You rocked the hell out of the argument concerning abortion. Your letter was well thought out, you knew what you were talking about, your information was factual and your reasoning was logical. You did a great job and as a fellow pro-lifer I commend you. I also am happy that your agrument is not relgiously based, as a solid pro-life argument should not be based on religion.
2) Prochoice leaders are not interested in facts that prove what they already know (the humanity of a fetus), or even the wellbeing of women (see pt 1). They are interested in $ which abortion provides.
I'm sorry, but you do realize your logic won't touch them. They really don't care.
But thank you for posting this for others who have been brainwashed. You may be able to reach them.
I think you meant to say "haven't been brainwashed," right? And I know that abortionists already know these facts, and I know it's all about the money, as many former abortionists will tell you. But thanks for watching :-)
I did mean "who have been brainwashed". People who have been brainwashed by the abortionists agenda, who think that being 'pro-choice' is the good, right, and fair thing. Good people who have been mislead by slogans that when seriously thought about are meaningless at best.
Maybe one of these poor mislead people who have a good heart may see your video, and seeds for thought will be planted.
Oh, right, yeah, now I see. I misread your sentence. Yeah, I contacted Jane Roe several times, but she never called me back. I have to figure out how to get this letter to the higher-ups (and of course I gotta refine it, make it more professional).
One correction. Roe's attorneys were both female, if I'm not mistaken. Sarah Weddington, and Linda Coffee.
1)The arguments were made that women suffered so much injustice from society when becoming pregnant that it would be unfair for them to be 'forced' to see a pregnancy through. One wonders why the atty's did not address or try to correct the unjustices instead. We still suffer them today as a result.
See, usually when someone disagrees with someone else, it sounds really idiotic to start name-calling instead of defending your own argument.
But hey, at least you don't know a gay guy from a straight guy. There are a lot out there, and if you knew how many, it might freak you out. Or maybe you're one of them...? Possibly, seeing that you have some sort of "gaydar," huh?
Good letter but I think youre missing some important info that might help you on this matter. 1) The science of 'human embryology' defines the term 'human being' as 'the immediate product of fertilization...'. So you can cut out that whole portion by simply citing any embryology text book made in the past 100+ years showing that fetuses and embryos are human beings according to science. 2) Scientific definitions are not interchangable with legal, nor common dictionary definitions.
This is especially important in roe v. wade where the court needed to interpret the status of the unborn from the constitution. However since there was no mention of unborn; nor was the information about embryology available to the founders for them to have given a informed hypothesis. Therefore, the supreme court could not grant any sort of status to the unborn, which would superseed the mothers property rights. 3) I am completely against abortion, but roe v. wade was the correct ruling.
For abortion to be banned, what needs to occur is an amendment to the constitution which legally defines the status of the unborn as human beings and this would in turn grant them rights and secure their lives. As it currently stands however, the constitution doesnt recognize the unborn and its potential rights, but absolutely does recognize the rights of born individuals.
Yeah, I know you can believe in evolution and God. I learned that at my Catholic school (though I don't call myself a Cath). But many scientists are seeing the flaws in evolution. Science has disproven many of evolution's theories. Like how many different species there were supposedly supposed to be from different eras, but somehow they were all found in the same layer. And the fish that was found that had supposedly already evolved into something else millions of years ago.
e.g wHales and ungulates, ambulocetans etc) However, i am also a christian (Catholic) and im not sure what ur religion actually is but if ur interested the pope actually says you can be a good christian AND belive in evolution.Saying you belive in evolution ISNT the same as saying u dont beleive in God its just believing in God in a slightly different way to how they used to thousands of years ago. which kinda makes sense wouldnt u say?
agree 100% with the abortion thing. However, evolution is not obsured and had it not been Darwin someone else wouldve discovered evolution. Pretty much all scientists agree with the idea of evolution and it has in fact been proved scientifically (see Peter, Rosemary Grant et al study on darwins finches)and through fossil remains where plenty have been found without gaps in the fossil record...
Accidently rated 1*. Interesting video, I would have to disagree with your statement about evolution at the beginning though, if you scroll down you'll see a comment by converse02 which is similar. There were a number of people who were looking into the basic framework of evolution, many not aware of specific fundamentals such as the influence of DNA on variation, but none the less it is not some "out of the blue" idea.
Yeah, well, I realized AFTER I made this video that it was a myth that Darwin denounced his theory. So, yeah, my bad. But thanks for the compliment. And, actually, I am not an atheist, as this video says. I'm a Christian. I just knew that if a pro-choicer heard I was a Christian, they would assume I know nothing about the Constitution, as if they two are related. They're so close-minded.
I'm sure not all "pro-choice" are closed minded. Naturally you'll have members of both sides equally stubborn and unwilling to consider the arguments of the other side. I was wondering, are you a vegitarian..?
Definitely not a vegetarian. I'm an omnivore. Why? The reason I say abortionists are close-minded is because, well, like I said: they refuse to listen to the other side. Yeah, some pro-lifers are that way too, but this trait is more commonly found in the abortionists.
If you're not a vegitarian, do you not consider it hypocritical to talk about nerve endings referring to pain in a fetus? You could argue that animals are not sentient or lack self awareness, although a pro-choice person could then argue that the brain of a fetus is not fully developed and therefore although it can exhibit behaviours, these are not what we would characterize as "human." I think the video was more interesting in showing issues with semantics in the constitution.
No, animals do indeed feel pain. But you need to eat meat. Meat has good bacteria in it that kills off bad bacteria. You can't get these good bacteria from pills or anything, only meat. I am against hunting in general. Farming, no, not against it, but I AM against the farms that inhumanely kill their livestock. Animals are self-aware. Fetuses do feel pain.
I'm sorry but that is simply incorrect, the process of cooking meat destroys bacteria. The act of consuming raw meat increases the likelihood of taking in bacteria of course, but these would not be "good" they would most definitely cause food poisoning. I myself am not a vegitarian, but humans are certainly capable of surviving without meat, getting their protein from other sourcces.
If animals are self aware and feel pain, how can you condone their death as a convenience, but not the "convenience" of an abortion. (This is not necessarily my view, I'm playing devil's advocate).
I condone the death of animals for our use, not convenience, because the Bible specifically says that the animals were put here for us. The Bible also says not to be cruel to animals. The Bible also says that fetuses are in the wombs because God intended it. To go against God's intentions is not a good thing.
Then can you see why a person of one opinion may ignore that of another when their view is based upon a religious doctrine? The exchange of arguments in a debate form becomes futile when your view is based on a rigid, unchanging outlook. It gives no room for the option of progress or change in ideas. (Or atleast it doesn't like to acknowledge it, but many are willing to interpret and leave aspects of their religion they don't like.)
You ask: Do I have the right to end a separate human beings life for the sake of mere convenience.
Yes if that separate human being is dependent on you for survival. Your right to your our body trumps everything. You do not have to donate blood even if it would kill a bleeding president or parent.
Many came up with evolution before Darwin, like Lamarck.
Darwin discovered evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION. It is the natural selection part, the mechanism, that is why he is famous and Lamarck not.
Wallace came up with evolution independently. It was Darwin AND WALLACE who published the paper of evolution. Even if Darwin did not exist, Wallace would have published.
It matters not if Darwin retracted evolution on his death bed. The facts of evolution still remain.
You are a load of bollocks whothenhow.
roac7777 3 years ago
You rocked the hell out of the argument concerning abortion. Your letter was well thought out, you knew what you were talking about, your information was factual and your reasoning was logical. You did a great job and as a fellow pro-lifer I commend you. I also am happy that your agrument is not relgiously based, as a solid pro-life argument should not be based on religion.
Keep up the good work! (but get a new hat.)
TheMaverick26 3 years ago
2) Prochoice leaders are not interested in facts that prove what they already know (the humanity of a fetus), or even the wellbeing of women (see pt 1). They are interested in $ which abortion provides.
I'm sorry, but you do realize your logic won't touch them. They really don't care.
But thank you for posting this for others who have been brainwashed. You may be able to reach them.
Minxcomix 3 years ago
I think you meant to say "haven't been brainwashed," right? And I know that abortionists already know these facts, and I know it's all about the money, as many former abortionists will tell you. But thanks for watching :-)
whothennow24 3 years ago
I did mean "who have been brainwashed". People who have been brainwashed by the abortionists agenda, who think that being 'pro-choice' is the good, right, and fair thing. Good people who have been mislead by slogans that when seriously thought about are meaningless at best.
Maybe one of these poor mislead people who have a good heart may see your video, and seeds for thought will be planted.
Minxcomix 3 years ago
Oh, right, yeah, now I see. I misread your sentence. Yeah, I contacted Jane Roe several times, but she never called me back. I have to figure out how to get this letter to the higher-ups (and of course I gotta refine it, make it more professional).
whothennow24 3 years ago
Are you aware that Roe is prolife now? She attempted to get the ruling reversed, but was told the statutes of limitations had expired.
Minxcomix 3 years ago
One correction. Roe's attorneys were both female, if I'm not mistaken. Sarah Weddington, and Linda Coffee.
1)The arguments were made that women suffered so much injustice from society when becoming pregnant that it would be unfair for them to be 'forced' to see a pregnancy through. One wonders why the atty's did not address or try to correct the unjustices instead. We still suffer them today as a result.
Minxcomix 3 years ago
queeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer
ukranianbanana 4 years ago
Very intelligent of you! You must be a caucasian!
See, usually when someone disagrees with someone else, it sounds really idiotic to start name-calling instead of defending your own argument.
But hey, at least you don't know a gay guy from a straight guy. There are a lot out there, and if you knew how many, it might freak you out. Or maybe you're one of them...? Possibly, seeing that you have some sort of "gaydar," huh?
Thanks, "G"
whothennow24 4 years ago
Good letter but I think youre missing some important info that might help you on this matter. 1) The science of 'human embryology' defines the term 'human being' as 'the immediate product of fertilization...'. So you can cut out that whole portion by simply citing any embryology text book made in the past 100+ years showing that fetuses and embryos are human beings according to science. 2) Scientific definitions are not interchangable with legal, nor common dictionary definitions.
borntokill 4 years ago
This is especially important in roe v. wade where the court needed to interpret the status of the unborn from the constitution. However since there was no mention of unborn; nor was the information about embryology available to the founders for them to have given a informed hypothesis. Therefore, the supreme court could not grant any sort of status to the unborn, which would superseed the mothers property rights. 3) I am completely against abortion, but roe v. wade was the correct ruling.
borntokill 4 years ago
For abortion to be banned, what needs to occur is an amendment to the constitution which legally defines the status of the unborn as human beings and this would in turn grant them rights and secure their lives. As it currently stands however, the constitution doesnt recognize the unborn and its potential rights, but absolutely does recognize the rights of born individuals.
borntokill 4 years ago
Thanks for your input!
whothennow24 4 years ago
read the 2nd bit 1st...lol
magdalenablochowiak 4 years ago
Yeah, I know you can believe in evolution and God. I learned that at my Catholic school (though I don't call myself a Cath). But many scientists are seeing the flaws in evolution. Science has disproven many of evolution's theories. Like how many different species there were supposedly supposed to be from different eras, but somehow they were all found in the same layer. And the fish that was found that had supposedly already evolved into something else millions of years ago.
whothennow24 4 years ago
e.g wHales and ungulates, ambulocetans etc) However, i am also a christian (Catholic) and im not sure what ur religion actually is but if ur interested the pope actually says you can be a good christian AND belive in evolution.Saying you belive in evolution ISNT the same as saying u dont beleive in God its just believing in God in a slightly different way to how they used to thousands of years ago. which kinda makes sense wouldnt u say?
xxx
magdalenablochowiak 4 years ago
agree 100% with the abortion thing. However, evolution is not obsured and had it not been Darwin someone else wouldve discovered evolution. Pretty much all scientists agree with the idea of evolution and it has in fact been proved scientifically (see Peter, Rosemary Grant et al study on darwins finches)and through fossil remains where plenty have been found without gaps in the fossil record...
magdalenablochowiak 4 years ago
This is what I have to say to your video:
=)
smileynat89 4 years ago
And this is what I have to say to you, kind lady:
:-)
:-P
whothennow24 4 years ago
Accidently rated 1*. Interesting video, I would have to disagree with your statement about evolution at the beginning though, if you scroll down you'll see a comment by converse02 which is similar. There were a number of people who were looking into the basic framework of evolution, many not aware of specific fundamentals such as the influence of DNA on variation, but none the less it is not some "out of the blue" idea.
Interesting points regarding abortion.
MementoMori88 4 years ago
Yeah, well, I realized AFTER I made this video that it was a myth that Darwin denounced his theory. So, yeah, my bad. But thanks for the compliment. And, actually, I am not an atheist, as this video says. I'm a Christian. I just knew that if a pro-choicer heard I was a Christian, they would assume I know nothing about the Constitution, as if they two are related. They're so close-minded.
whothennow24 4 years ago
I'm sure not all "pro-choice" are closed minded. Naturally you'll have members of both sides equally stubborn and unwilling to consider the arguments of the other side. I was wondering, are you a vegitarian..?
MementoMori88 4 years ago
Definitely not a vegetarian. I'm an omnivore. Why? The reason I say abortionists are close-minded is because, well, like I said: they refuse to listen to the other side. Yeah, some pro-lifers are that way too, but this trait is more commonly found in the abortionists.
whothennow24 4 years ago
If you're not a vegitarian, do you not consider it hypocritical to talk about nerve endings referring to pain in a fetus? You could argue that animals are not sentient or lack self awareness, although a pro-choice person could then argue that the brain of a fetus is not fully developed and therefore although it can exhibit behaviours, these are not what we would characterize as "human." I think the video was more interesting in showing issues with semantics in the constitution.
MementoMori88 4 years ago
No, animals do indeed feel pain. But you need to eat meat. Meat has good bacteria in it that kills off bad bacteria. You can't get these good bacteria from pills or anything, only meat. I am against hunting in general. Farming, no, not against it, but I AM against the farms that inhumanely kill their livestock. Animals are self-aware. Fetuses do feel pain.
whothennow24 4 years ago
I'm sorry but that is simply incorrect, the process of cooking meat destroys bacteria. The act of consuming raw meat increases the likelihood of taking in bacteria of course, but these would not be "good" they would most definitely cause food poisoning. I myself am not a vegitarian, but humans are certainly capable of surviving without meat, getting their protein from other sourcces.
MementoMori88 4 years ago
If animals are self aware and feel pain, how can you condone their death as a convenience, but not the "convenience" of an abortion. (This is not necessarily my view, I'm playing devil's advocate).
MementoMori88 4 years ago
I condone the death of animals for our use, not convenience, because the Bible specifically says that the animals were put here for us. The Bible also says not to be cruel to animals. The Bible also says that fetuses are in the wombs because God intended it. To go against God's intentions is not a good thing.
whothennow24 4 years ago
Then can you see why a person of one opinion may ignore that of another when their view is based upon a religious doctrine? The exchange of arguments in a debate form becomes futile when your view is based on a rigid, unchanging outlook. It gives no room for the option of progress or change in ideas. (Or atleast it doesn't like to acknowledge it, but many are willing to interpret and leave aspects of their religion they don't like.)
MementoMori88 4 years ago
Not bad.
o0LethalT0o 4 years ago
:-)
whothennow24 4 years ago
wats with the hat?
carolynw224 4 years ago
Watch the damn video and stop staring at my hat! Gosh, you're such a child!
whothennow24 4 years ago
0.0 u want me to watch ur video?????/!!!!!!!!!!
carolynw224 4 years ago
Duh, isn't that the point of YouTube? Bitch/child or not, I want people to watch.
whothennow24 4 years ago
You ask: Do I have the right to end a separate human beings life for the sake of mere convenience.
Yes if that separate human being is dependent on you for survival. Your right to your our body trumps everything. You do not have to donate blood even if it would kill a bleeding president or parent.
converse02 4 years ago
Read my letter I wrote to you.
whothennow24 4 years ago
Many came up with evolution before Darwin, like Lamarck.
Darwin discovered evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION. It is the natural selection part, the mechanism, that is why he is famous and Lamarck not.
Wallace came up with evolution independently. It was Darwin AND WALLACE who published the paper of evolution. Even if Darwin did not exist, Wallace would have published.
It matters not if Darwin retracted evolution on his death bed. The facts of evolution still remain.
converse02 4 years ago