So does this mean we should force women to get pregnant every cycle so their eggs arent wasted? No, that's ridiculous. I am of the opinion that one becomes human when the brain is formed. I am against abortion after this point, but when life is in the cellular form, I don't see a reason to view it as sacred.
@Dieromantic777 When is the brain "formed" in your opinion? Does life begin once the physical structure that will be a brain is present? When the brain is fully formed? (i.e. well after birth) When the child has some kind of consciousness? Does this mean that people with malformed brains are not human? I don't ask that to be trite--as I said, we are talking about defining what makes us human. Can you justify this distinction? That is, what about the brain being "formed" is dispositive?
@BigSpoon19 I would say at about week 6 - 7 of pregnancy, when the brain has developed into 5 areas. No, I can't really justify an objective reason behind this. I don't view abortion as something that should be casual birth control, it's a grey area. However, if we are to make it illegal, where does it stop? If abortion becomes illegal after conception, will people fight to make condoms illegal because some can consider a sperm cell to be human life? I am entirely against late term abortion
@Dieromantic777 I submit that when we agree on when a human life begins, it ceases to become a gray area. That is why you are opposed to late term abortion. If it's a human life everyone agrees. That's why the discussion needs to be about when life begins. I also wonder exactly how you draw the distinction between opposing abortion for "casual birth control" and other reasons. I wonder--why do you care if it's not a baby? If it's not a human, then I have no problem with casual abortions.
But as for abortion after conception, what about a fertilized egg is dispositive. You say that after that, one begins the process of becoming a human, but isn't a sex cell part of that process? Who's to say where it really begins? It's incredibly hard to find any objectiveness in this issue, and that is why I am pro choice. Over population is an increasing problem, and not every child put up for adoption is able to find a good home. However, I am against abortion as casual birth control.
All I can do is repeat what I wrote. Conception is not the mere presence of the materials. After conception, something has to intervene to prevent human life. Sexual cells won't become human. To make a crude analogy, a car's-worth of iron ore is not as valuable as a car on the assembly line. It's one of the materials but something else has to happen. And population control is a really silly argument for abortion. If you're concerned about population, advocate for education and social programs.
A fertilized egg is really not much different than individual sex cells. You say the process begins at conception, but really the process begins when a sex cell is created. We kill plenty of cells a day, and to say a fertilized egg is a human is to basically say our skin cells our human, so we shouldn't kill them. You can argue that the fertilized egg has potential, but so does the individual sex cell.
@Dieromantic777 It is actually quite different. If I a man and a woman have sex and conceive, a process has begun. There's not some abstract potential. Without direct intervention or something going wrong, a child will be born. You cannot say this about individual sex cells. Individual sex cells will not develop into a child without something more. So, to say life begins at conception is not to "basically say our skin cells our [sic] human" life.
Lol you dont support abortion yet you support the party that has killed over 30million babies. Thats genocide my friend. All liberals who support abortion should be charged with murders. I love how liberals want to say that ameobas are living and babies arent. They make absolutely no sense. Wow, look when you make your mind up then figure out what party you go for.
I'm not a Democrat. The Democratic Party hasn't "killed" any babies. Many Democrats believe, wrongly in my opinion, that it is a woman's rights issue. They're not for killing babies any more than those of us who oppose abortion rights are for oppressing women.
The Republican Party is a joke and wildly inconsistent. They cry about the sanctity of life while supporting wars overseas and the death penalty at home. They care about life until it's born and then you're on your own.
@BigSpoon19 Yes and I think the Republican party or if you believe higher power conspiracies the elite are against abortion for all the wrong reasons including most of the reason pro choice feminist use against all the pro lifers.
@BigSpoon19 If a party, any party, supports abortion, meaning, they do what they can in their power to keep abortion legal; then isnt that party killing babies? I dont understand the rational of a person that says supporting abortion does not equate to killing babies!??? BTW, I dont care for politics as it is today, both parties are the same thing.
The point is that those who support abortion rights are not doing it because they support killing babies. They're arguing for it because they believe it's not a baby. So, instead of making emotional claims that are meant to demonize the other side (i.e. "you oppose women's rights" or "you support killing babies") the more rational approach is to have a discussion about when life begins. I believe abortion is ending a human life but I don't think it convinces anybody to call it killing a baby.
If this is going to work you're going to have to read what I write. I believe it's a human life. Is it a baby? Not really. It's a fetus. The only point at which it could probably be called a "baby" is during late-term abortions--which most people oppose. But, as I've written and as I said in the video: it's a human life and so I oppose abortion. It's not a teenager, it's not a child, it's not a baby. It's a fetus but it's a sacred human life and it's worth protecting.
Do you hate women's rights? Do you think you should be able to tell a woman what she can do with her own body? That's the exact type of argument people use when they say somebody supports killing babies. It's purely emotional and meant to make the other side look like monsters. "Pro-choicers" don't believe what they believe because they like to "kill babies." They believe it isn't a human life so the discussion should be about when life begins--not trying to shame the other side into agreeing.
@BigSpoon19 Jesus Christ gives life, even those conceived in the worst circumstances. I understand that everyone is not a christian. I dont beleive that a woman has the right to end her pregnancy unless her life depends on it, Jesus allows for that. I am not trying to shame, I am trying to make them see the sin of abortion. If they feel shame, what is wrong with that? do they have something to be ashamed of? A woman has an abortion to stop a baby from being born. The developing baby is killed.
No worries. My response was probably too harsh...it just shows that I've been having comment arguments with clowns on other videos and am a little too prickly at the moment. I apologize.
Thanks for playing but I'm not a Christian. Did anything I argue come from a religious stand? Perhaps you could do the homework of watching the video before commenting.
What about the baby is fundamentally different the moment before vs. the moment after it leaves the woman's body? I think you could make a strong argument that the infant is just as dependent on its mother after birth.
Once the umbilical cord is cut, it isn't physically attached to her any more and has to expend its own physical effort to survive. The mother provides the food, but the baby has to actually eat.
Well-said, and thank you for the lack of jingoism.
You say that it is difficult to see where to draw the line, but you hold it begins at conception because of the difficulty of any other standard. Fair enough.
When does a seed become a tree? All of the mechanisms a tree would use to survive are intact in the seed. I think you would agree that the difference is the shell protecting the plant inside. But get down to brass tacks, and the line between then is just as difficult to pin down.
So what this boils down to is: why do you have two different standards for human embryos and tree seeds? If you have a separate standard for human beings than for everything else, than it isn't really a standard at all. It's just what you believe or want to believe.
Even if you don't grant me that, why is life valuable in and of itself? Cancer is life. Chimeral twins are life. No one would protect either of those at the risk of an adult human. Why is an embryo different?
Without meaning to sound trite, I think the reason we find human life more valuable is the same reason that murder is a crime while cutting down a tree, or irradiating cancer is not. I suppose in some cosmic sense I cannot convincingly argue a difference without appealing to religion but it seems to be widely accepted.
I do want to point out that I do support abortion rights in the case where there is danger to the health of the mother. I don't think anybody should be forced to die.
Sorry about that last bit. Confusing you with someone else there.
You misunderstand my point. I am not trying to argue that human life isn't more valuable than a tree. I am trying to make the point that you said you consider an embryo a human being as soon as it is conceived, when it is just a few human cells. Cancer is just as human at that point and just as dependent on its host. Do you see the difference as that the embryo could be a fully-formed human in the future, and is thus fully human?
I agree that the same difficulty exists in distinguishing between a tree and a seed. I just don't think there's the same kind of impetus for finding a distinction. It's useful to have different terms for their descriptive value, just as it's useful to have the words, embryo, fetus, infant, child and adult. But I see not moral need to distinguish between where a tree becomes a tree.
So does this mean we should force women to get pregnant every cycle so their eggs arent wasted? No, that's ridiculous. I am of the opinion that one becomes human when the brain is formed. I am against abortion after this point, but when life is in the cellular form, I don't see a reason to view it as sacred.
Dieromantic777 7 months ago
@Dieromantic777 When is the brain "formed" in your opinion? Does life begin once the physical structure that will be a brain is present? When the brain is fully formed? (i.e. well after birth) When the child has some kind of consciousness? Does this mean that people with malformed brains are not human? I don't ask that to be trite--as I said, we are talking about defining what makes us human. Can you justify this distinction? That is, what about the brain being "formed" is dispositive?
BigSpoon19 7 months ago
@BigSpoon19 I would say at about week 6 - 7 of pregnancy, when the brain has developed into 5 areas. No, I can't really justify an objective reason behind this. I don't view abortion as something that should be casual birth control, it's a grey area. However, if we are to make it illegal, where does it stop? If abortion becomes illegal after conception, will people fight to make condoms illegal because some can consider a sperm cell to be human life? I am entirely against late term abortion
Dieromantic777 7 months ago
@Dieromantic777 I submit that when we agree on when a human life begins, it ceases to become a gray area. That is why you are opposed to late term abortion. If it's a human life everyone agrees. That's why the discussion needs to be about when life begins. I also wonder exactly how you draw the distinction between opposing abortion for "casual birth control" and other reasons. I wonder--why do you care if it's not a baby? If it's not a human, then I have no problem with casual abortions.
BigSpoon19 7 months ago
But as for abortion after conception, what about a fertilized egg is dispositive. You say that after that, one begins the process of becoming a human, but isn't a sex cell part of that process? Who's to say where it really begins? It's incredibly hard to find any objectiveness in this issue, and that is why I am pro choice. Over population is an increasing problem, and not every child put up for adoption is able to find a good home. However, I am against abortion as casual birth control.
Dieromantic777 7 months ago
All I can do is repeat what I wrote. Conception is not the mere presence of the materials. After conception, something has to intervene to prevent human life. Sexual cells won't become human. To make a crude analogy, a car's-worth of iron ore is not as valuable as a car on the assembly line. It's one of the materials but something else has to happen. And population control is a really silly argument for abortion. If you're concerned about population, advocate for education and social programs.
BigSpoon19 7 months ago
A fertilized egg is really not much different than individual sex cells. You say the process begins at conception, but really the process begins when a sex cell is created. We kill plenty of cells a day, and to say a fertilized egg is a human is to basically say our skin cells our human, so we shouldn't kill them. You can argue that the fertilized egg has potential, but so does the individual sex cell.
Dieromantic777 7 months ago
@Dieromantic777 It is actually quite different. If I a man and a woman have sex and conceive, a process has begun. There's not some abstract potential. Without direct intervention or something going wrong, a child will be born. You cannot say this about individual sex cells. Individual sex cells will not develop into a child without something more. So, to say life begins at conception is not to "basically say our skin cells our [sic] human" life.
BigSpoon19 7 months ago
I agree with this... Morning after I'm still not sure about... rape case's again I'm not sure about.
DaneVincentVid 2 years ago
Lol you dont support abortion yet you support the party that has killed over 30million babies. Thats genocide my friend. All liberals who support abortion should be charged with murders. I love how liberals want to say that ameobas are living and babies arent. They make absolutely no sense. Wow, look when you make your mind up then figure out what party you go for.
nintendude60 2 years ago
I'm not a Democrat. The Democratic Party hasn't "killed" any babies. Many Democrats believe, wrongly in my opinion, that it is a woman's rights issue. They're not for killing babies any more than those of us who oppose abortion rights are for oppressing women.
The Republican Party is a joke and wildly inconsistent. They cry about the sanctity of life while supporting wars overseas and the death penalty at home. They care about life until it's born and then you're on your own.
BigSpoon19 2 years ago
@BigSpoon19 Yes and I think the Republican party or if you believe higher power conspiracies the elite are against abortion for all the wrong reasons including most of the reason pro choice feminist use against all the pro lifers.
DaneVincentVid 2 years ago
@BigSpoon19 If a party, any party, supports abortion, meaning, they do what they can in their power to keep abortion legal; then isnt that party killing babies? I dont understand the rational of a person that says supporting abortion does not equate to killing babies!??? BTW, I dont care for politics as it is today, both parties are the same thing.
barcoxx 1 year ago
The point is that those who support abortion rights are not doing it because they support killing babies. They're arguing for it because they believe it's not a baby. So, instead of making emotional claims that are meant to demonize the other side (i.e. "you oppose women's rights" or "you support killing babies") the more rational approach is to have a discussion about when life begins. I believe abortion is ending a human life but I don't think it convinces anybody to call it killing a baby.
BigSpoon19 1 year ago
@BigSpoon19 Then what do they believe it is? a monster? an alien? a burden? it is what it is bro. Babies are being murdered via abortion.
barcoxx 1 year ago
If this is going to work you're going to have to read what I write. I believe it's a human life. Is it a baby? Not really. It's a fetus. The only point at which it could probably be called a "baby" is during late-term abortions--which most people oppose. But, as I've written and as I said in the video: it's a human life and so I oppose abortion. It's not a teenager, it's not a child, it's not a baby. It's a fetus but it's a sacred human life and it's worth protecting.
BigSpoon19 1 year ago
@BigSpoon19 I was just addressing the point you made when you said that "they dont believe its a baby". That does not make any sense.
barcoxx 1 year ago
@barcoxx You're arguing with the wrong person.
BigSpoon19 1 year ago
Do you hate women's rights? Do you think you should be able to tell a woman what she can do with her own body? That's the exact type of argument people use when they say somebody supports killing babies. It's purely emotional and meant to make the other side look like monsters. "Pro-choicers" don't believe what they believe because they like to "kill babies." They believe it isn't a human life so the discussion should be about when life begins--not trying to shame the other side into agreeing.
BigSpoon19 1 year ago
@BigSpoon19 Jesus Christ gives life, even those conceived in the worst circumstances. I understand that everyone is not a christian. I dont beleive that a woman has the right to end her pregnancy unless her life depends on it, Jesus allows for that. I am not trying to shame, I am trying to make them see the sin of abortion. If they feel shame, what is wrong with that? do they have something to be ashamed of? A woman has an abortion to stop a baby from being born. The developing baby is killed.
barcoxx 1 year ago
No worries. My response was probably too harsh...it just shows that I've been having comment arguments with clowns on other videos and am a little too prickly at the moment. I apologize.
I'd be interested to hear your viewpoint.
BigSpoon19 2 years ago
Thanks for playing but I'm not a Christian. Did anything I argue come from a religious stand? Perhaps you could do the homework of watching the video before commenting.
BigSpoon19 2 years ago
I think that human life begins when the baby is no longer a part of his or her mother's body. Until then, it is a parasitic organ.
PluralOfEverything 2 years ago
What about the baby is fundamentally different the moment before vs. the moment after it leaves the woman's body? I think you could make a strong argument that the infant is just as dependent on its mother after birth.
BigSpoon19 2 years ago
Once the umbilical cord is cut, it isn't physically attached to her any more and has to expend its own physical effort to survive. The mother provides the food, but the baby has to actually eat.
PluralOfEverything 2 years ago
I was born a month premature. I had to have help eating for several days, if not weeks. Was I human?
BigSpoon19 2 years ago
Well-said, and thank you for the lack of jingoism.
You say that it is difficult to see where to draw the line, but you hold it begins at conception because of the difficulty of any other standard. Fair enough.
When does a seed become a tree? All of the mechanisms a tree would use to survive are intact in the seed. I think you would agree that the difference is the shell protecting the plant inside. But get down to brass tacks, and the line between then is just as difficult to pin down.
AndrewTheEternal 2 years ago
(continued)
So what this boils down to is: why do you have two different standards for human embryos and tree seeds? If you have a separate standard for human beings than for everything else, than it isn't really a standard at all. It's just what you believe or want to believe.
Even if you don't grant me that, why is life valuable in and of itself? Cancer is life. Chimeral twins are life. No one would protect either of those at the risk of an adult human. Why is an embryo different?
AndrewTheEternal 2 years ago
Without meaning to sound trite, I think the reason we find human life more valuable is the same reason that murder is a crime while cutting down a tree, or irradiating cancer is not. I suppose in some cosmic sense I cannot convincingly argue a difference without appealing to religion but it seems to be widely accepted.
I do want to point out that I do support abortion rights in the case where there is danger to the health of the mother. I don't think anybody should be forced to die.
BigSpoon19 2 years ago
Sorry about that last bit. Confusing you with someone else there.
You misunderstand my point. I am not trying to argue that human life isn't more valuable than a tree. I am trying to make the point that you said you consider an embryo a human being as soon as it is conceived, when it is just a few human cells. Cancer is just as human at that point and just as dependent on its host. Do you see the difference as that the embryo could be a fully-formed human in the future, and is thus fully human?
AndrewTheEternal 2 years ago
I think that would be exactly the difference I see.
BigSpoon19 2 years ago
I agree that the same difficulty exists in distinguishing between a tree and a seed. I just don't think there's the same kind of impetus for finding a distinction. It's useful to have different terms for their descriptive value, just as it's useful to have the words, embryo, fetus, infant, child and adult. But I see not moral need to distinguish between where a tree becomes a tree.
BigSpoon19 2 years ago