about science.
MTGandP 1 year ago
Actually making threats of harm against a 12 year old is child abuse, so comments being blocked was a good move. Furthermore, you have just dehumanised an unborn child by comparing them to bacteria. Furthermore the "evidence" on a child's self awareness is only an estimate based on scientific models- no actual studies have been taken to prove otherwise, which under medical ethics, means that we should err on the side of self-awareness by the unborn child.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
@Bowspearer Actually, if you were listening, you would have heard me explain why it's a good thing to dehumanize unborn children (not quite in those words, though).
It is pretty well known that children below a certain age are not self-aware. I hardly see how fetuses, who are even less developed, could be self-aware either.
MTGandP 1 year ago
@MTGandP Prove it-pull up a single longitudinal study where embryos & fetuses had neurological readings taken.Until then all you have is dehumanising pseudo science(if you wish to dispute that then you clearly don't understand the term)which,as abortion IS genocide,makes you no better than the modern day equivalent of a member of the Nazi Party.Oh & before you try & quote Godwin's law here,I should point out that abortion IS a subject which directly relates to the holocaust so it doesn't apply.
Bowspearer 1 year ago
"When the latins were developing that language?"
Ha.
Legionaryb 1 year ago
@Legionaryb (Small correction: it was the Latini, not the Latins.)
I assume your reaction is because you think that Latin was developed by the Romans. In fact, it was originally spoken by the Latini in a tribe which later became part of Rome.
MTGandP 1 year ago
Wow, fast reaction, excellent video by the way.
Actually, my reaction was due to the fact that I thought your pluralisation was incorrect.
Also, it is incorrect to say that the Latini developed all of latin, due to the multiple stages of development. This is as incorrect as to claim that the speakers of old English developed all of the English language.
Still, no offense meant by my message.
Keep up the good work.
Legionaryb 1 year ago
@Legionaryb That's a good point. The Latini and the Romans and the contemporary speakers, then.
MTGandP 1 year ago
I appreciate your articulate, thoughtful, and logical response! It's nice to hear young people who take the time to counter well-spoken but emotional content with something more rational and objective.
xnedwriter 1 year ago
The underlying question about this issue is...are the fetuses humans? Obviously you don't believe so...can you please explain why?
sleekstik 2 years ago
I completely agree that fetuses are genetically human. But I do not agree that merely being genetically human is a sufficient basis for human rights. (In this case, "human rights" is a bit of a misnomer.) I think that rights should be given to people who can think and feel to a complete extent. First-term fetuses have not yet developed nervous systems, much less higher intelligence, and do not suffer when they are killed. My reasons for later terms are more complex.
MTGandP 2 years ago
oh and by the way, murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of another human being with intent". you agreeing that the fetus is a human being only revokes your arguments
rbjake24 2 years ago
Perhaps that's the dictionary definition of murder, but I do not agree that it is appropriate in the case of unborn fetuses.
MTGandP 2 years ago
ok i made it through half your video... barely. The girl says "Don't kill the ALREADY FERTILIZED babies" not "FERTILIZE ALL THE BABIES". Second, the fact that your calling the miracle of conception as meaningless as bacteria is childish and stupid. I know none of this is relevant to you bc you've already made up your mind, but "I'm just stating my beliefs on the subject." The girl is right in my opinion, and you are ridiculous.
rbjake24 2 years ago
Could you perhaps explain why you believe what you believe?
MTGandP 2 years ago
I believe that as soon as the baby is concieved, it is a human with rights. I don't care if it can feel or think or contribute to society. If that's what you believe, then wouldn't it be less dangerous to just wait the full term and just birth the babies and chop off their heads once their out of the womb? is that what your saying? Conception is a miracle, and should be embraced. All abortion does is give women an out from their responsibilities as adults. If you don't want the baby, don't do it
rbjake24 2 years ago
"If that's what you believe, then wouldn't it be less dangerous to just wait the full term and just birth the babies and chop off their heads once their out of the womb?"
No, that would actually be completely contrary to my point. What I'm saying is that it is okay to kill early fetuses because they cannot feel or think. Babies after they are born can certainly feel AND think.
MTGandP 2 years ago
what about some stroke victims and/or people with brain damage? You gonna kill all of them because they're too much of a hassle? They can't think or feel or take care of themselves. Same concept
rbjake24 2 years ago
My reasons there are rather complicated. I will explain it if you really want to, but I'm warning you. I don't really want to delve that deep unless you are really interested in prolonging this discussion.
MTGandP 2 years ago
good response
Bobalithmiss1 2 years ago
shes 12 and her mother owns the account dick.
Delkolovr2 2 years ago
I wouldn't fuck you if you were rich,your babies would be ugly as FUCK!
Delkolovr2 2 years ago
Sorry, but infants are less mentally advanced than many farm animals, and we don't give them rights.
If you think rights are based on how smart you are, you're as dumb as a sack of hammers.
How many rights do we give hammers?
Nulono 2 years ago
And I think that most animals really deserve much better treatment.
(Notice that it's not about intelligence, so much as it is about the ability to perceive one's own condition.)
So what do you think rights are based on then?
MTGandP 2 years ago
Infants cannot observe their own condition for several months, and many mentally retarded people can't either.
When I say "rights", I'm using shorthand to refer to the obligation that we, as human beings, ought to treat one another with kindness or, at the very least, respect (as in not being unnecessarily violent).
Your position, on the other hand, is that anyone who does not measure up to your standard of mental adequacy is undeserving of even the most basic respect.
Nulono 2 years ago
I don't think you adequately understand my position. Our moral goal should be to maximize happiness and minimize suffering; this means that all conscious beings deserve a certain level of treatment, while self-aware beings deserve a higher level.
But you didn't answer my question. What do you believe rights are based on?
MTGandP 2 years ago
The answer to my question depends on your definition of "rights".
Nulono 2 years ago
DIdn't you just a minute ago define what you mean by "rights"?
MTGandP 2 years ago
Technically, I think that all species should respect their own and build systems to enforce this principle, but, given as you seem to be a human, I'll say that the answer to your question practically, for us, is membership in the human species.
Nulono 2 years ago
So then we have no moral obligation to fairly treat members of other species, even sentient ones? That, my friend, is speciesism.
MTGandP 2 years ago
And discrimination based on sentience is any better?
There's always going to be some kind of "discrimination". I could accuse a vegetarian of being kingdomist.
Nulono 2 years ago
Yes, it is better. Non-sentient beings are unable to suffer, or at least their capacity for suffering is far reduced. Harming them doesn't really do harm.
MTGandP 2 years ago
1: What is your definition of "suffering"?
2: Why is this morally relevant?
Nulono 2 years ago
1: I could give you some complex definition, but nothing that would be better than the common intuitive understanding of suffering.
2: Because I uphold the moral tenet that suffering should be reduced. Don't you agree? If a being cannot suffer, then there is no use trying to reduce its suffering.
MTGandP 2 years ago
1: So if I were to kill you with a quick, painless shot between the eyes that would be okay?
2: This is certainly not a tenet I share, and so it is circular reasoning to argue from it. I could drug you to the point at which you could not suffer. This would not make it okay to kill you.
Nulono 2 years ago
1: I don't see what that has to do with the definition of suffering. And no, it would not be okay.
2: I don't have room to justify my stance in this comment. See this link: mtgap . wordpress . com / 2010 / 01 / 06 / moral-goals
You have asked me plenty of questions, but the same questions can be asked of you, and I haven't seen you justify your own position.
MTGandP 2 years ago
All you need to do is look at the evolution of morality, natural law, etc.. To justify my stance.
I think we can agree to disagree, however. My only two beefs with you would be these: One, if you actually acted upon your beliefs and killed an infant/retarded person/alzheimer's patient. And two, if you start getting all cocky and act like you're a better or smarter person for supporting infanticide.
I fail to understand your link, but I'm kinda sleepy now. Explain?
Nulono 2 years ago
Okay, I agree to disagree. I'm not planning on killing any babies any time soon. (And I don't really support infanticide either...)
I won't be able to explain the link here any better than I did there. Read it when you're not sleepy, and if you still don't understand it then ask me then.
MTGandP 2 years ago
@MTGandP @MTGandP Okay, I read it again and there are several problems.
First, there is a difference between the able/allowed distinction and the assertion that objective rules are "better".
Secondly, a viewpoint being "as broad as possible" in no way makes it objective.
Third of all, MY viewpoint is certainly "broader" than yours, as it encompasses all living things.
Fourth, having a standard that can be measured objectively does not make it objective. Species can also be.
Nulono 2 years ago
First: yes, that was an analogy.
Second: I never said it does. But a broad viewpoint is closer to being objective than a narrow one.
Third: Your viewpoint doesn't do what's best for all living beings. Every individual wants what's best for itself, so the broadest thing to do is to do what's best for as many individuals as possible to the greatest extent possible.
Fourth: What?
MTGandP 2 years ago
@MTGandP 1: The descriptive/prescription distinction doesn't imply that objective is better.
2: All morality is subjective by definition. I could say my view is all blue things have rights. That's broad yet arbitrary.
3: But being unable to want doesn't mean you have no rights.
4: I'm saying see the blueness example. Arbitrarily picking an objective meter for morality is subjective because of the subjectivity of which axiom to pick.
Nulono 2 years ago
1. Correct. But do you not agree that if there is some set of objective moral rules, we should follow them?
2. Yes, but a broad subjective view is closer to an objective view. You are misunderstanding my meaning of "broad": I do not mean that it apples to as many entities as possible, but that it incorporates the moral wants of as many entities as possible.
3. Yes it does.
MTGandP 2 years ago
@MTGandP 1. If there was an objective set of moral rules, the paradox would cause the universe to implode and we'd have bigger things to worry about.
2. I'm not sure "objective" is the word you want to be using, because it doesn't mean that.
3. Okay, so are you saying that while you're asleep or if you were in a coma or if you had Alzheimer's I could do whatever I wanted to you?
Nulono 2 years ago
1. Why would the universe implode? What about the Twin Paradox? The universe hasn't imploded from that.
2. An objective view is a view that doesn't come from any particular perspective: it's true no matter what your perspective is. So a subjective view that comes from a wide variety of perspectives is closer to objectivity.
3. No, because my conscious mind right now doesn't want that. But if someone was in a lifelong coma, then perhaps.
MTGandP 2 years ago
@MTGandP 1. The Twin Paradox is not a paradox.
2. Okay, so if I said only blue things have rights that'd be objective?
3. So? I'm not talking about your current wants. At that moment, you'd have none.
Nulono 2 years ago
1. en . wikipedia . org / wiki / Paradox
2. No, because an objective fact is one that everyone agrees on.
3. But it would be a disrespect to the conscious me to mess with the unconscious me. The knowledge that you might do something to me would upset the conscious me. Also, it might upset other people who would become worried that you may do the same thing to them if they ever become comatose.
MTGandP 2 years ago
@MTGandP 1. Okay, it may be a paradox in that it is counter-intuitive, but objective morality is a paradox in that it is internally inconsistent.
2. Well, not everyone agrees on suffering-based morality. So there.
3. Then all I'd need to do is make sure no one finds out.
Nulono 2 years ago
1. So then why would the universe implode?
2. They agree on PERSONAL suffering-based morality, i.e. I personally should be as happy as possible. The best thing overall is to maximize overall happiness.
3. If no one finds out, even me after I potentially wake up, then sure, do whatever you want.
MTGandP 2 years ago
@MTGandP Your blog post jumped from the difference between prescriptive to descriptive rules to saying that objectivity is better to saying that broad axioms are better to saying that morality is based on suffering.
NONE of those leaps were justified and it was probably the least coherent thing I've ever read.
Nulono 2 years ago
On the fifth hand, my first beef still stands. You are pretty cocky in this video.
She likely has a different moral axiom for you (say, the libertarian non-aggression axiom). So, assuming she's stupid for not following an axiom she doesn't believe to its conclusion is absurd.
Nulono 2 years ago
@MTGandP So, why do you support feticide but not infanticide?
Nulono 2 years ago
@MTGandP @MTGandP I could say to you, for example, "infants are smaller than a microwave oven". How much consideration do we give to the rights of a microwave oven?
Without first establishing the importance of size, my logic is not sound.
Nulono 2 years ago
If I shot you in the head, you'd die too quickly to suffer.
Nulono 2 years ago
wtf? whats meant to be is meant to be!
Vicatiti65 2 years ago
I'm sorry?
MTGandP 2 years ago
Infants are not self-aware and cannot contribute to society. Neither are/can Alzheimer's patients. Flowers do not have beating hearts.
Also, women are not informed of the possible side effects. And post-abortive women can tell you about the drugs and alcohol were caused by the abortion.
Nulono 2 years ago
If women are not informed of the possible side effects, the solution isn't to make abortion illegal. The solution is to inform them of the possible side effects.
MTGandP 2 years ago
I'll give you one thing, you have raised logical debate.
Your refutation of the sweet girl's analogy was interesting but refutable. I think that after some thought you would agree that a fetus DOES have an ability
to contribute to society. A fetus has a complete set of human DNA and is currently developing; so thus, once he/she has fully developed, he/she CAN contribute to society.
I can understand why you came to your conclusion although your conclusion is not irrefutable. We should talk.
the5thCount 2 years ago
"a fetus DOES have an ability to contribute to society."
You completely contradict yourself by saying
"once [a fetus] has fully developed, he/she CAN contribute to society."
Big difference.
MTGandP 2 years ago
@MTGandP
A fetus does have the potential to contribute to society. I think that you did not view my argument carefully enough. My word choice was not the best, but the concept is the same.
the5thCount 2 years ago
By the same logic, every single egg and sperm ever produced has the potential to contribute to society. Yes, it is true that they do not have a complete set of DNA, but they easily could. Therefore, by your logic, it is our duty to extract every egg from every woman every month and fertilize it with healthy sperm, thus ensuring that every such being may grow up to contribute to society.
MTGandP 2 years ago
@MTGandP
I am sorry, but your argument presents a rather large fallacy. A sperm or ova (gametes) merely contain one half of a genetic code. A zygote contains a full set of characteristics for a human being. Thus, the destruction of a gamete is permissible while the destruction of a zygote is, in essence, the destruction of a human. Your counter logic for my logic thus does not apply.
the5thCount 2 years ago
You completely misunderstood my point. Your premise is that if a being can contribute to society, then it should be allowed to grow up. It therefore follows that a gamete -- already "halfway" a human being -- should be fertilized and be allowed to grow into an adult human being, and not to do so is to deprive the human race of a productive person.
MTGandP 2 years ago
No, as a gamete is technically not a person, only half of a person. Refer to my previous argument...
the5thCount 2 years ago
So you are defining a person by their DNA? Refer to my article.
MTGandP 2 years ago
For an extended refutation too long to post in the margin of a YouTube comment:
mtgap [dot] wordpress [dot] com / 2009 / 12 / 23 / the-fertilization-argument/
MTGandP 2 years ago
Your article is nice, yet it doesn't answer a fundamental question... why is abortion even necessary? If a woman wishes not to have a child, then she either shouldn't have intercourse, or, in the event that she already has had intercourse, then she should send her child to an adoption agency. Why not let the child live?
the5thCount 2 years ago
That's not really the point. I might as well say, why is it necessary for you to eat fruit? You can live just fine by eating other sorts of foods. So you won't mind if I make it illegal to eat fruit, will you?
MTGandP 2 years ago
@MTGandP
No, because that analogy simply doesn't apply in this situation.
The main flaw with most of your arguments is that you do not see the value of a human. You seem to think that we are comparable to bacteria and fruits. Unfortunately if you do not see that a human is more important than a fruit, then you will not see the logic in my arguments as my arguments require a sense of human decency and a value of human life.
(I do not intend on attacking you, I am pleased to have had this talk.)
the5thCount 2 years ago