I am pro-choice and I never said a fetus or zygote is not human in the physical or biological sense. It is 100% human DNA and human cells. But I still think that it is ok to terminate the pregnancy through abortion. It is a difference of opinion between you and me, I hope you have a good day.
@HAPrime You did not specify, so I'm not sure whether you meant this or not, but this is what most pro-choicers believe. "I don't think anyone should tell me what to do with my body." The problem with this statement is that it's not your body that you're terminating. It's your own child's. If someone doesn't live until they are able to live on their own, then everyone in the world is dead. Through your entire life, you are dependent on others for survival. I hope you have a good day.
Josh, I think the biggest difficulty you have with this repetitive rejection of others to conform their ideas and opinions to the reality of life and scientific knowledge is the post humanized culture and moral relativism. There is no use in arguing with them, because they live in their own reality which is a fantasy world based on their wants and needs not scientific proof or reality. A very sad way to live that lacks intellectual integrity. Keep up the good work.
To what we all have to ask ourselves: Is it right that I as a human deserve the ability to take another individuals right away just because I don't agree. Because that what abortion is, someone's right to do something to their body they believe to be the wrong time to happen to them. Do you have the moral authority to take someone else's right away because you disagree with the actions?
@FinerThingInLife1 Your argument is inherently contradictory. I absolutely agree that it is wrong to deprive someone of their rights. That is precisely the fundamental problem with elective abortion: it unjustly deprives the unborn child of the fundamental right to life that we all enjoy and by which all other liberties are justified. Indeed, the mother's situation should be considered, but does expediency justify the killing of a human child? That is the pro-life contest.
@huskerfraz Every debate has contradictions from both sides, if there wasn't then this would be over with no fuss. So next we have to get down to the main point on what a 'right' really is, is it choices you are allowed to make or are they set by default under the human genome. What gave both of us the right to live? If I was aborted would I even know what happened? Would I really care? Providing my eyes are closed and cells are still setting themselves up with my bones etc.
@FinerThingInLife1 It is irrelevant whether someone is aware of a wrong committed against him or not. Someone may embezzle money from a company or steal your identity; you may not be aware that it happened, but it is still a wrongful act. And yes, human rights are based on the fact that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes designating us homo sapiens. The right to life is fundamental and is the basis for all other liberties; without life, no other liberty can be enjoyed. (continue)
@FinerThingInLife1 (continued) The question here is: does expediency justify killing a child? My answer, and hopefully yours, is no. Every single human outside of the womb today was required to go through gestation in order to mature. "Embryo" or "fetus" is simply a term used to identify a stage in human biological development just like "infant", "toddler", "adolescent", etc. An adult may be more developed than an infant or fetus; but, we are all still distinct, living humans.
@huskerfraz I ask the relevance of it knowing or not as how do you think it feels in the womb, is it aware or it's own presence. If it can't feel at the early stages then no pain is caused. Human rights and liberties are taken away from people every day, by all sorts of humans unto another. Expediency should not at all justify a death or "acceptable loss", however every day it does which is something that may not change in our generation. I would only accept abortion under dire(cont)
@FinerThingInLife1 Firstly, it is irrelevant whether I am a woman or man; there are plenty of women and men who understand that elective abortions are unpardonable. Both genders are fully capable of moral judgment and sympathy towards each other. I would not only assert that women have the right to control their bodies, but I would assert that all humans have that right. Consciousness is only one aspect of being human, not a complete definition. You are confusing (continue...)
@FinerThingInLife1 (...cont'd) the ability to consent or experience stimuli with the entirety of human life. No one human aspect can be divorced from the rest and held as the only definition of a human, separated for mere convenience. The development of consciousness and intellect is a lifelong biological process, one that begins physically at the moment of conception. Assigning different values to different lives is the basis for every form of discrimination that exists today
@huskerfraz I am saying that no matter how much we try to understand the emotion, pain and outcome of an abortion, we won't fully know the experience until it happens to us. That is the same with everything in human life, we can only perceive to understand it to a certain point until it actually happens to us (being the surgeon doing the operation could possibly be counted in this). We are only able to assign different values to different lives because with this sort of case (cont)
@huskerfraz (cont) it comes with different stages as we know. Different stages have to have different values no matter the out come. What makes us human are many things ranging from the genome to the experiences we have in our progressive lives. As a fetus, those many things are very limited in which I would personally call "Less human". Though yes it comes down to primitive aspect of reproduce to survive and grow there are times where culling is wanted or needed. (cont)
@huskerfraz Now I wouldn't agree with what I called a culling because a girl felt like it because she accidentally got pregnant and didn't make her mind up. If it benefits the host to abort (medical reason, been raped and other controversial aspects to the humans we share the world with) to which the host will have another child later into a world like ours, then so be it. I am seeing both sides as much as I can and I am not saying you are wrong either, this is an issue that (cont)
@FinerThingInLife1 I do not have to commit a deed in order to understand sufficiently its consequences, good or bad. As well, I can understand why someone committed an act without condoning it. One cannot be more or less human, one either IS human, or IS NOT. Why do people break up with text messages, steal your identity, or talk smack behind your back? Because they are cowards and it is much easier to hurt someone when you don't have to see or suffer the consequences. cont'd.
@FinerThingInLife1 There is a right answer to this issue. Most pro-choicers would not deny that killing another human is wrong, instead they seek to justify the cold expedience of abortion by redefining what is a human. They will throw many irrelevant issues on the table (women's rights, consciousness, religion, etc.) in order to detract from the fundamental fact: an unborn child, fetus, etc. is a human, all humans have a fundamental right to life, therefore, abortion is wrong
@huskerfraz Every human has a fundamental right to life yet, why is it in many places across the world that right is taken away by Government and State? The death penalty for example as well as Government issued assassinations? I am simply pointing out that rights that humans have are taken away, chosen, given and expire every day to which human rights to life are a choice in this world. That is a sad truth that has happened through history of our race. I accept all truths between us
@FinerThingInLife1 Something interesting to think about is that scientist have recently found that babies embryonic stem cells are shared with the mother, years after the child is no longer in the womb, and may actually help the mother to avoid illness and heal cells that are unhealthy. Babies aren't a disadvantage to the mother carrying a child actually helps the mother.
@jj4christ There are cases out there where the baby can end up harming the mother or ending up hurting itself and dying in the womb to which we can not deny either, there will be pros and cons to a mother bearing a child.
@huskerfraz (cont) consequences where the mothers life is in danger because of the child or (from personal opinion and feeling) the extreme early stages of pregnancy. Though it occurs to me: Are we saying that the right to life is greater than the right of the individual? I am not sure if your male or female, in any case if you are male then you and can not fully understand a woman's point of view as in the end it will be individuality you or I are taking away. (cont)
@FinerThingInLife1 No can have any rights without life first. And the right to life is first and foremost over any perceived right that another individual thinks they have. A women who carries a child within her womb does not have the right to take the life of her child. It is murder plan and simple. That is the truth whether one wants to believe it or not.
@jj4christ A right to life is a choice people make every day. If there was no way to die from another human being, then the choice would always be life. If the core right on this Earth for humans is life, do we take the right away to death? We would have to take the coexistence away. Fetus are not only considered property of the mother (as to nurture for or discard of) they are able to end up as property of Government who are also able to take or give that life a chance. So I ask this
@jj4christ Do we have or give choice depending on the morality of the majority or where did our morality to say this is right or wrong come from in the first place? Do we have the right morals in saying what is right even if it hurts someone else?
@FinerThingInLife1 Morals are not man made, there are Truth. There is Divine Law and Natural Law. Most cases where a mother is struggling with caring a child full term are treatable. No one asks the question if the child within the womb should be executed through no fault of there own. I have 6 auto-immune diseases. At one point in my life I did not support live when a mothers live is in danger. But truly it is better for the soul of the mother for her to protect and cherish the live within her.
The conciousness of life. What makes a human human? Is it our genetic make up, or is it our conciousness? Our ability to think like other living things or our ability to do more than other animals? The embryo doesn't know what is going on it doesn't really know anything at all, just doing what 2 mixes of DNA are meant to do like other mammals do. It then jumps up to a larger picture of the individual if "Is it right for me to have this child" and questions similar. (carried on from below)
I will take Josh's word in the places he has quoted as well as the people. It will be the fact that these embryos will eventually be born as a human. In which case some of the things he quoted will only remain as a scientific thing. Abortion is not only scientific but also psychological and sociological and comes down to the parent(s) perception of their child to be. However does that embryo perceive what it is or will become at the very early stages? You would need to put a label on
@huskerfraz Statistically speaking, the majority of abortions and unwanted births happen in broken homes, and the majority of the people from unwanted births in broken homes, tend to develop into sociopaths. Then all of the people who 20 some years ago were telling that persons mother not to 'murder' the fetus, are the ones putting the needle in that same person's arm.
Here's a question for pro-lifers. A twelve-year-old is raped, and she will die if she gives birth because her hips, spine, and reproductive organs are not developed enough to produce a child (yes, this is possible.). The fetus is not conscious yet, and it can feel no pain because its nervous system has not developed. What would you do?
@Rubybookify My contention, personally, is that an elective abortion unjustifiably kills an innocent human child (and when I say human, I mean a living homo sapiens (and when I say living, I mean the opposite of dead)). An abortion in the case of a medical emergency is ethically permissable, assuming that the medical doctor (who took an oath to do no harm) is acting to save the life of at least one person as opposed to losing the lives of both the mother and child. That simple.
No one is saying that the fetus is going turn into anything else. You people will allow a child to be born into a broken home that does not want the child, will blame the child for making their life so much harder because they couldn't abort them, homes were the child will likely be abused. And then if the child turns into a sociopath and then put them on death row. I don't condone the use of abortion in the 3rd trimester, but I do believe people should have a choice in their body and future.
@TheGlitchInTheSystem Well, given that logic, I guess no one should have any babies, even consentually, because they all have some chance of being born into a dysfunctional family.
@TGram29 A "patch of skin" implies part of a whole, an unborn child is a living organism, distinct from its mother and father. A "patch of skin" is of the same DNA as the larger organism from which it came unlike an unborn child which bears a separate, unique (human) DNA. This is really very elementary, it shouldn't have to be explained.
@TGram29 Actually, that "clump of cells" already has a determined gender, blood type, hair and eye colors, etc. It is a distinct, whole, unique, living human (homo sapiens) in the early stages of biological development. Law of Biogenesis: life originates only from pre-existing life, and kind only reproduces after like kind. Everyone who ever existed used to be an embryo before they were a fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, and then finally an adult. Correct me if I have made any untrue claims.
No one is saying that humans are something else then homo sapiens.
develope hmmm..... develope ... change... what could that mean : So something was changed, developed, that means it was something different before, maybe even something less and then it developed into something else, something greater.
Now look. I come from the UK where we don't have the same issues you do, or at least not to the same degree. The religious fanatics or anyone daft enough to believe in god pretty much keeps it to themselves as they are looked upon by most of society as being 'special' and not in a good way.
The idea you are putting forward is a smoke screen for the real issue. That abortion is a solution that could be prevented by proper sex education and the effective use of contraception.
@SpoonFeedThem And you, sir, are surrounded by cameras and can't have guns. Keep your self-righteous slave tripe to yourself or else you'll be looked at as "special," and not in a good way. If you think you've got a smoke screen, just try me. You'll drown in a pool of your own Smug.
@EvilsOfFeminism@EvilsOfFeminism First of all, how does being able to have a gun give you any more of an opinion than anyone else? He is saying that you are the ones putting forward a smoke screen not that he 'has a smoke screen'. If you are going to attempt to enter a debate about an intellectual issue you could at least make your response relevant and not just get angry and write down the first thing that comes into your head.
This done by the same people who believe that there are actually different RACES of human beings, and who actually believe the book of genesis is a scientific theory, science actually tells us no there is only homo sapien but they created the idea of race with their bigotry and it tells us that the big bang did indeed happen as we can now see it, so now they are trying to claim science as their domain to further destroy it. two words, Epic Fail.
Aaaaand once again, proabortion fanatics insist on denying the simplest scientific fact that a human being is... well, a human being since the very moment of its conception. And again. And again. And again.
Poorly played, sweeties. Back to 2nd grade immediatly!
Besos,
estudiante de Medicina feliz de haber aprobado el ciclo escolar
@Halibut86 1. no your just a pevert with a messed up set of moarls 2. pro-life supporter's fo ending abortion because it is an intended act to end the child's right to live 3. how is he the asshole he just knows it's wrong
to end a persons life regaurdless of them being born or not your the asshole for supporting a messed up opressive system.
@jj4christ This is potentially true! But can you make it happen based purely on the concept that I am a potential cold-blooded killer? You cannot with self-conviction. Murder is not exclusive to the willing: it's in our genes, much how it is in the instinctive genes of all carnivorous animals.
I am a potential murderer in the same way a fetus is a potential person. Is that a worthy excuse of conviction, because I'm willing and able yet unfulfilled? I think not, without specific aspiration.
The scary reality is that "pro-choicers" really don't care about the biology. Their worldview revolves around extreme selfishness. Fortunately, most of them still have enough humanity to not demand that all child killing be made legal for medical reasons, financial reasons, or because they don't feel like being parents anymore. I'm not sure how much longer that will last at this rate....
@biodan26 the joint "genus species" term is simply referred to as "species", as the term "species" implies genus and species. Hence, it is said that a human is of species "homo sapiens".
Since 1927, world population (Google it to see) has gone from 2 billion to 7 billion. That last billion took only 13 years. The problem is not that we don't have enough people being born. Children, including babies, are starving to death every single day. Instead of working toward adoptions for all of these starving children, anti-choice people keep screaming "murder".
@ndrthrdr1 So instead of feeding those children, you want to kill them.
Nice.....
What amazes me is how the genius who develop new farming techniques that save millions or even BILLIONS of lives never make the news but monstrous baby killers are treated like heroes.
@Soothfish said "What amazes me is how the genius who develop new farming techniques that save millions or even BILLIONS of lives never make the news but monstrous baby killers are treated like heroes."
World population:
1927 - 2 billion
1998 - 6 billion
2011 - 7 billion
...and you're obsessed with making sure we increase the birth rate?
You don't live in the real world. Get a clue.
Notice how any response you make to this comment will either ignore or trivialize this population crisis.
@ndrthrdr1 Bullshit. I never said "reproduce as often as you can and faster than you can even if you have to watch your kids starve to death". As a normal human being, I simply reject child-killing as population control.
However, I do realize that you scumbag leftists are simply looking for an excuse to destroy innocent lives, particularly the ones that are of no practical use to you.
@Soothfish It's not the American kids starving to death, it's in third world countries. Instead of focusing on people suffering and dying right now, however, the extremist fringe among the pro-lifers obsess about legislating their ethics. This idea of "Let's force everyone to allow me to make their ethical decisions for them." ignores the children suffering and slowly dying in misery and despair now. It's happening right now, this very minute. I donate what little I can to Feed The Children.
@ndrthrdr1 "ignores the children suffering and slowly dying in misery and despair now."
There is a long waiting list of people who want to adopt children in the United States. There are even an excess number of people who want to adopt troubled or disabled children of any age. Adoptable babies are actually preferable but rare because disgusting leftists keep aborting them. Put your money where you mouth is and adopt some of these children along with us. Killing is the easy way out.
@Soothfish Waiting to adopt? Right, but only babies, only healthy white babies. Who cares about all of those who have already been born and have been suffering. and will starve and die in the next year or two - or less. What wonderful, caring people. There are plenty of already alive kids to adopt, but you'd rather let them die and force other women to give birth to more kids. What loving people you are.
Outlawing abortion won't stop them any more than marijuana laws stop pot smokers.
@ndrthrdr1 So how about you become one of the wonderful caring people who adopt the unwanted? I know it's a lot harder than whining about pro-lifers and killing babies to save money, pain, and effort for yourself.
The kids in the US aren't exactly "dieing". They go to intensive care facilities where they are cared for by....me. That is my career. I also make donations. What's your excuse? Do you even care about any of that suffering or are you just happy to use it as an attack argument?
@ndrthrdr1 I'm going to ask two simple questions and I expect a straight answer to both. Are you saddened by abortion? Are you saddened by child suffering?
@Soothfish Yes, actually, it does. Personally, I mourn for the potential of those possible future friends and acquaintences. However, I truly believe that it is the right of women to decide what is right for them. It's much like the old defense of the First Amendment: I disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it.
@putzthewondersloth Well I don't think that it has anything to do with the first amendment but I also agree with you that government should not get involved directly. The only thing the government should so is provide protection to resources on both sides of the isle. It's too late to pass legislation now that is has gone so mainstream. The only solution is to tell the medical and human truth about the procedure and hope that somehow I can convince a person to choose alternatives.
@putzthewondersloth I should also mention that there is another big problem here in the USA. There is almost no protection for pro-life agencies and crisis pregnancy centers. These institutions are not in the slightest but controversial. They don't restrict anyone's choices, they just provide alternatives to abortion for to pregnant women and girls in crisis. The problem is that big abortion providers are furious that these non-profit facilities are cutting into their profits. (continued)
@putzthewondersloth sometimes they send actual thugs to destroy these facilities after closing times. There was a case of this recently at a crisis pregnancy center in Manhattan. This facility provide all services for free and was funded almost entirely by donations. There might actually be a chance of turning things around if these types of stories came to the attention of major news outlets. People need to hear about what "pro-life" really means. They just haven't been told the truth!
@ndrthrdr1 Not surprisingly, Barack Obama and the Democrats sent 154 million dollars to the UN population control fund with the explicit purpose of helping China commit forced abortions on the oppressed women and babies. It is an atrocity and anyone who supports the brutality and killing of innocents is an enemy of mine.
So much for being "an atheist lighting a candle". You are more like a misanthrope anti-theism lighting a candle to burn the world at the stake.
@Soothfish That's not about forced abortions. That's propaganda spread by wingnuts who think that birth control, including condoms, is evil. The funds are not made available to countries that refuse to allow the women to make their own decisions. A woman's reproductive health rights are hers, not to be dictated by men.
Burning at the stake? That's a Christian tradition, not a secularist one. Don't forget to kill those witches, as the Bible clearly instructs. More Christian misogyny.
@ndrthrdr1 Turns out that you are wrong. There are even some members of the Obama administration who said that such a policy could be justified under the constitution for the sake of forced population control.
I deliberately used the allegory of burning at the stake because you are very religious. I am an atheist but not a misanthropic anti-theist like you are. You have turned your hatred for humanity into a violent religion. Misogyny? Are you saying that pro-life women are not women?
@ndrthrdr1 If you were to tell me that abortion at least saddened you (although you still think it is necessary) then I would retract my statement that you are a misanthropic anti-theist scumbag. Until then I will continue to believe that you are a sociopathic monster who gets some kind of sick pleasure out of knowing that tiny arms and legs and baby skin are being torn to shreds. Until you demonstrate some humanity and compassion, I couldn't care less about what you have to say.
@ndrthrdr1 "Instead of working toward adoptions for all of these starving children, anti-choice people keep screaming "murder"."
That is bullshit!!! As I already stated, there is a long waiting list of people ready to adopt newborns, even ones with diseases or disabilities. The problem is that scumbag leftists like yourself don't want their child property to go to strangers, or they don't want the pain of child birth. You are selfish, evil scum who never do anything kind for anyone.
@ndrthrdr1 Newt Gingrich is pro-life, and he says he would defund abortions and use the funds to help out adoptions. Abortion funding steals money away from adoptions.
@ndrthrdr1 So, with your logic, murder will solver murder? Souds like replacing evil wth evil. Western civilization is completely dying out anyway. Muslims will be/are taking over the world through repoduction. For every 5 Muslims born, 1 Westerner is born. Just look up "European Population Decline." If you knew anything about basic military strategy and logistics, you'd know the the wombs of women are more powerful weapons than a 50 megaton nuclear warhead.
@ndrthrdr1 Yes, just like the Aztecs, we need to sacrifice to a Luciferian War God. What utter foolishness that is. If you clued in a bit, you would see that a bunch of technology coming mostly out of Europe has allowed people in third world areas to irresponsibly explode their numbers, which has actually resulted in NWO agents making the same argument you are to assume more control of civilian populations. Good job playing right into their hands.
@ndrthrdr1 These third-world children are starving after thousands of years of other groups advancement because *Shock Horror* it is all they are capable of. You will literally have to build up cities for them and babysit them so they can demolish them by crime. Hell, Africa is a shining example. Even after many generations in a more advanced society, they still wreck every city in which they are a majority, but I am guessing you don't have the cajones or spine to discuss that!
This doesn't go far enough. Every human egg which is not fertilized is a life lost. I propose mandatory or forced, if necessary, pregnancies for every girl from the moment she become fertile and until menopause. It can be done by boys of their own age, as many times as it takes to initiate pregnancy. Remember, this is for the children.
And yeah, before you start screaming, I am being sarcastic. It's all one person forcing their views onto others.
@putzthewondersloth Nonsense. An unfertilized egg is only haploid whereas a fertilized egg is genetically diploid. At the early Blastocyst stage, it is undeniably human no matter how you look at it from a genetic or protein perspective. At that point onwards, the central nervous system develops faster than any other organism on the planet.
@Soothfish Okay, my previous comment was parody, but I do have a serious phylosophical question for you regarding the nature of abortion. Is a human being required to care for another human being? Specifically, if a woman chooses to have said blastocyst removed from her because she does not wish to care for it anymore. If she has the bloastocyst carefully removed with no damage to it and the bloastocyst inevitably dies, is it killed or does it die because it is incapable of surviving?
What I don't understand about abortion is why exactly supporters of it seem to think the there are stipulations on the right to life we take for granted. Under what circumstances is a human life (of any age) provided they haven't committed some horrible violent crime deserving of the death penalty.
@NovelistVampireGirl Many left wingers believe that mass murderers should be spared the death penalty and even be given elective plastic surgery at taxpayer expense so their days in prison will be pleasant and happy.
Meanwhile, a highly developed baby at the third trimester is treated not only as the worst possible offender but as subhuman filth with no rights whatsoever. I will never EVER be able to understand how any doctor can kill such a child while knowing the truth about the biology.
Okay so we can agree that a fetus is a human being at a very primitive stage in developement... now i still say abortion is justifed is some cases. As humans we are constrained by many factors, social, economic, etc, therefore an abortion could be justified under certain circumstances. However, I don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control.
It's always best to remember one thing, all you pro-choicers. It's harsh, but it's true- If your mother wasn't pro-life, you wouldn't be here right now, typing on your computers. You would not be alive.
@brndurham My mom is pro-choice, but she chose to have a baby. Your comment makes it sound as if all pro-choice women don't want to have kids, but that isn't necessarily the case.
I think the best thing to say about thsi is that pro-choicers obviously do not believe in an afterlife. You see, no matter what you call an unborn child, it is still an unborn child; it is still living. You see, abortion for women is a matter of pride; too proud and lazy to take care of a child. Even if a woman cannot physically provide for a child, I don't put up with the, "Well, it's going to die anyway. I might as well..." response. How would YOU feel if you never had a chance to live?
@brndurham Aborted, don't regret it. Also had a kid, and am a devoted, loving wife and mother, as well as a nurse for the handicapped/elderly. A fetus is not a child, it is a potentiality, and if it is unwanted, getting rid of it is perfectly fine. It's not about laziness or anything- trust me, if you knew me in person, you'd know I'm ANYTHING but lazy.. Also, I'm a rape-product, and my mom WANTED to abort me and was FORCED not to.. I'd RATHER have been aborted, out of respect for HER.
If you were walking past a hospital, and a doctor kidnapped you off the streets, and told you for 9 months, you have to give your organs to this guy who will die otherwise, and for these 9 months, against your will, you have to go through extreme pain and discomfort, and in the last month you won't be able to do nearly anything, then at the end you have to go through an extraordinarily painful 12+ hours, then at the end of these 9 months, you have to raise this kid who would die otherwise (cont)
Your critique, as i see it, is only an attack on pro-choicers definition of what is human, and not on the meaning behind their definitions. I believe what they mean to say is that they don't define this undeveloped thing as human, even if it is geneticly so.
@socialisticdemo To explain what i mean: you would in a similar situation claim that cream, sugar, egg's and spices was the same as ice-cream. Where a pro-choicer would say it's only: cream, sugar, egg's and spices. The pro-choicer would then say, that if you process and cool down these ingredients it could become Ice-cream.
@socialisticdemo In the same way the needed parts for the resertch could be defined as the unprocessed ingredients for a human, but not actually a human yet.
To sum up you only talk about definitions but you don't really address the actual issue. And btw. quoting some doctors that agree on your way of looking at this ethical chase doesn't really make your chase stronger, it just means that that particular doctor agrees on your definition, not that your definition is right.
@socialisticdemo Whoever you quote they are only human and im sure that whatever insane idea you would ever like to support you can find the quotes to support it. I do not have an opinion on the whole matter of this yet, im only starting to gather information. This was not informative, it was not helpfull, i found it condescending, arrogant and in no way anything worth mentioning in an argument pro- or against choice.
Umm a fetus is a clump of human DNA and cells. Its not a living life form at that stage of development as it cant survive outside its mothers womb. Hell by your logic you shouldent be able to get rid of tumors becuase they are techanlly "human"
When I think about it this whole argument over abortion is extremely redundant.
In life the only arguments taken into consideration are that of the adults, they choose who the president is, who the mayor is, who the family doctor is, and just about every other major and minor thing in life.
In courts the jury decides whether a person is guilty or not, even when knowing that saying guilty is a death sentence (and guess what? the jury is made up of adults!).
When it comes to children the parents (or guardians) decide almost everything: friends, school, food, when to sleep, when to wake up, where to go, when to go, etc.
as I said, almost everything. (To be honest, the reason I think adults dread children becoming teenagers is that they realise their almost absolute control over us is coming to an end). Adults choose a child’s religion (usually their own), their education, and what happens with their bodies.
It is the woman’s choice whether or not she has an abortion, so I don’t know why people are going loco over it.
For Christians, abortion is a contrived issue--throwing around the name of Jesus and claiming to speak for the unborn. The vast majority of this very same Jesus cult does very little for the literally tens of millions of orphaned, abandoned, diseased, and starving children who we know for a fact are ALIVE and DO need help.
Dopey Americans sitting around and claiming to speak for the unborn are trying to make themselves feel better about ignoring real people.
Just to get this out there I myself am an agnostic, so I'm not taking up for christianity because I am one. However look at all the missionary work done by churches of all denominations. Look at all the money that is given to places like Doctors without Borders, by christian organizations. As well as Feed The Children, Salvation army, Red Cross, and numerous other organizations. To say that most of them do very little is quite absurd.
There's no denying that a fetus/embryo is alive, but things like plants are also alive. At the time of most abortions, a fetus can't feel pain (can't til 3rd trimester, and abortions are only done then for medical reasons), it can't think, it isn't aware of itself or it's surroundings, it doesn't have autonomy, the list goes on and on! In the end perhaps it comes down to what you value more - the life of the pregnant person, who is sentient, has friends, family, etc OR a fetus, a blob of cells.
If you look at a sperm under a microscope...you see its full of a magical force that gives it a degree of intelligent direction and energy to achieve its goal......that magical force is LIFE.
@aggieemily2013 an egg is not unfertilised. the cock (male hen) isnt "doing" the egg, he is "doing" the hen... coccect me if im wrong plz.... in any case i would like to post my opinion on the subject. the embryo is a human. of course it is, still the termination of its life is a desicion that could be right some times, like rape victims, extremely poor couples that couldn't possibly give the future child the life that it should have and other cases like this.
A "fetus" is alive. He/she has a soul. Saying that an unborn child is not person is like saying a window isn't a window because the blinds are closed! If a premature baby is born and someone murders him/her that's murder, right? But if a baby that is more developed than that baby and is still in the womb and is killed, isn't that murder? A baby suffers in an abortion, they have a silent scream. It breaks my heart to the point of tears. I'm glad I'm alive, and I'm glad that my little brother is
It is obvious that a womans fetus is human since the woman is a human The real question is the fetus a person? And the answer is NO a fetus is not a person therefore abortion is not illegal And before someone argues that a fetus is a person first answer this other question If a fetus is a person then why when the mothers life is in danger doctors first choice is to safe the mothers life and not the fetus? Only when the mother chooses the fetus they will try to safe it instead of the mother. WHY?
...(cont.) and giving birth has a death rate of .0001% which is the lowest? a safe abortion in a well developed country! Now I'm not saying once you get prego go to your doctor and have them go at it. believe me, I myself would not be able to do this. I can't but I won't judge someone who can and might have to for their own well being.
actually stem cell research doesn't have to kill the baby. The placenta is a viable source of stem cells AFTER BIRTH. you know when you are cutting the umbilical cord? thats you cutting the placenta from the baby. that has all the stem cells. I cannot argue that a fetus is human, but if it can't survive outside the womb then its technically not a viable life. You have a choice a safe abortion in a hospital with a death rate of .00001% or a back alley abortion with a death rate of .00367% (cont.)
it may be biologically human but it is no more murder or whatever than cutting off a mole, they both have the same dna etc but neither are 'alive' in the sense that it is sentient
My final statement is this: Yes, nobody disputes that human fetuses are human, in a purely taxonomical sense. However, this is irrelevant to the issue of abortion, which pro-lifers argue is immoral. Morality and ethics are social constructions, and a human fetus has no traits that would socially define humanity. Therefore, the pro-life argument is invalid
@shadowdragon7416 wow your so wrong...Morality & ethics ARE PRINCPLES not social contructs. much like mathmatics, morality & ethics were their wating to be discovered it was never CONSTRUCTED by anyone, it has always been there and its eternal it'll be their when we're gone. either u gain from it and enrich your mind ,body & soul or u live & die spiritualy & mentally malnourished & definantly misguided....
@777yojoe It's woefully reductionistic of you to treat reality as "waiting to be discovered"; it's never that simple. You mentioned mathematics as an example, but studies like calculus don't exist in principle, they were developed as a system of tools and methods for solving more complex problems. Likewise, morality differs between societies to suit different cultural norms; you can't prove that one set of morals is superior to another from a non-moralistic standpoint...
@shadowdragon7416 U know what your wrong but at least your a thinking person and I really respect that, math by nature is a principle, because it has no beginning and no end its eternal,it cant be manipulated and still be correct it has always been and will be..that FACT had to be discovered since it could never be created. math is very selfish,it only deals in absolutes either your right or full of it.. unless u align yourself to the ONE TRUE morality or your lost..thats the universe..
@777yojoe I don't believe that there is one true morality, or math; I believe there is one true reality. I think you're confusing math, the subject, with the reality that it's applied to. I can say that there are three apples on a table, but that's not math, that's the reality of three apples being on a table. Similarly, the area of a certain triangle is reality, and I could use different "maths", be it geometry, trigonometry, or calculus, and they could all determine the correct answer (cont..)
@777yojoe (..cont.) So no, math is not eternal, in fact, it is very limited, since many problems cannot be solved by traditional methods (fifth degree equations, integrals of squared exponentials...) As for reality, I don't know if that is eternal. Sure, you can count up numbers to infinity, but numbers are a human invention, and in reality the universe has an end and space is not infinitely divisible (you will reach the smallest point), so numbers of extreme magnitudes are meaningless.
@shadowdragon7416 first of all nothing in the physical universe exist outside of mathmatics..period..its the building block of emperic reality, second, numbers are representation of an intangable truth of a infinant process, you cant concede that it goes on forever and then say its limited..YOU & I are limited, our understanding & experience with it is limited, but the principles & foundations of reality will ALLWAYS BE... our proof is what we do know ..that it never began & never ends cont...
@777yojoe cont. t..algebra,geometry,calc,physics, ect. all follow the same principles they dont exist without each other they dont contradict each other..they all FOLLOW THE SAME TRUTH not TRUTHS...EMOTIONS are what your dealing with, emotions dont deal with logic & morality, if they dont want to.. emotions like DESIRE, its only concerned with how it FEELS NOW, thats what ALL societies are LEAD by..they dabble in morality when it suits them..but desire leads to the justificaton of ...ANYTHING
@777yojoe Your statement "nothing exists outside of mathematics" should be revised to say "Nearly everything can be explained through mathematics". I stress again that the subject of math is a human construction, and while it is a very good one, it would be premature to say that EVERYTHING can be explained when we don't know everything. I also did not concede what you may have thought; I said that numbers can theoretically extend to infinity, but that is only because we have... (cont...)
@shadowdragon7416 I dont really know why you think humans made math up...its like saying we made up the laws of gravity..we didnt, we discovered it and called it..gravity..but its a part of the princples of physics on earth..you have a fundamental misconception about princples overall..talk to any scientist,mathmatician, and they'll tell you math is an eternal principle,all princples are eternal or they cant qualify as princples to begin with,thats not a theory thats based fundamentals..
@777yojoe (cont..) ..conceptualized it that way. To provide a similar example, we have 26 letters of the alphabet that could theoretically be arranged in an infinite number of ways. Does that mean that language is infinite? Another example, would you consider our Gregorian calendar to be a true discovery? Then why is the Mayan calendar more accurate than ours? Another: Classical and quantum physics don't exist within each other; they contradict each other on many counts, and yet... (cont...)
@777yojoe (cont.) ...they are both still applied because they are better suited to explain different facets of physics and the natural world. Not to mention that around the singularities of black holes, the laws of physics and math don't even apply. You need to accept that when you don't know everything (and neither do I), you cannot talk as though everything already has an explanation. And finally, I don't know how you managed to insert emotion into this; I don't believe I ever got emotional
@shadowdragon7416 .. math doesnt apply around black holes??...dude that is just absolutly not true..no university on earth teaches that...science and math are the same thing bro..the emotional part came from the deviation from morality princples..I was talking society in general not really you specifically..everything in the PHYSICAL universe is math orientated dude thats a fact,ask any professor, we couldnt exist without the certainty of it..its simply the law of existance physically...
@777yojoe You still haven't differentiated between reality and it's interpretations given your last sentence... Though I have to admit, you actually made me think twice for a moment, so I referred to the wikipedia page on math...and there I found Albert Einstein in the intro summarizing pretty much my exact argument. Reality is reality, math is a SUBJECT which studies and interprets it. I suggest you read it yourself. Your argument suffers partly because of this semantic fallacy.
@shadowdragon7416 thats not a DEFINITION of math, reality consist of tangible & intangible the PHYSICAL is math.. look up the DEFINITION of mathmatics as it relates to the building block of reality, ALL THINGS ARE NUMBERS..which is the essence the pathygerous therom its basic knowledge to any mathmatician, dude this was over a thousand years b4 einstien & its been taught ever since its not even debated anymore since the 17th century..punch in "math the building block of reality" on google..
@777yojoe I don't know if you just equated the Pythagorean theorem with reality, because if you did, you're hopelessly lost. If you looked up "mathematics" on dictionary dotcom, the first four definitions all suggest that mathematics is the study of something. Math is fundamental to our understanding of reality, as we know it, but it is not reality itself. You still have yet to distinguish between the two. You'd be equally wrong if you said life is biology, or Socrates is philosophy.
@shadowdragon7416 ok for the last time,THEE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE consist of pure math,physical means TANGIBLES feel,smell,hear,see. INTANGIBLES like thought or emotions do not apply to math..REALITY is both tangible & intangible..your drifting & taking things out of context..stick to the point which is math is a principle & eternal discovered not created..& that cannot be refuted..its excepted as common knowledge today...you said its not eternal & was created by man...you are wrong..period..
@777yojoe You sound really sure of yourself, but you still have not recognized your error yet? You accuse me of taking things out of context when I mention reality, when every single science: math, chemistry, physics, biology...is entirely focused on understanding an aspect of reality? Reality is the context of EVERYTHING. Hence, we can explain how the universe works through concepts of physics, chemistry, math, and thermodynamics that we have formulated....
@777yojoe ...but to say something like "math always existed, and it created the universe" would be an extremely horrendous logical fallacy. Your statement "cannot be refuted" is another fallacy. If you've ever done research, and have some knowledge of statistics, you would know that it not possible to prove anything, only to refute. Any hypothesis that is not refuted 99.99994% (this number is official, I'm not making this up) of the time becomes a theory. And it should tell you that even...
@shadowdragon7416 I dint say math created the universe,i said math is the BUILDING block of the physical universe,the principle behind it..and for all your philosophy and opinion your still wrong, you cant disprove an inch of that fact. I think your just argueing not to concede.There theories & facts,principles are eternal truth,if they arnt then nothing could exist..electon,neutrons,protons,atoms,molecules are present in all matter,they follow a strict code to form physical reality..thats math
@777yojoe ...the most well established theories can be refuted. Again, please understand. Gravity (one of the 4 fundamental forces) is not the same thing as the Laws of Gravity (human rationalization of it). As it turns out, our current theory on gravity is inadequate, and so we must study it further. Gravity helped shape the universe, NOT the Laws of Gravity. Reality is the only truly "eternal" thing; products of imperfect human reasoning (math, morality), are not.
@shadowdragon7416 not understanding gravity does not disprove that math is its construct,math is an eternal principle, there are unending forms of math, algebra,trig,calc,physics, dont even scratch the surface the principle never ends it never began..it cant be comprehended fully by any human because we arnt eternal..thats why ppl beleive in GOD, our own logic tells us how limited we are,math is physical reality,it contructs the TANGIBLE which is matter..simple factual logic..
...(cont.) Thus it is not morally wrong to terminate the life of a human fetus, especially since another person's (the mother) social ability is concerned. However, if a fetus were to develop into something that could think, feel, and generally display qualities that are commonly associated with the word "human", then, at THAT point, it would be wrong to kill.
The phony pro lifers know that as long as they keep asking the wrong question they can look good while the "right to choose" remains protected. The correct question is not "are they human?" but "When does an individual person's life begin?" I think fifth grade science has that one covered too.
Josh can't use the words PERSON in the same sentence as FETUS, because he's afraid of management. Little Leah has more courage in her pinky toe than dweeby Josh Brahm has in his whole body.
Someone can argue that an individual is formed when the nervous system is developed, but that’s just an artificial non-objective criterion to designate frontiers in a gradual and continuous biological process. The reality is, neither pro-life nor pro-choicers can rely on scientific evidence to support his ideas.
Zygotes are human, but sperm and ovules also are. By that perspective, fapping is as wrong as having an abortion. The real question is not if the fetus is a human being or not, but when the fetus stops being just a bunch of cells and starts to be an INDIVIDUAL. The embriological development of a human is a gradual process, not an event, so there are not any objective scientific criteria to determine when a fetus starts to be an individual...(continue)
You act smart but you're still a moron. Whether or not it is a fetus of a human, that doesn't mean that it can't have parasitic tendencies. And even then, if it is human, people kill things all the time. Especially baby animals because they are just so tender and juicy. Lamb. Cows. Pigs. Babies are delicious. But since we are not eating human babies, naturally we do nothing with the aborted fetus.
A third of those babies would have died anyways. At least.
If I do get a child it is likely to be through adoption, but if it is not a sudden thing why make a child suffer through it? Why have the kid perhaps suffer abuse under the eyes of hateful parents, seeing the child as the reason they are falling apart? Why not just have the birth-parents delay the birth, or suspend it since perhaps the child would have to go through years of constant bashing by each and emotional/physical abuse? Hope you read this, and give me some feedback.
I am pro-choice and I never said a fetus or zygote is not human in the physical or biological sense. It is 100% human DNA and human cells. But I still think that it is ok to terminate the pregnancy through abortion. It is a difference of opinion between you and me, I hope you have a good day.
HAPrime 1 week ago
@HAPrime You did not specify, so I'm not sure whether you meant this or not, but this is what most pro-choicers believe. "I don't think anyone should tell me what to do with my body." The problem with this statement is that it's not your body that you're terminating. It's your own child's. If someone doesn't live until they are able to live on their own, then everyone in the world is dead. Through your entire life, you are dependent on others for survival. I hope you have a good day.
ShiroiNihonjin 5 days ago
Maybe it's time you read some college level books about evolution.
durburgle 1 week ago
Comment removed
assaultmek 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@durburgle Maybe it's time you read some holy scriptures about creation.
assaultmek 1 day ago
@durburgle That's theory. This is fact.
Paragon468 14 hours ago
Josh, I think the biggest difficulty you have with this repetitive rejection of others to conform their ideas and opinions to the reality of life and scientific knowledge is the post humanized culture and moral relativism. There is no use in arguing with them, because they live in their own reality which is a fantasy world based on their wants and needs not scientific proof or reality. A very sad way to live that lacks intellectual integrity. Keep up the good work.
jj4christ 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
Has any reputable scientist yet disproved the fact that a human fetus is a homo sapien? Just saying...
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
of course there will be exceptions to being morally sound, just like everything else so.... adaption must not be the answer, right? kill all babies!
jdbgrizz 2 weeks ago
To what we all have to ask ourselves: Is it right that I as a human deserve the ability to take another individuals right away just because I don't agree. Because that what abortion is, someone's right to do something to their body they believe to be the wrong time to happen to them. Do you have the moral authority to take someone else's right away because you disagree with the actions?
FinerThingInLife1 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
@FinerThingInLife1 Your argument is inherently contradictory. I absolutely agree that it is wrong to deprive someone of their rights. That is precisely the fundamental problem with elective abortion: it unjustly deprives the unborn child of the fundamental right to life that we all enjoy and by which all other liberties are justified. Indeed, the mother's situation should be considered, but does expediency justify the killing of a human child? That is the pro-life contest.
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
@huskerfraz Every debate has contradictions from both sides, if there wasn't then this would be over with no fuss. So next we have to get down to the main point on what a 'right' really is, is it choices you are allowed to make or are they set by default under the human genome. What gave both of us the right to live? If I was aborted would I even know what happened? Would I really care? Providing my eyes are closed and cells are still setting themselves up with my bones etc.
FinerThingInLife1 2 weeks ago
@FinerThingInLife1 It is irrelevant whether someone is aware of a wrong committed against him or not. Someone may embezzle money from a company or steal your identity; you may not be aware that it happened, but it is still a wrongful act. And yes, human rights are based on the fact that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes designating us homo sapiens. The right to life is fundamental and is the basis for all other liberties; without life, no other liberty can be enjoyed. (continue)
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
@FinerThingInLife1 (continued) The question here is: does expediency justify killing a child? My answer, and hopefully yours, is no. Every single human outside of the womb today was required to go through gestation in order to mature. "Embryo" or "fetus" is simply a term used to identify a stage in human biological development just like "infant", "toddler", "adolescent", etc. An adult may be more developed than an infant or fetus; but, we are all still distinct, living humans.
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
@huskerfraz I ask the relevance of it knowing or not as how do you think it feels in the womb, is it aware or it's own presence. If it can't feel at the early stages then no pain is caused. Human rights and liberties are taken away from people every day, by all sorts of humans unto another. Expediency should not at all justify a death or "acceptable loss", however every day it does which is something that may not change in our generation. I would only accept abortion under dire(cont)
FinerThingInLife1 2 weeks ago
@FinerThingInLife1 Firstly, it is irrelevant whether I am a woman or man; there are plenty of women and men who understand that elective abortions are unpardonable. Both genders are fully capable of moral judgment and sympathy towards each other. I would not only assert that women have the right to control their bodies, but I would assert that all humans have that right. Consciousness is only one aspect of being human, not a complete definition. You are confusing (continue...)
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
@FinerThingInLife1 (...cont'd) the ability to consent or experience stimuli with the entirety of human life. No one human aspect can be divorced from the rest and held as the only definition of a human, separated for mere convenience. The development of consciousness and intellect is a lifelong biological process, one that begins physically at the moment of conception. Assigning different values to different lives is the basis for every form of discrimination that exists today
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
@huskerfraz I am saying that no matter how much we try to understand the emotion, pain and outcome of an abortion, we won't fully know the experience until it happens to us. That is the same with everything in human life, we can only perceive to understand it to a certain point until it actually happens to us (being the surgeon doing the operation could possibly be counted in this). We are only able to assign different values to different lives because with this sort of case (cont)
FinerThingInLife1 2 weeks ago
@huskerfraz (cont) it comes with different stages as we know. Different stages have to have different values no matter the out come. What makes us human are many things ranging from the genome to the experiences we have in our progressive lives. As a fetus, those many things are very limited in which I would personally call "Less human". Though yes it comes down to primitive aspect of reproduce to survive and grow there are times where culling is wanted or needed. (cont)
FinerThingInLife1 2 weeks ago
@huskerfraz Now I wouldn't agree with what I called a culling because a girl felt like it because she accidentally got pregnant and didn't make her mind up. If it benefits the host to abort (medical reason, been raped and other controversial aspects to the humans we share the world with) to which the host will have another child later into a world like ours, then so be it. I am seeing both sides as much as I can and I am not saying you are wrong either, this is an issue that (cont)
FinerThingInLife1 2 weeks ago
@FinerThingInLife1 I do not have to commit a deed in order to understand sufficiently its consequences, good or bad. As well, I can understand why someone committed an act without condoning it. One cannot be more or less human, one either IS human, or IS NOT. Why do people break up with text messages, steal your identity, or talk smack behind your back? Because they are cowards and it is much easier to hurt someone when you don't have to see or suffer the consequences. cont'd.
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
@FinerThingInLife1 There is a right answer to this issue. Most pro-choicers would not deny that killing another human is wrong, instead they seek to justify the cold expedience of abortion by redefining what is a human. They will throw many irrelevant issues on the table (women's rights, consciousness, religion, etc.) in order to detract from the fundamental fact: an unborn child, fetus, etc. is a human, all humans have a fundamental right to life, therefore, abortion is wrong
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
@huskerfraz Every human has a fundamental right to life yet, why is it in many places across the world that right is taken away by Government and State? The death penalty for example as well as Government issued assassinations? I am simply pointing out that rights that humans have are taken away, chosen, given and expire every day to which human rights to life are a choice in this world. That is a sad truth that has happened through history of our race. I accept all truths between us
FinerThingInLife1 2 weeks ago
@FinerThingInLife1 Something interesting to think about is that scientist have recently found that babies embryonic stem cells are shared with the mother, years after the child is no longer in the womb, and may actually help the mother to avoid illness and heal cells that are unhealthy. Babies aren't a disadvantage to the mother carrying a child actually helps the mother.
jj4christ 2 weeks ago
@jj4christ There are cases out there where the baby can end up harming the mother or ending up hurting itself and dying in the womb to which we can not deny either, there will be pros and cons to a mother bearing a child.
FinerThingInLife1 2 weeks ago
@huskerfraz many people can not fully resolve an answer to and I am hoping that maybe we can find an answer.
FinerThingInLife1 2 weeks ago
@huskerfraz (cont) consequences where the mothers life is in danger because of the child or (from personal opinion and feeling) the extreme early stages of pregnancy. Though it occurs to me: Are we saying that the right to life is greater than the right of the individual? I am not sure if your male or female, in any case if you are male then you and can not fully understand a woman's point of view as in the end it will be individuality you or I are taking away. (cont)
FinerThingInLife1 2 weeks ago
@FinerThingInLife1 No can have any rights without life first. And the right to life is first and foremost over any perceived right that another individual thinks they have. A women who carries a child within her womb does not have the right to take the life of her child. It is murder plan and simple. That is the truth whether one wants to believe it or not.
jj4christ 2 weeks ago
@jj4christ A right to life is a choice people make every day. If there was no way to die from another human being, then the choice would always be life. If the core right on this Earth for humans is life, do we take the right away to death? We would have to take the coexistence away. Fetus are not only considered property of the mother (as to nurture for or discard of) they are able to end up as property of Government who are also able to take or give that life a chance. So I ask this
FinerThingInLife1 2 weeks ago
@jj4christ Do we have or give choice depending on the morality of the majority or where did our morality to say this is right or wrong come from in the first place? Do we have the right morals in saying what is right even if it hurts someone else?
FinerThingInLife1 2 weeks ago
@FinerThingInLife1 Morals are not man made, there are Truth. There is Divine Law and Natural Law. Most cases where a mother is struggling with caring a child full term are treatable. No one asks the question if the child within the womb should be executed through no fault of there own. I have 6 auto-immune diseases. At one point in my life I did not support live when a mothers live is in danger. But truly it is better for the soul of the mother for her to protect and cherish the live within her.
jj4christ 1 week ago
@huskerfraz And that just poses a moral dilemma for everyone.
FinerThingInLife1 2 weeks ago
The conciousness of life. What makes a human human? Is it our genetic make up, or is it our conciousness? Our ability to think like other living things or our ability to do more than other animals? The embryo doesn't know what is going on it doesn't really know anything at all, just doing what 2 mixes of DNA are meant to do like other mammals do. It then jumps up to a larger picture of the individual if "Is it right for me to have this child" and questions similar. (carried on from below)
FinerThingInLife1 2 weeks ago
I will take Josh's word in the places he has quoted as well as the people. It will be the fact that these embryos will eventually be born as a human. In which case some of the things he quoted will only remain as a scientific thing. Abortion is not only scientific but also psychological and sociological and comes down to the parent(s) perception of their child to be. However does that embryo perceive what it is or will become at the very early stages? You would need to put a label on
FinerThingInLife1 2 weeks ago
@huskerfraz Statistically speaking, the majority of abortions and unwanted births happen in broken homes, and the majority of the people from unwanted births in broken homes, tend to develop into sociopaths. Then all of the people who 20 some years ago were telling that persons mother not to 'murder' the fetus, are the ones putting the needle in that same person's arm.
TheGlitchInTheSystem 2 weeks ago
There's a difference between "human" and "alive". A fetus is human, but not alive.
Rubybookify 2 weeks ago
@Rubybookify Are you claiming that a fetus is dead? Because, that is the opposite of alive...
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
Here's a question for pro-lifers. A twelve-year-old is raped, and she will die if she gives birth because her hips, spine, and reproductive organs are not developed enough to produce a child (yes, this is possible.). The fetus is not conscious yet, and it can feel no pain because its nervous system has not developed. What would you do?
Rubybookify 2 weeks ago
@Rubybookify My contention, personally, is that an elective abortion unjustifiably kills an innocent human child (and when I say human, I mean a living homo sapiens (and when I say living, I mean the opposite of dead)). An abortion in the case of a medical emergency is ethically permissable, assuming that the medical doctor (who took an oath to do no harm) is acting to save the life of at least one person as opposed to losing the lives of both the mother and child. That simple.
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
No one is saying that the fetus is going turn into anything else. You people will allow a child to be born into a broken home that does not want the child, will blame the child for making their life so much harder because they couldn't abort them, homes were the child will likely be abused. And then if the child turns into a sociopath and then put them on death row. I don't condone the use of abortion in the 3rd trimester, but I do believe people should have a choice in their body and future.
TheGlitchInTheSystem 2 weeks ago
@TheGlitchInTheSystem Well, given that logic, I guess no one should have any babies, even consentually, because they all have some chance of being born into a dysfunctional family.
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
rounds 2006 is nothing but a ploy to guilt the women into keeping the fetus
linkforever92 2 weeks ago
by this logic fingernails and skin cells are human beings
TGram29 3 weeks ago
@TGram29 Because fingernails have a distinct DNA from their host? Or because fingernails die once they are clipped off? The answer is: no.
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
@huskerfraz lol okay i'll rephrase it for you
by this logic, a patch of skin counts as a fully fledged human being
TGram29 2 weeks ago
@TGram29 A "patch of skin" implies part of a whole, an unborn child is a living organism, distinct from its mother and father. A "patch of skin" is of the same DNA as the larger organism from which it came unlike an unborn child which bears a separate, unique (human) DNA. This is really very elementary, it shouldn't have to be explained.
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
@huskerfraz except it really is just a growth
the dna is all that really separates it from you; in all other respects it's pretty much another clump of cells (up to a certain point)
TGram29 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TGram29 Actually, that "clump of cells" already has a determined gender, blood type, hair and eye colors, etc. It is a distinct, whole, unique, living human (homo sapiens) in the early stages of biological development. Law of Biogenesis: life originates only from pre-existing life, and kind only reproduces after like kind. Everyone who ever existed used to be an embryo before they were a fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, and then finally an adult. Correct me if I have made any untrue claims.
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
Like you said: fetus will "develope" into humans.
No one is saying that humans are something else then homo sapiens.
develope hmmm..... develope ... change... what could that mean : So something was changed, developed, that means it was something different before, maybe even something less and then it developed into something else, something greater.
Repeat: fetus (something before, something less) >>>change>>> human ( something else after, Something greater)
egyptcleo2011 4 weeks ago
Now look. I come from the UK where we don't have the same issues you do, or at least not to the same degree. The religious fanatics or anyone daft enough to believe in god pretty much keeps it to themselves as they are looked upon by most of society as being 'special' and not in a good way.
The idea you are putting forward is a smoke screen for the real issue. That abortion is a solution that could be prevented by proper sex education and the effective use of contraception.
Religion kills.
SpoonFeedThem 1 month ago
@SpoonFeedThem And you, sir, are surrounded by cameras and can't have guns. Keep your self-righteous slave tripe to yourself or else you'll be looked at as "special," and not in a good way. If you think you've got a smoke screen, just try me. You'll drown in a pool of your own Smug.
EvilsOfFeminism 4 weeks ago
@EvilsOfFeminism @EvilsOfFeminism First of all, how does being able to have a gun give you any more of an opinion than anyone else? He is saying that you are the ones putting forward a smoke screen not that he 'has a smoke screen'. If you are going to attempt to enter a debate about an intellectual issue you could at least make your response relevant and not just get angry and write down the first thing that comes into your head.
woodgerm 2 weeks ago
I see that this guy's channel is still up.
time4thought001 1 month ago in playlist More videos from LifeReport
This done by the same people who believe that there are actually different RACES of human beings, and who actually believe the book of genesis is a scientific theory, science actually tells us no there is only homo sapien but they created the idea of race with their bigotry and it tells us that the big bang did indeed happen as we can now see it, so now they are trying to claim science as their domain to further destroy it. two words, Epic Fail.
the1tigglet 1 month ago
Aaaaand once again, proabortion fanatics insist on denying the simplest scientific fact that a human being is... well, a human being since the very moment of its conception. And again. And again. And again.
Poorly played, sweeties. Back to 2nd grade immediatly!
Besos,
estudiante de Medicina feliz de haber aprobado el ciclo escolar
GenetikMeisterin 1 month ago
I masturbate a lot. Does that make me a murderer?
Jizz, eggs, and fetuses aren't people - they're just potential people.
As the internet will show you, most people are assholes anyway. We should get rid of them as soon as possible.
Halibut86 2 months ago
@Halibut86 1. no your just a pevert with a messed up set of moarls 2. pro-life supporter's fo ending abortion because it is an intended act to end the child's right to live 3. how is he the asshole he just knows it's wrong
to end a persons life regaurdless of them being born or not your the asshole for supporting a messed up opressive system.
thebigleowbosiki 2 months ago
@thebigleowbosiki derp
Halibut86 2 months ago
@Halibut86 A sperm is not a baby since a baby consists of an egg as well
AllNamesWereOccupied 1 month ago
I don't disagree that a fetus is human; it is, indeed, neither a dog nor cat nor any other species.
The big point in my argument is: I like killing people. And I don't care for your whining. 8D
RyleyAshford 3 months ago 3
@RyleyAshford If you like killing people than you need to be put behind bars.
jj4christ 2 weeks ago
@jj4christ This is potentially true! But can you make it happen based purely on the concept that I am a potential cold-blooded killer? You cannot with self-conviction. Murder is not exclusive to the willing: it's in our genes, much how it is in the instinctive genes of all carnivorous animals.
I am a potential murderer in the same way a fetus is a potential person. Is that a worthy excuse of conviction, because I'm willing and able yet unfulfilled? I think not, without specific aspiration.
RyleyAshford 2 weeks ago
Well humans are monsters, so I say kill them all.
NinjaRacoonDelta2 3 months ago
@NinjaRacoonDelta2 Indeed. Fuck people.
RyleyAshford 3 months ago
The scary reality is that "pro-choicers" really don't care about the biology. Their worldview revolves around extreme selfishness. Fortunately, most of them still have enough humanity to not demand that all child killing be made legal for medical reasons, financial reasons, or because they don't feel like being parents anymore. I'm not sure how much longer that will last at this rate....
Soothfish 3 months ago
The species is Homo sapiens, not human.
Fail.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago 21
@ndrthrdr1 They are synonyms. But, "officially", you are correct.
time4thought001 1 month ago in playlist More videos from LifeReport
@ndrthrdr1 The species is sapien the genus is homo; slightly less epic fail.
biodan26 3 weeks ago
@biodan26 the joint "genus species" term is simply referred to as "species", as the term "species" implies genus and species. Hence, it is said that a human is of species "homo sapiens".
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
@ndrthrdr1 Um hey, he says that in the video. Who fails again?
NillaSpresso 3 weeks ago
@ndrthrdr1 hahaha i love this
linkforever92 2 weeks ago
@ndrthrdr1 And what is homo sapiens?
Oh ya, human.
Fail.
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
@ndrthrdr1 Homo sapien is the linnaean taxonomy term for human being. Fail.
misswhitegrape0225 2 weeks ago
Since 1927, world population (Google it to see) has gone from 2 billion to 7 billion. That last billion took only 13 years. The problem is not that we don't have enough people being born. Children, including babies, are starving to death every single day. Instead of working toward adoptions for all of these starving children, anti-choice people keep screaming "murder".
Get a clue.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago 10
@ndrthrdr1 So instead of feeding those children, you want to kill them.
Nice.....
What amazes me is how the genius who develop new farming techniques that save millions or even BILLIONS of lives never make the news but monstrous baby killers are treated like heroes.
Soothfish 3 months ago
@Soothfish said "What amazes me is how the genius who develop new farming techniques that save millions or even BILLIONS of lives never make the news but monstrous baby killers are treated like heroes."
World population:
1927 - 2 billion
1998 - 6 billion
2011 - 7 billion
...and you're obsessed with making sure we increase the birth rate?
You don't live in the real world. Get a clue.
Notice how any response you make to this comment will either ignore or trivialize this population crisis.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Bullshit. I never said "reproduce as often as you can and faster than you can even if you have to watch your kids starve to death". As a normal human being, I simply reject child-killing as population control.
However, I do realize that you scumbag leftists are simply looking for an excuse to destroy innocent lives, particularly the ones that are of no practical use to you.
Soothfish 3 months ago
@Soothfish It's not the American kids starving to death, it's in third world countries. Instead of focusing on people suffering and dying right now, however, the extremist fringe among the pro-lifers obsess about legislating their ethics. This idea of "Let's force everyone to allow me to make their ethical decisions for them." ignores the children suffering and slowly dying in misery and despair now. It's happening right now, this very minute. I donate what little I can to Feed The Children.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 "ignores the children suffering and slowly dying in misery and despair now."
There is a long waiting list of people who want to adopt children in the United States. There are even an excess number of people who want to adopt troubled or disabled children of any age. Adoptable babies are actually preferable but rare because disgusting leftists keep aborting them. Put your money where you mouth is and adopt some of these children along with us. Killing is the easy way out.
Soothfish 3 months ago
@Soothfish Waiting to adopt? Right, but only babies, only healthy white babies. Who cares about all of those who have already been born and have been suffering. and will starve and die in the next year or two - or less. What wonderful, caring people. There are plenty of already alive kids to adopt, but you'd rather let them die and force other women to give birth to more kids. What loving people you are.
Outlawing abortion won't stop them any more than marijuana laws stop pot smokers.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 So how about you become one of the wonderful caring people who adopt the unwanted? I know it's a lot harder than whining about pro-lifers and killing babies to save money, pain, and effort for yourself.
The kids in the US aren't exactly "dieing". They go to intensive care facilities where they are cared for by....me. That is my career. I also make donations. What's your excuse? Do you even care about any of that suffering or are you just happy to use it as an attack argument?
Soothfish 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 I'm going to ask two simple questions and I expect a straight answer to both. Are you saddened by abortion? Are you saddened by child suffering?
Soothfish 3 months ago
@Soothfish Yes, actually, it does. Personally, I mourn for the potential of those possible future friends and acquaintences. However, I truly believe that it is the right of women to decide what is right for them. It's much like the old defense of the First Amendment: I disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it.
putzthewondersloth 3 months ago
@putzthewondersloth Well I don't think that it has anything to do with the first amendment but I also agree with you that government should not get involved directly. The only thing the government should so is provide protection to resources on both sides of the isle. It's too late to pass legislation now that is has gone so mainstream. The only solution is to tell the medical and human truth about the procedure and hope that somehow I can convince a person to choose alternatives.
Soothfish 3 months ago
@putzthewondersloth I should also mention that there is another big problem here in the USA. There is almost no protection for pro-life agencies and crisis pregnancy centers. These institutions are not in the slightest but controversial. They don't restrict anyone's choices, they just provide alternatives to abortion for to pregnant women and girls in crisis. The problem is that big abortion providers are furious that these non-profit facilities are cutting into their profits. (continued)
Soothfish 3 months ago
@putzthewondersloth sometimes they send actual thugs to destroy these facilities after closing times. There was a case of this recently at a crisis pregnancy center in Manhattan. This facility provide all services for free and was funded almost entirely by donations. There might actually be a chance of turning things around if these types of stories came to the attention of major news outlets. People need to hear about what "pro-life" really means. They just haven't been told the truth!
Soothfish 3 months ago 4
@ndrthrdr1 Not surprisingly, Barack Obama and the Democrats sent 154 million dollars to the UN population control fund with the explicit purpose of helping China commit forced abortions on the oppressed women and babies. It is an atrocity and anyone who supports the brutality and killing of innocents is an enemy of mine.
So much for being "an atheist lighting a candle". You are more like a misanthrope anti-theism lighting a candle to burn the world at the stake.
Soothfish 3 months ago
@Soothfish That's not about forced abortions. That's propaganda spread by wingnuts who think that birth control, including condoms, is evil. The funds are not made available to countries that refuse to allow the women to make their own decisions. A woman's reproductive health rights are hers, not to be dictated by men.
Burning at the stake? That's a Christian tradition, not a secularist one. Don't forget to kill those witches, as the Bible clearly instructs. More Christian misogyny.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Turns out that you are wrong. There are even some members of the Obama administration who said that such a policy could be justified under the constitution for the sake of forced population control.
I deliberately used the allegory of burning at the stake because you are very religious. I am an atheist but not a misanthropic anti-theist like you are. You have turned your hatred for humanity into a violent religion. Misogyny? Are you saying that pro-life women are not women?
Soothfish 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 If you were to tell me that abortion at least saddened you (although you still think it is necessary) then I would retract my statement that you are a misanthropic anti-theist scumbag. Until then I will continue to believe that you are a sociopathic monster who gets some kind of sick pleasure out of knowing that tiny arms and legs and baby skin are being torn to shreds. Until you demonstrate some humanity and compassion, I couldn't care less about what you have to say.
Soothfish 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndrthrdr1 "Instead of working toward adoptions for all of these starving children, anti-choice people keep screaming "murder"."
That is bullshit!!! As I already stated, there is a long waiting list of people ready to adopt newborns, even ones with diseases or disabilities. The problem is that scumbag leftists like yourself don't want their child property to go to strangers, or they don't want the pain of child birth. You are selfish, evil scum who never do anything kind for anyone.
Soothfish 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Newt Gingrich is pro-life, and he says he would defund abortions and use the funds to help out adoptions. Abortion funding steals money away from adoptions.
time4thought001 1 month ago in playlist More videos from LifeReport
@ndrthrdr1 So, with your logic, murder will solver murder? Souds like replacing evil wth evil. Western civilization is completely dying out anyway. Muslims will be/are taking over the world through repoduction. For every 5 Muslims born, 1 Westerner is born. Just look up "European Population Decline." If you knew anything about basic military strategy and logistics, you'd know the the wombs of women are more powerful weapons than a 50 megaton nuclear warhead.
Get a clue.
RebelSoldat1 4 weeks ago
@ndrthrdr1 Yes, just like the Aztecs, we need to sacrifice to a Luciferian War God. What utter foolishness that is. If you clued in a bit, you would see that a bunch of technology coming mostly out of Europe has allowed people in third world areas to irresponsibly explode their numbers, which has actually resulted in NWO agents making the same argument you are to assume more control of civilian populations. Good job playing right into their hands.
EvilsOfFeminism 4 weeks ago
@ndrthrdr1 These third-world children are starving after thousands of years of other groups advancement because *Shock Horror* it is all they are capable of. You will literally have to build up cities for them and babysit them so they can demolish them by crime. Hell, Africa is a shining example. Even after many generations in a more advanced society, they still wreck every city in which they are a majority, but I am guessing you don't have the cajones or spine to discuss that!
EvilsOfFeminism 4 weeks ago
@ndrthrdr1 So maybe instead of killing children, people should wrap it up (if you know what I mean...).
huskerfraz 2 weeks ago
Don't have no shame to your game, just because he is cute....and you have no other role models ; ^)
mrtlbush 4 months ago
This doesn't go far enough. Every human egg which is not fertilized is a life lost. I propose mandatory or forced, if necessary, pregnancies for every girl from the moment she become fertile and until menopause. It can be done by boys of their own age, as many times as it takes to initiate pregnancy. Remember, this is for the children.
And yeah, before you start screaming, I am being sarcastic. It's all one person forcing their views onto others.
putzthewondersloth 4 months ago
@putzthewondersloth Nonsense. An unfertilized egg is only haploid whereas a fertilized egg is genetically diploid. At the early Blastocyst stage, it is undeniably human no matter how you look at it from a genetic or protein perspective. At that point onwards, the central nervous system develops faster than any other organism on the planet.
Soothfish 3 months ago
@Soothfish Okay, my previous comment was parody, but I do have a serious phylosophical question for you regarding the nature of abortion. Is a human being required to care for another human being? Specifically, if a woman chooses to have said blastocyst removed from her because she does not wish to care for it anymore. If she has the bloastocyst carefully removed with no damage to it and the bloastocyst inevitably dies, is it killed or does it die because it is incapable of surviving?
putzthewondersloth 3 months ago
What I don't understand about abortion is why exactly supporters of it seem to think the there are stipulations on the right to life we take for granted. Under what circumstances is a human life (of any age) provided they haven't committed some horrible violent crime deserving of the death penalty.
NovelistVampireGirl 4 months ago in playlist NovelistVampireGirl's Favorited Videos
@NovelistVampireGirl Many left wingers believe that mass murderers should be spared the death penalty and even be given elective plastic surgery at taxpayer expense so their days in prison will be pleasant and happy.
Meanwhile, a highly developed baby at the third trimester is treated not only as the worst possible offender but as subhuman filth with no rights whatsoever. I will never EVER be able to understand how any doctor can kill such a child while knowing the truth about the biology.
Soothfish 3 months ago
Okay so we can agree that a fetus is a human being at a very primitive stage in developement... now i still say abortion is justifed is some cases. As humans we are constrained by many factors, social, economic, etc, therefore an abortion could be justified under certain circumstances. However, I don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control.
sup3rsepehr 4 months ago
It's always best to remember one thing, all you pro-choicers. It's harsh, but it's true- If your mother wasn't pro-life, you wouldn't be here right now, typing on your computers. You would not be alive.
brndurham 4 months ago
@brndurham My mom is pro-choice, but she chose to have a baby. Your comment makes it sound as if all pro-choice women don't want to have kids, but that isn't necessarily the case.
TheLegendaryLoboSolo 4 months ago
I think the best thing to say about thsi is that pro-choicers obviously do not believe in an afterlife. You see, no matter what you call an unborn child, it is still an unborn child; it is still living. You see, abortion for women is a matter of pride; too proud and lazy to take care of a child. Even if a woman cannot physically provide for a child, I don't put up with the, "Well, it's going to die anyway. I might as well..." response. How would YOU feel if you never had a chance to live?
brndurham 4 months ago
@brndurham Aborted, don't regret it. Also had a kid, and am a devoted, loving wife and mother, as well as a nurse for the handicapped/elderly. A fetus is not a child, it is a potentiality, and if it is unwanted, getting rid of it is perfectly fine. It's not about laziness or anything- trust me, if you knew me in person, you'd know I'm ANYTHING but lazy.. Also, I'm a rape-product, and my mom WANTED to abort me and was FORCED not to.. I'd RATHER have been aborted, out of respect for HER.
ryddelwearsahat 4 months ago
you would probably sue, take legal action for using your body for something against your will, and many other things.
Why the hell is it different when it's a woman instead of you, and a clump of cells smaller than a fly instead of some random kid in a hospital?
Oh, wait, it's not actually all that different.
Abortion is literally necessary.
bobmuffins 5 months ago
If you were walking past a hospital, and a doctor kidnapped you off the streets, and told you for 9 months, you have to give your organs to this guy who will die otherwise, and for these 9 months, against your will, you have to go through extreme pain and discomfort, and in the last month you won't be able to do nearly anything, then at the end you have to go through an extraordinarily painful 12+ hours, then at the end of these 9 months, you have to raise this kid who would die otherwise (cont)
bobmuffins 5 months ago
Your critique, as i see it, is only an attack on pro-choicers definition of what is human, and not on the meaning behind their definitions. I believe what they mean to say is that they don't define this undeveloped thing as human, even if it is geneticly so.
socialisticdemo 6 months ago
@socialisticdemo To explain what i mean: you would in a similar situation claim that cream, sugar, egg's and spices was the same as ice-cream. Where a pro-choicer would say it's only: cream, sugar, egg's and spices. The pro-choicer would then say, that if you process and cool down these ingredients it could become Ice-cream.
socialisticdemo 6 months ago
@socialisticdemo In the same way the needed parts for the resertch could be defined as the unprocessed ingredients for a human, but not actually a human yet.
To sum up you only talk about definitions but you don't really address the actual issue. And btw. quoting some doctors that agree on your way of looking at this ethical chase doesn't really make your chase stronger, it just means that that particular doctor agrees on your definition, not that your definition is right.
socialisticdemo 6 months ago
@socialisticdemo Whoever you quote they are only human and im sure that whatever insane idea you would ever like to support you can find the quotes to support it. I do not have an opinion on the whole matter of this yet, im only starting to gather information. This was not informative, it was not helpfull, i found it condescending, arrogant and in no way anything worth mentioning in an argument pro- or against choice.
socialisticdemo 6 months ago
Umm a fetus is a clump of human DNA and cells. Its not a living life form at that stage of development as it cant survive outside its mothers womb. Hell by your logic you shouldent be able to get rid of tumors becuase they are techanlly "human"
Babylauncher3000 6 months ago
When I think about it this whole argument over abortion is extremely redundant.
In life the only arguments taken into consideration are that of the adults, they choose who the president is, who the mayor is, who the family doctor is, and just about every other major and minor thing in life.
randomthingoftheweek 6 months ago
In courts the jury decides whether a person is guilty or not, even when knowing that saying guilty is a death sentence (and guess what? the jury is made up of adults!).
When it comes to children the parents (or guardians) decide almost everything: friends, school, food, when to sleep, when to wake up, where to go, when to go, etc.
randomthingoftheweek 6 months ago
as I said, almost everything. (To be honest, the reason I think adults dread children becoming teenagers is that they realise their almost absolute control over us is coming to an end). Adults choose a child’s religion (usually their own), their education, and what happens with their bodies.
It is the woman’s choice whether or not she has an abortion, so I don’t know why people are going loco over it.
randomthingoftheweek 6 months ago
For Christians, abortion is a contrived issue--throwing around the name of Jesus and claiming to speak for the unborn. The vast majority of this very same Jesus cult does very little for the literally tens of millions of orphaned, abandoned, diseased, and starving children who we know for a fact are ALIVE and DO need help.
Dopey Americans sitting around and claiming to speak for the unborn are trying to make themselves feel better about ignoring real people.
influxrift 6 months ago
Just to get this out there I myself am an agnostic, so I'm not taking up for christianity because I am one. However look at all the missionary work done by churches of all denominations. Look at all the money that is given to places like Doctors without Borders, by christian organizations. As well as Feed The Children, Salvation army, Red Cross, and numerous other organizations. To say that most of them do very little is quite absurd.
SamWayne83 6 months ago
There's no denying that a fetus/embryo is alive, but things like plants are also alive. At the time of most abortions, a fetus can't feel pain (can't til 3rd trimester, and abortions are only done then for medical reasons), it can't think, it isn't aware of itself or it's surroundings, it doesn't have autonomy, the list goes on and on! In the end perhaps it comes down to what you value more - the life of the pregnant person, who is sentient, has friends, family, etc OR a fetus, a blob of cells.
Scoooobyful 6 months ago
If you look at a sperm under a microscope...you see its full of a magical force that gives it a degree of intelligent direction and energy to achieve its goal......that magical force is LIFE.
MrJoSWilson 6 months ago
wait, wait, wait, wait... did you seriously cite twitter quotes? facepalm.
l2 citation.
cashmoneymoney 6 months ago
I posted this video on my Facebook. You present such a strong, supported argument!
KellyOR16 6 months ago
saying a fetus is a human is like saying an egg is a chicken...
KarotoJuice 7 months ago
@KarotoJuice This!
greenday4455 7 months ago
@KarotoJuice Do me a favor and unscramble your argument.
An egg is unfertilized. If we were against the ridding of eggs, we would be against women menstruating which is just ridiculous. But we're not.
We're against the termination embryo or a fetus. It is human being with it's own distinct genetic code. You can't argue that it's not human.
If it's not human, please, inform me...what kind of species is an embryo or fetus?
Eggs are just a yummy breakfast food, an embryo/fetus is a human.
aggieemily2013 6 months ago
@aggieemily2013 an egg is not unfertilised. the cock (male hen) isnt "doing" the egg, he is "doing" the hen... coccect me if im wrong plz.... in any case i would like to post my opinion on the subject. the embryo is a human. of course it is, still the termination of its life is a desicion that could be right some times, like rape victims, extremely poor couples that couldn't possibly give the future child the life that it should have and other cases like this.
Still, eggs are yummy yes :)
KarotoJuice 6 months ago
A "fetus" is alive. He/she has a soul. Saying that an unborn child is not person is like saying a window isn't a window because the blinds are closed! If a premature baby is born and someone murders him/her that's murder, right? But if a baby that is more developed than that baby and is still in the womb and is killed, isn't that murder? A baby suffers in an abortion, they have a silent scream. It breaks my heart to the point of tears. I'm glad I'm alive, and I'm glad that my little brother is
CherryBlossoms241 7 months ago
It is obvious that a womans fetus is human since the woman is a human The real question is the fetus a person? And the answer is NO a fetus is not a person therefore abortion is not illegal And before someone argues that a fetus is a person first answer this other question If a fetus is a person then why when the mothers life is in danger doctors first choice is to safe the mothers life and not the fetus? Only when the mother chooses the fetus they will try to safe it instead of the mother. WHY?
PALOMITA694 7 months ago
...(cont.) and giving birth has a death rate of .0001% which is the lowest? a safe abortion in a well developed country! Now I'm not saying once you get prego go to your doctor and have them go at it. believe me, I myself would not be able to do this. I can't but I won't judge someone who can and might have to for their own well being.
xXJuggalettex4lifeXx 7 months ago
actually stem cell research doesn't have to kill the baby. The placenta is a viable source of stem cells AFTER BIRTH. you know when you are cutting the umbilical cord? thats you cutting the placenta from the baby. that has all the stem cells. I cannot argue that a fetus is human, but if it can't survive outside the womb then its technically not a viable life. You have a choice a safe abortion in a hospital with a death rate of .00001% or a back alley abortion with a death rate of .00367% (cont.)
xXJuggalettex4lifeXx 7 months ago
it may be biologically human but it is no more murder or whatever than cutting off a mole, they both have the same dna etc but neither are 'alive' in the sense that it is sentient
lilyjochimsen 7 months ago
My final statement is this: Yes, nobody disputes that human fetuses are human, in a purely taxonomical sense. However, this is irrelevant to the issue of abortion, which pro-lifers argue is immoral. Morality and ethics are social constructions, and a human fetus has no traits that would socially define humanity. Therefore, the pro-life argument is invalid
shadowdragon7416 8 months ago
@shadowdragon7416 wow your so wrong...Morality & ethics ARE PRINCPLES not social contructs. much like mathmatics, morality & ethics were their wating to be discovered it was never CONSTRUCTED by anyone, it has always been there and its eternal it'll be their when we're gone. either u gain from it and enrich your mind ,body & soul or u live & die spiritualy & mentally malnourished & definantly misguided....
777yojoe 6 months ago
@777yojoe It's woefully reductionistic of you to treat reality as "waiting to be discovered"; it's never that simple. You mentioned mathematics as an example, but studies like calculus don't exist in principle, they were developed as a system of tools and methods for solving more complex problems. Likewise, morality differs between societies to suit different cultural norms; you can't prove that one set of morals is superior to another from a non-moralistic standpoint...
shadowdragon7416 5 months ago
@shadowdragon7416 U know what your wrong but at least your a thinking person and I really respect that, math by nature is a principle, because it has no beginning and no end its eternal,it cant be manipulated and still be correct it has always been and will be..that FACT had to be discovered since it could never be created. math is very selfish,it only deals in absolutes either your right or full of it.. unless u align yourself to the ONE TRUE morality or your lost..thats the universe..
777yojoe 5 months ago
@777yojoe I don't believe that there is one true morality, or math; I believe there is one true reality. I think you're confusing math, the subject, with the reality that it's applied to. I can say that there are three apples on a table, but that's not math, that's the reality of three apples being on a table. Similarly, the area of a certain triangle is reality, and I could use different "maths", be it geometry, trigonometry, or calculus, and they could all determine the correct answer (cont..)
shadowdragon7416 5 months ago
@777yojoe (..cont.) So no, math is not eternal, in fact, it is very limited, since many problems cannot be solved by traditional methods (fifth degree equations, integrals of squared exponentials...) As for reality, I don't know if that is eternal. Sure, you can count up numbers to infinity, but numbers are a human invention, and in reality the universe has an end and space is not infinitely divisible (you will reach the smallest point), so numbers of extreme magnitudes are meaningless.
shadowdragon7416 5 months ago
@shadowdragon7416 first of all nothing in the physical universe exist outside of mathmatics..period..its the building block of emperic reality, second, numbers are representation of an intangable truth of a infinant process, you cant concede that it goes on forever and then say its limited..YOU & I are limited, our understanding & experience with it is limited, but the principles & foundations of reality will ALLWAYS BE... our proof is what we do know ..that it never began & never ends cont...
777yojoe 5 months ago
@777yojoe cont. t..algebra,geometry,calc,physics, ect. all follow the same principles they dont exist without each other they dont contradict each other..they all FOLLOW THE SAME TRUTH not TRUTHS...EMOTIONS are what your dealing with, emotions dont deal with logic & morality, if they dont want to.. emotions like DESIRE, its only concerned with how it FEELS NOW, thats what ALL societies are LEAD by..they dabble in morality when it suits them..but desire leads to the justificaton of ...ANYTHING
777yojoe 5 months ago
@777yojoe Your statement "nothing exists outside of mathematics" should be revised to say "Nearly everything can be explained through mathematics". I stress again that the subject of math is a human construction, and while it is a very good one, it would be premature to say that EVERYTHING can be explained when we don't know everything. I also did not concede what you may have thought; I said that numbers can theoretically extend to infinity, but that is only because we have... (cont...)
shadowdragon7416 5 months ago
@shadowdragon7416 I dont really know why you think humans made math up...its like saying we made up the laws of gravity..we didnt, we discovered it and called it..gravity..but its a part of the princples of physics on earth..you have a fundamental misconception about princples overall..talk to any scientist,mathmatician, and they'll tell you math is an eternal principle,all princples are eternal or they cant qualify as princples to begin with,thats not a theory thats based fundamentals..
777yojoe 5 months ago
@777yojoe (cont..) ..conceptualized it that way. To provide a similar example, we have 26 letters of the alphabet that could theoretically be arranged in an infinite number of ways. Does that mean that language is infinite? Another example, would you consider our Gregorian calendar to be a true discovery? Then why is the Mayan calendar more accurate than ours? Another: Classical and quantum physics don't exist within each other; they contradict each other on many counts, and yet... (cont...)
shadowdragon7416 5 months ago
@777yojoe (cont.) ...they are both still applied because they are better suited to explain different facets of physics and the natural world. Not to mention that around the singularities of black holes, the laws of physics and math don't even apply. You need to accept that when you don't know everything (and neither do I), you cannot talk as though everything already has an explanation. And finally, I don't know how you managed to insert emotion into this; I don't believe I ever got emotional
shadowdragon7416 5 months ago
@shadowdragon7416 .. math doesnt apply around black holes??...dude that is just absolutly not true..no university on earth teaches that...science and math are the same thing bro..the emotional part came from the deviation from morality princples..I was talking society in general not really you specifically..everything in the PHYSICAL universe is math orientated dude thats a fact,ask any professor, we couldnt exist without the certainty of it..its simply the law of existance physically...
777yojoe 5 months ago
@777yojoe You still haven't differentiated between reality and it's interpretations given your last sentence... Though I have to admit, you actually made me think twice for a moment, so I referred to the wikipedia page on math...and there I found Albert Einstein in the intro summarizing pretty much my exact argument. Reality is reality, math is a SUBJECT which studies and interprets it. I suggest you read it yourself. Your argument suffers partly because of this semantic fallacy.
shadowdragon7416 5 months ago
@shadowdragon7416 thats not a DEFINITION of math, reality consist of tangible & intangible the PHYSICAL is math.. look up the DEFINITION of mathmatics as it relates to the building block of reality, ALL THINGS ARE NUMBERS..which is the essence the pathygerous therom its basic knowledge to any mathmatician, dude this was over a thousand years b4 einstien & its been taught ever since its not even debated anymore since the 17th century..punch in "math the building block of reality" on google..
777yojoe 5 months ago
@777yojoe I don't know if you just equated the Pythagorean theorem with reality, because if you did, you're hopelessly lost. If you looked up "mathematics" on dictionary dotcom, the first four definitions all suggest that mathematics is the study of something. Math is fundamental to our understanding of reality, as we know it, but it is not reality itself. You still have yet to distinguish between the two. You'd be equally wrong if you said life is biology, or Socrates is philosophy.
shadowdragon7416 5 months ago
@shadowdragon7416 ok for the last time,THEE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE consist of pure math,physical means TANGIBLES feel,smell,hear,see. INTANGIBLES like thought or emotions do not apply to math..REALITY is both tangible & intangible..your drifting & taking things out of context..stick to the point which is math is a principle & eternal discovered not created..& that cannot be refuted..its excepted as common knowledge today...you said its not eternal & was created by man...you are wrong..period..
777yojoe 5 months ago
@777yojoe You sound really sure of yourself, but you still have not recognized your error yet? You accuse me of taking things out of context when I mention reality, when every single science: math, chemistry, physics, biology...is entirely focused on understanding an aspect of reality? Reality is the context of EVERYTHING. Hence, we can explain how the universe works through concepts of physics, chemistry, math, and thermodynamics that we have formulated....
shadowdragon7416 5 months ago
@777yojoe ...but to say something like "math always existed, and it created the universe" would be an extremely horrendous logical fallacy. Your statement "cannot be refuted" is another fallacy. If you've ever done research, and have some knowledge of statistics, you would know that it not possible to prove anything, only to refute. Any hypothesis that is not refuted 99.99994% (this number is official, I'm not making this up) of the time becomes a theory. And it should tell you that even...
shadowdragon7416 5 months ago
@shadowdragon7416 I dint say math created the universe,i said math is the BUILDING block of the physical universe,the principle behind it..and for all your philosophy and opinion your still wrong, you cant disprove an inch of that fact. I think your just argueing not to concede.There theories & facts,principles are eternal truth,if they arnt then nothing could exist..electon,neutrons,protons,atoms,molecules are present in all matter,they follow a strict code to form physical reality..thats math
777yojoe 5 months ago
@777yojoe ...the most well established theories can be refuted. Again, please understand. Gravity (one of the 4 fundamental forces) is not the same thing as the Laws of Gravity (human rationalization of it). As it turns out, our current theory on gravity is inadequate, and so we must study it further. Gravity helped shape the universe, NOT the Laws of Gravity. Reality is the only truly "eternal" thing; products of imperfect human reasoning (math, morality), are not.
shadowdragon7416 5 months ago
@shadowdragon7416 not understanding gravity does not disprove that math is its construct,math is an eternal principle, there are unending forms of math, algebra,trig,calc,physics, dont even scratch the surface the principle never ends it never began..it cant be comprehended fully by any human because we arnt eternal..thats why ppl beleive in GOD, our own logic tells us how limited we are,math is physical reality,it contructs the TANGIBLE which is matter..simple factual logic..
777yojoe 5 months ago
...(cont.) Thus it is not morally wrong to terminate the life of a human fetus, especially since another person's (the mother) social ability is concerned. However, if a fetus were to develop into something that could think, feel, and generally display qualities that are commonly associated with the word "human", then, at THAT point, it would be wrong to kill.
shadowdragon7416 8 months ago
The phony pro lifers know that as long as they keep asking the wrong question they can look good while the "right to choose" remains protected. The correct question is not "are they human?" but "When does an individual person's life begin?" I think fifth grade science has that one covered too.
antichoiceextremist 8 months ago
Josh can't use the words PERSON in the same sentence as FETUS, because he's afraid of management. Little Leah has more courage in her pinky toe than dweeby Josh Brahm has in his whole body.
antichoiceextremist 8 months ago
The problem with this video, is that Roe never contended over the humanity Of womb children.
On the contrary, the court acknowledged that the womb child was human, but at what point in human development does the human fetus become a person.
Videos like this does the pro-life cause great damage by not focussing on the cure, and hopping down an irrelevant bunny trail.
It is well known on both sides that the womb child is biologicly human.
But the real argument is over perssonhood.
faithman1000 8 months ago
Someone can argue that an individual is formed when the nervous system is developed, but that’s just an artificial non-objective criterion to designate frontiers in a gradual and continuous biological process. The reality is, neither pro-life nor pro-choicers can rely on scientific evidence to support his ideas.
barj306199 8 months ago
Zygotes are human, but sperm and ovules also are. By that perspective, fapping is as wrong as having an abortion. The real question is not if the fetus is a human being or not, but when the fetus stops being just a bunch of cells and starts to be an INDIVIDUAL. The embriological development of a human is a gradual process, not an event, so there are not any objective scientific criteria to determine when a fetus starts to be an individual...(continue)
barj306199 8 months ago 2
You act smart but you're still a moron. Whether or not it is a fetus of a human, that doesn't mean that it can't have parasitic tendencies. And even then, if it is human, people kill things all the time. Especially baby animals because they are just so tender and juicy. Lamb. Cows. Pigs. Babies are delicious. But since we are not eating human babies, naturally we do nothing with the aborted fetus.
A third of those babies would have died anyways. At least.
twilightguardian 8 months ago
Stop trying to tie abortion and stem cell therapy together. They are two completely seperate issues.
evilgenius2003 8 months ago
If I do get a child it is likely to be through adoption, but if it is not a sudden thing why make a child suffer through it? Why have the kid perhaps suffer abuse under the eyes of hateful parents, seeing the child as the reason they are falling apart? Why not just have the birth-parents delay the birth, or suspend it since perhaps the child would have to go through years of constant bashing by each and emotional/physical abuse? Hope you read this, and give me some feedback.
Iwubchickenwubbins 8 months ago