I have been accused of so many things b/c I'm pro-choice, and even MORE things b/c I had an abortion and DON'T regret it. Seriously, the accusations and implications of why i 'really' had an abortion, or how i 'really' feel about it.. ranges anywhere from I did it for satan, I'm a pedophile, I'm racist, I was lazy, I wanted to have sex, I was mad at the 'baby'.. it is rediculous. Supposedly I'm all those things, hate babies, am depressed about aborting.. these people don't know me or ANYONE.
Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. It's about supporting each individual and family unit in their choosing to be pregnant, to get pregnant. It's about acknowledging that those with female sex organs are not breeding cattle.
The belief that parenthood is awesome disgusts me. Saying that someone who is not ready to be a parent will change their mind once an irreversible change has occurred to their body is like saying "sorry you're mentally ill; just be normal and you'll feel better."
Most of the arguments here are actually not that bad. However, 60% of Americans regard abortion as inherently immoral. Feminists want to make a women's right to control her body the only issue but how on earth is that ever going to politically fly?
Abortion rights will always be tenuous until feminists can find a way to address pubic concern about the rights of the fetus. Until then, conservatives are going to get away with weakening abortion rights because pubic support wil be way too weak.
@braintree2 Not all Conservatives are against safe, legal access to abortion. A political label that covers both social and fiscal views (but not necessarily both in the same body) had nothing to do with anti-choice or pro-choice.
As a Conservative, I still feel that every person should make the choice for his/herself. Honestly? A fetus has no rights. One doesn't even have enough functioning systems to live outside my body until around 22 weeks. Even then, it has a low chance of survival.
@hannibaled You have not really addressed my point. Conservatives do not constitute a majority (according to a Gallup poll it's about 40%). But a landslide-scale majority of 60% considers abortion to be inherently immoral. Until feminists can find some way to address that support for abortion rights will always be weak.
Here's a simple suggestion that I find most pro-choice advocates have a hard time refuting; responsibility. When having sex, if you don't want a kid, use a goddamn condom/other birth control method. If you fear your contraceptives failing, don't have sex until you're ready to accept the risk of having a kid.
If you fuck up, it's your fault, not the kid.
Eat a dick, dipshits, and learn to man up and take some goddamn responsibility for your actions.
@Orjahlian Sorry, but you can't force everyone to remain chaste until they marry and decide they want kids and you can't force a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and pregnancy shouldn't be used as a punishment or time out for sex. Also, I'd say having a first term abortion when one is not physically, emotionally or financially ready for pregnancy and childbirth seems like a fairly responsible move.
I have to disagree. Consent to sex is by an extension a consent to pregnancy, just as drinking more than one can handle is to accept that you are responsible for your actions while under the influence.
Plus, I never said anything about marriage. All that abortions do is provide a cop-out method for fucking up. I'm actively having sex outside of marriage, and if I got my girlfriend pregnant, intentional or no, I'd do everything in my power to prevent an abortion.
@Orjahlian No, consent to sex with one's partner is consent to sex, not pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood. A pregnancy should not be a forced consequence, a punishment or a time out for having sex. You may as well be saying that if an accident or injury was your fault then you should just be made to suffer and rot without any treatment.
I'm going to dismiss about half of your argument, seeing as how it's all about how it's a woman's body and it's her choice blah blah blah. If a father feels that he wants the child, I see absolutely no reason why a woman has the right to deny him that.
@Orjahlian If a man feels he wants a child, then he can find a woman who is willing to have one with him, he can get a vasectomy and reverse it when both he and the woman decide to have a child, or he can go out and adopt. Women are not men's personal baby making machines or reproductive slaves. And again, if the woman wants an abortion, what is it in the man's rights to do? Kidnap her, lock her up and tie her down for nine months?
@Orjahlian But then, you are only a 21 year old kid. Grow up some more and get yourself a better education in women's issues before you discuss and debate them further.
Yes, because my youtube profile is such an accurate way to gather information about me. I also put down that I'm from Benin, and according to the picture on my profile, I'm a gray mass vaguely resembling a human form!
Also, lol "women's issues." Learn proper English grammar and spelling before you talk to me about an education. Or at least use the spellchecker built into most browsers, Christ...
No, thank you, I will not use anything related to who I really am in my youtube profile. In fact, using very commonly available resources and nothing but your username, I managed to find your DeviantArt, the fact that you live in Canada (There's a city, too, but out of respect for your privacy I won't reveal it), and about four other websites you frequent.
And no, abortion is not a cop out method for sex. Watch the video again. If a woman is not emotionally, medically, or financially ready for pregnancy and childbirth, is not willing to go through with it, then nobody but her gets to make or carry through with that decision. Certainly not the male who's body and life are not affected in any way.
Now, to address the only argument of yours with any actual merit. It's not a punishment for having sex. It's a punishment for your mistakes. We don't live in a worry-free world filled with sunshine and rainbows that spit out gold coins at every happy-go-lucky traveler, as part of some global hold-hands-and-fornicate-without-worry fuckwit train.
@Orjahlian Again, sorry, but a pregnancy, a risky medical condition, should not be a forced punishment for anything. You don't force a woman to have a baby against her will to punish her for a mistake. And yes, I know that the world isn't all blue skys, sunshine and rainbows; there are miscarriages, babies tragically dying at birth, women dying in childbirth and women who have abortions. Like you said, it's not a perfect world.
This I will accept. In spite of your insinuating pregnancy isn't a condition brought on oneself. I'll admit, I'm not against all abortions, INCLUDING ones that threaten the life of the mother. But when all of that health risk/rape/incest scenarios are totaled together, it still barely accounts for 5% of them. So odds are playing in my favor that they're some retarded bitch who fucked up.
Also, as for pregnancy being a risky medical condition, I'd rather risk that than force death, an irreversible and 100% fatal medical condition, mind you, upon a life that hasn't been given a "choice."
@Orjahlian Then perhaps someday you can find a way to carry the pregnancy yourself, then you can be the one who makes that decision. In the meantime, neither you or anyone else can force it on an unwilling woman or girl.
Also, what do you feel is in your power or right to do to prevent an abortion? Kidnap the woman, lock her up and tie her down for nine months? Really, the best thing would be for you, the male, to have a vasectomy (much simpler and safer then an oporation for a woman) and reverse it whenever you and your partner decide to have children.
So here's a scenario for you: a man (or woman, since you're all so sex-conscious) fires a gun into a sparsely populated street, because that's how they get their kicks. Sure, it's unlikely to hit someone, but if it does I guarantee you nobody would debate that it was their fault.
While not as extreme as firing a gun at people, it's the same basic principle. You took a chance, and luck didn't favor you. You've gone and created another life that you're responsible for.
@Orjahlian That's a pretty poor senario since having sex isn't exactly firing a gun or any weapon in public. Yes, in the case of pregnancy, the actions of the male and female created the life, but it's the woman's body that it's inhabiting and living off of, so she gets to decide on weather it's allowed to keep using her body as it's life support or not. And, personally, I'd say aborting a pregnancy she is neither emotionally, medically, or finacially ready for is a pretty responsible move.
I'd say not having sex if you're not emotionally, medically, or financially ready for a baby would be a pretty responsible move. But that's just me, apparently. Also, note, I didn't say that scenario was the metaphor to end all metaphors. The point is, they played roulette with their bodies, and it's their fault.
If you'd paid any attention to my previous arguments, then you would realize, yes, I do. I'm actively having sex with my partner, and I'm not ready for pregnancy, childbirth, or parenthood. If I ended up impregnating my girlfriend, you can bet your ass I'd do everything in my power to convince her not to get an abortion.
@Orjahlian Okay, you're not ready for parenthood, yet you would still want a baby? Why young boys who think like that don't get vasectomys so they can have sex without worrying about that, I don't know.
And again, how would you convince a woman not to have an abortion if she wanted one? Kidnap her? Lock her up and tie her down for nine months?
You tend to recycle that last bit a lot. Got that handy on the clipboard for a nice copy/paste? Anyways, yes, I would. I'm not ready, but if I made a mistake, then it's my fault. I chose not to get a vasectomy, and she chose not to get her tubes tied. So, I'll be damned if I let a life extinguish because of me, or my girlfriend.
@Orjahlian So then, she can also chose not to carry a pregnancy in her body. And again, I ask you, what would you do to prevent it if you couldn't change her mind?
And as for convincing a woman, you seem to have that word mixed up with "forcing." The entire point of this debate is to dissuade people thinking about it, from getting it. Or have you missed that very large point?
It's not very practical to go about strapping every woman down for nine months that's pregnant, even if it would be more efficient.
@Orjahlian You're right, it's not practical to force every woman to carry a pregnancy against her will, which is the point I was getting at. So if the man can neither convince or force the woman not to have an abortion then he has to accept that he's SOL
@Orjahlian No, I'm not against equality, which is why I wouldn't have a problem with men having abortions either if they could get pregnant and didn't want to be. However, as pregnancy affects the *woman's* body, health and lifestyle, *they* get to make that choice.
@Orjahlian That's really not the point, because to a woman who doesn't want it in her body it doesn't matter if the fetus is male or female. Most abortions are carried out in the first trimester when it's impossible to tell the zygotes gender anyway.
Really, I believe we've settled every issue here except for the most basic; does the fetus deserve it's own chance? I believe so, you believe the mother's choice supersedes it. I believe the mother's prior choices, since they obviously led up to the situation, waive her rights to a second set of choices in favor of the one who hasn't yet been allowed to live.
@Orjahlian That is what you believe, however, I believe that the rights of those who are already born and living in this world take priority over the unborn. You say a fetus deserves it's own chance to live; very well, the fetus is free to have it's chance to live *outside of my body*
Congratulations. I thought you had reached the peak of your stupidity some time ago. If this is the culmination of your education in "Women's Problems", I respectfully have to request you kill yourself to cause a raise in the average IQ of the planet.
So far your only argument against such is that it's unreasonable to expect people to not be retarded about sex, or that you can't force a woman to not get an abortion. Which, in the end, only dodges my assertion that 90% of the people who practice this are retarded, and should take responsibility for their actions.
@Orjahlian So far your only argument is that it's reasonable to punish people for having sex. And you really believe that 90% of women who don't want to keep a pregnancy are retarded? That's pretty harsh, not only towards women but towards those who actually have Down Syndrome.
To say that's punishing them for sex is like saying sending a drunk driver to jail is punishing them for drinking. And there is no way that second part isn't trolling, right? Please tell me you're trolling.
@Orjahlian Seriously, again, attacks, accusations and insults don't help you or your argument. Perhaps it's best to agree to disagree since neither is going to convince the other. It's really pointless to discuss and argue womens issues with men anyway, unless they are qualified, unbiased docters.
@Orjahlian Yes, It's a woman only issue because women are the only ones whose bodies can carry a pregnancy and give birth. Therefore, they get to make that decision, not the male. Politics and millitary matters don't have anything to do with what goes on inside a man's or a woman's body, so they're open for both genders.
But it requires both a man and a woman to conceive, does it not? Unless, of course, you're talking about artificial insemination. So, a man should be denied the ability to speak up about his child? I hardly think that's fair.
I was just thinking that since you seemed so keen on segregation, you wouldn't have minded that men kept women out of politics and war, since those were fields that only men dealt with at the time. True story.
@Orjahlian The man can have an opinion, but as it's the *woman* who will have to go through the pregnancy and childbirth then *she* gets to make the decision. And until it's actually born "his child" is in someone else's body, therefore it's not "his child" then, it's *her* zygote/embryo/fetus and she gets to decide weather it uses her body as it's life support or not. And again, politics and war have nothing to do with what goes on inside men's and women's bodies, so it concerns both genders.
@Orjahlian And, like I said, for a woman or girl who isn't emotionally, medically or financially ready for pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood, an abortion *is* taking responsibility rather then having a kid she resents and can't take care of properly or throwing the kid into an unreliable foster care system.
Once again, you're just shifting the responsibility from the actions of the mother and father to nowhere. It's their fault she's pregnant, and she KNOWINGLY PARTOOK IN ACTIONS THAT LEAD TO THIS.
And if the child is thrown into an unreliable foster care system, at least it's given a chance. I'd rather be given a chance to make my way in the world, then killed just because I'm unlikely to get anywhere.
@Orjahlian It doesn't really matter how a woman got pregnant or who is at fault. If she doesn't want to be pregnant or give birth then she doesn't have to, and nobody can force her, no matter their own opinions.
And I would rather not give birth to a child at all then have it and not be able to take care of it properly or throw it out into the world with no gaurantee of it's well being.
"It doesn't really matter how a woman got pregnant or who is at fault."
Now, see, THERE is where I disagree, and I need you to elaborate for me. How doesn't it matter? I think it's very relevant to this whole situation. Her actions led her to where she is, so prove to me it's not relevant.
Opinions aren't facts, however, this is: she brought herself to that situation, unless you can definitively give me reason to believe otherwise.
@Orjahlian Now, I disagree that it doesn't matter if the pregnancy was completely the woman's fault or not, because if, as you said "her actions led her to where she is" or "she brought herself to that situation" then she also has the right to take action and deal with her situation as she sees fit. To me, terminating a pregnancy when you know you aren't ready for it in any way, deciding not to bring a life into the world where it won't be cared for properly, *is* taking responsibility.
... You lost me at the double negative. But, either way, you seem to be saying that by making a mistake she should be allowed to do whatever she pleases with another life. That is ridiculous.
As for attacking you, I'd rather be upfront about my dislike for your incurable stupidity than use your passive-aggressive method of implying I'm a psycopath who would love nothing less than to tie all pregnant women down until they gave birth.
@Orjahlian Yes, because this is the kind of mistake neither you or anyone else is entitled to punish a woman for. She can do as she pleases with whatever is inside of her own body, a life or not. I'll say it again, if men want to prevent abortions and want babies so much then they can take more responsibility by adopting an unwanted child, finding a partner who is willing to have a baby with them or getting a vasectomy and reversing it when they and their partner decide to have kids.
So then, Karenjade, what should a WOMAN do to prevent abortion? Say for a second that I was a woman, what's different now? You're just as biased as you were before, except this time you have one less card up your sleeve; you can't pull a "Oh, you wouldn't understand." There are plenty of women who share the same view as I.
@Orjahlian Women can prevent abortions by not having one if she *wants* the pregnancy, birth and motherhood. If she doesn't, then you can't force it on her aginst her will. There are plenty of women who don't believe in abortion either, so they don't have to get one if they don't want one. It's also a true fact that the majority of anti-choicers are *men* and that none of them will ever be pregnant.
@Orjahlian Anyway, I alread said I was through discussing and debating this. You aren't changing my mind or my opinion, so you may as well stop replying.
@Orjahlian Anyway, as I said, no sense in continuing the discussion further because attacks and insults aren't changing my opinion, and I don't wish to further debate and discuss women's issues and reproductive rights with a man unless he is my qualified, unbiased doctor.
@Orjahlian And here's a senario for you; Person A will die unless person B donates their blood, tissue or organ to them, but person B is unwilling to do so. So, should they then be caught, pinned down and forcefully have it taken from their body so Person A can live? Just like we are not required to donate our blood/tissue/organs etc against our will to keep another person from dying, neither are we required to donate our wombs.
Also, props on talking crap on my scenario and then defecating whatever the fuck this was. How about this for a scenario: Person A was injured and will die as a result of something Person B did. To save their life, they have to lend a non-vital organ at B's expense for a set period of time, at which point Person A is allowed to go about their own damn business as usual.
@Orjahlian And if that person refuses to give the organ/tissue/blood etc to save the other''s life, then what? How do you force someone to donate their organ, tissue or blood against their will? How should a woman be forced to donate her womb and body against her will?
Who said I gave them a second chance? They messed up the first time. It's their responsibility to care for the afflicted, whether they want it or not. Hell, since we're on the subject, what about those who survive abortions and their feelings on the subject? They're often born with a handicap and physical deformities as a result of their mother making continuous bad choices. That doesn't sound very fair, either.
Women are stupid. What part of the baby is the woman's body? None. Abortion is not an easy fix. Many woman can't have a baby. You are ready to rid your BODY of the one person that you can save and protect?
@Vada4 The part that is living inside of and off of her body, that's what part. If a woman does not want another person inside of her body then she is not obliged to let it stay in there. And what of issues like rape, underage pregnancy, danger to the woman's health and life, or if the fetus already died in the womb or wouldn't live long once born?
Women are stupid. What part of the baby is the woman's body? None. Abortion is not an easy fix. Many woman can't have a baby. You are ready to rid your BODY of the one person that you can save and protect?
Women are stupid. What part of the baby is the woman's body? None. Abortion is not an easy fix. Many woman can't have a baby. You are ready to rid your BODY of the one person that you can save and protect?
Women are stupid. What part of the baby is the woman's body? None. Abortion is not an easy fix. Many woman can't have a baby. You are ready to rid your BODY of the one person that you can save and protect?
There is no anti choice on the abortion issue! It is pro life, and anti life! Now the truth about these people is that they do not have any comprehension of Frankenstein, and the reason I say this is because of that was a story about a doctor who created life in a science lab, and I will not hear anyone who is for abortion being a right talk about how someone can take their own genetic make up to artificially create a natural human life!
@kjbhlogkh A fundamental misunderstanding of the abortion issue lies in the way people often refer to anti-choice and pro-choice as "two sides." In fact, the anti-choice are in favour of forced motherhood, and the opposite of that is forced abortion. Pro-choice opposes both of these extremist positions.
2:53 "Women...can make the right choices...about their bodies." You are saying that the fetus is part of the woman's body. If so, you are saying that a woman who is pregnant with a female fetus has two vaginas (hers and the baby's). And if she is pregnant with a male fetus, the woman has both a penis and a vagina. Weird.
"Anti-choice". Here's a "reality check" for you. Words have meaning. When one says "I am pro-choice", be honest enough to finish the sentence. To accurately finish it, you need to say "I am pro-choice to kill" the human unborn baby. "Pro-choice" leaders are advocating the "choice" to crush (slice, or otherwise dismember) an unanesthesized unborn baby to death. When they honestly acknowledge the "choice" they are advocating, their "anti-choice" label begins to sound like a genuine compliment.
@kweer58 A fundamental misunderstanding of the abortion issue lies in the way people often refer to anti-choice and pro-choice as "two sides." In fact, the anti-choice are in favour of forced motherhood, and the opposite of that is forced abortion. Pro-choice opposes both of these extremist positions.
ksorci, I respect your uncany ability for using LOGIC AND REASONING--something these fundie fucktards wouldn't know the first thing about obviously--but you're arguing with a brick wall. I could take every single one of these moron's arguments and prove how stupid each of them are point-by-point, but I can easily refute all of them with this one argument: the government can't force me to give up a kidney to someone with heart failure, therefore, who are they to force pregnancy on women? OWNED!
Merci, headhunter. I understand that most extremists do not even begin to comprehend the fact that pregnant women are the most qualified people to be making decisions regarding their pregnancies; however, I post in order to reach the people who are not so inclined to accept emotive nonsense. I've met countless numbers of rational people who merely need to hear the voices of these women in order to understand why reproductive freedom is so very important.
11 months late, perhaps, but I can't go and let people think they're superior when their supposed superior stance is a delusion caused by mild-to-sever retardation. There is a sense of irony in respecting people for using "logic and reasoning" and then bringing your argument down to their level.
*You're* sick of this? Sheesh, now image how "sick" you'd be if I were advocating stripping you of your rights merely because of your biological ability to reproduce. I'd image you'd be positively nauseous if that were the case, eh? Consider yourself lucky that you are merely "sick."
How nice for you to be able to be "done" at your whim, but myself and every other woman on this planet will not be "done" until we are given the respect and God-given rights that we deserve as people.
I'm still interested in whether or not you are familiar with where the statement you paraphrased (""We, all people, have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness") came from and if you had read it in context.
The Declaration of Independence? Do you mean the document wherein we (the colonies/states... United States) drew up when we decided to break from the King/Great Britain to become free & independent states and in which we vowed to protect & ensure our safety and happiness? I'm familiar with it... I guess you could say I'm kind of a fan.
then you know that the statement you use to support your belief that it is fine to allow women to abort the created unborn life growing within them because it is their right to choose to do so actually states:
"We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Abortion violates the unalienable rights of created humans
Um... no. The Dec of Ind says nothing of the zygote, embryo &/or fetus (even a viable fetus) Please do feel free to quote the portion that states that any & all biological life is protected. So the life, liberty & pursuit of happiness of certain citizens (those women & girls of reproductive age, to be specific) isn't on par with the life, liberty & pursuit of happiness of zygotes? Huh, somehow, I don't think the logic follows your assertions; please, feel free to explain how you believe it does.
CREATE: "to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes." (dictionary's first definition)
A born human naturally evolves from a zygote, but does not naturally evolve from a sperm or an ova. A union of the two must be made first.
Ergo, "men" (which our forefathers used with the common usage to mean all humankind) are CREATED at the moment the sperm enters an ova.
That is a stretch (at best) to pretend that the men who penned the Dec of Ind were in any way speaking of zygotes. You would be hard-pressed to prove that the men who penned the Dec of Ind meant "humankind" when they wrote "men"... heck, it'd be quite a task to prove that they meant to include women when they wrote "men" (as evidence by the few rights women held at the time) And lastly, you must not forget the inconvenient truth that without the sperm + ova there would be no zygote.
the Declaration of Independence uses the word "CREATED". If they did not mean the word, they would not have used it.
If they did not mean for it to include men at all stages of life, they would've used the word another word, like the word "born".
But they did not.
They used the word "CREATED". In using that word, they included humans in the stage of development known now to us as zygote. For if a zygote exists, it means the human in that stage of development is CREATED.
Ah no. Even if you s-t-r-e-t-c-h the word "created" you could not encompass the zygote. A zygote is the cell formed by the union of two gametes... nothing about gametes in the Dec of Ind. Cancer is created by a mutation of cells... merely because the world "created" was used, doesn't suddenly make these things people, due their full citizenship rights. It is silly to pretend that the Dec of Ind was referencing these cells, in any way.
"A zygote is the cell formed by the union of two gametes"
look up the difference between a cell and an organism.
A zygote is an organism. It divides, reproduces, takes in food, grows and develops. A cell does not
An organism can be one celled, but a human zygote is one celled only momentarily
When men are created, they are zygotes. It's a scientifically proven fact. Therefore the DofI when stating that all men are created equal, they are including zygotes. Unless you choose to ignore science
Are you kidding me with this? A zygote is the cell formed by the union of two gametes. If you have an issue with that you should take it up with medical science because *I* didn't just make that stuff up... it's a scientific fact. Further, I think the men who penned the Dec of Ind were bright enough to have included some sort of verbiage regarding zygotes if they expected them to have all of these rights. Or perhaps they just trusted women... crazy notion, eh?
It is ironic that you claim you didn't make that stuff up that it's a scientific fact when I have already posted several scientific textbook quotes that support my claims that a zygote is an organism which is a newly created human life, and you have posted no textbook that supports your claims even tho I have repeatedly requested that you do
kc, if you have to continue to lie to yourself about these proven scientific fact in order to justify abortion, then you are obviously not on solid ground
I've never disputed that the zygote is both biologically alive and human... just as the sperm & ova which formed it are. I've not lied about anything. I've not even shared my personal opinions regarding "life"... I'm merely sharing the fact that (a) women are moral, competent beings, fully capable of determining if, when, with whom & under what circumstances to bring a child into this world and (b) zygotes have never (ever, in the history of the world) been considered people.
Why should your personal belief dictate public policy?
That is a good question, and quite frankly I would like to know the answer. Because public policy on abortion is solely based on the personal belief such as you have expressed here which is quite frankly DISCRIMINATION
You claim that a created human life in their zygote stage of development is not worthy of the right to keep that right, because it does not meet certain qualifications which YOU have deemed necessary
It would be discriminatory to take rights away from sexually active women of childbearing age in order to protect & bestow special rights on zygotes. At present, public policy is based on the FACT that pregnant women are due their full citizenship rights and also, they are the most qualified people to be making decisions regarding their pregnancies.
PS discrimination is the unequal treatment of PEOPLE
again it is not us that "bestow" the right to life on humans, nor is the right to life a "special right" for humans in the zygote stage of life.
All human organisms ALREADY HAVE life. It is a right they ALREADY HAVE. A right which is granted to them the moment they are created. It is INALIENABLE.
When we grant women "abortion rights", we are allowing them to take human life and destroy it, which REMOVES the already granted right to life from a unique human organism.
"All human organisms already have life"... what are you going on about? You are again using your personal belief that the biological life of a sperm, ova or zygote is on par with the lives of pregnant women. I happen to disagree. You cannot prove your belief (that zygotes are due their "rights") and yet, throughout history, people (men & women) have been granted these rights, rights which I fully support.
kc, all men are CREATED equal and already HAVE the INALIENABLE right granted by their CREATION (if they did not have it, they would not exist) to life.
Science textbooks state that human organisms are created AT CONCEPTION.
I have provided you with proof. It is not a "personal belief". I have proved it repeatedly
You have denied it repeatedly, WITHOUT support of any kind except your OWN personal belief
If you must deny facts to hold on to your beliefs, then you are not strong in your beliefs
Right, all people (regardless of gender) are due their inalienable right granted by their Creator, including (but not limited to) life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. No science textbook has ever declared that a person is present upon conception. Never. You are claiming something which has never, ever (in the history) of the world been accepted as fact... that zygotes = people. This is merely your OWN personal belief (which you are entitled to) & I am entitled to disagree.
I've never claimed that the zygote wasn't both human (if it is the combination of human sperm & ova) and alive. What it is not, is a person (or citizen) due any and all constitutional rights. A pregnant woman, however, is a person (& a citizen) due her full constitutional rights (even if her pregnancy is unwanted.) I gather you also believe that women are both people and deserving of their rights... correct?
again, making determinations on which human beings should be considered persons and which should not be considered persons is downright discrimination.
I won't participate in discrimination. You can keep bringing it up all you want, but I simply won't participate.
No, all people are people. You are committing a strawman fallacy by proclaiming that my argument has ever been determining that *some* people aren't actually people. Further, you claim that you won't "participate in discrimination" and yet you support the unequal treatment of pregnant women only... psssst, that IS discrimination. You cannot violate a persons civil rights (due process, equal treatment under the law of all people regarding enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and protection)
Legally, a person is present upon birth. Science does not tell use when a person exists and neither does religion nor philosophy & scholars cannot come to a consensus either. Please do not expect me to take *your* word that zygotes are people (or should be afforded the same rights as people)
kc, I never asked for you to take my word that zygotes are people, because in absolute honesty you do not know whether I believe zygotes are "people" or not, as I have never made one claim one way or the other. You can make assumptions on the matter, but you do not know.
Sorry, but citizens of the US are entitled to their rights... in order to be a citizen, one could either be born or naturalized in the US. Are you actually claiming that we should grant zygotes citizenship?
I am making the claim that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Well then, we're all good because we agree that pregnant women are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, including (but certainly not limited to) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, this begs the question... why do you continue to proclaim that zygotes have rights?
Because kscorci, a zygote in a human woman's womb is a created human being with an unalienable right to life endowed to him by his Creator.
Science proves that human beings are created at the moment of conception. I have posted several textbook quotes that blatantly say as much.
You then insist that when the D of I authors wrote "all men are created equal" , they meant "people" yet claim that it is impossible to know when "people" are created. Which means either you or they are wrong.
No, a zygote is the cell formed by the union of two gametes... this is basic scientific fact. A pregnant woman is a person with an unalienable right to life endowed to her by her Creator. Science does not tell us when a person/human being is present... you've posted nothing which supports that assertion. What you've posted states that the zygote is both alive and human. This does not make the zygote a person. There is no dispute that men & women are people... this isn't' something I must prove.
you keep saying that it is a basic scientific fact even though I have provided scientific textbook proof that it is more then "a cell" as you make it out to be, textbook quotes that state that it is a created human being, unique and alive.
I have asked repeatedly for you to support your claim of 'basic scientific fact', and you simply have not come up with any at all.
Saying it is so, does not make it so.
A zygote is a one-celled organism, it is not "a cell" as you claim.
It is a basic scientific fact. Check any medical dictionary, talk to any biologist. Ask an OB/GYN (I did.) Does the zygote experience cleavage? Yes, it does. Does this make it a person? Not by any legal standards I've ever read of. No matter what amount of semantic gymnastics you attempt, the zygote does not, has not & never will be a person (or whatever you wish to call it) afforded any rights. A pregnancy does not, has not & never will have any rights beyond those of the pregnant woman.
Science INDEED DOES tell us when a human being is present.
Here, I will repost it AGAIN, if youtube will allow it:
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
First, I am surprised that youtube is allowing you to re-post the same response... maybe it only catches this within a certain time period. Secondly, This does not in any way alter the fact that the zygote is the cell formed by the union of two gametes and that never, ever in the history of the word has any civilization considered (nor treated) zygotes as people.
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), is the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
A woman is pregnant when she has an embryo implanted in her uterus. The biggest scourge of humanity would be if zygotes were people... considering at least 200 million die each year. Nothing you've written alters the fact that a zygote is the cell formed by the union of two gametes. We can certainly keep going around if you'd like, but it will not change the facts.
Noooo. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any person on earth who doesn't believe the men who penned the Dec of Ind were referring to people. That's kind of an accepted fact. Further, at no time did our forefathers write anything about knowing HOW a person is created (mostly because they didn't know and neither do you or I) However, there is no doubt that a pregnant woman is a person & if born or naturalized in the US, she's a citizen. Fully due her civil rights, just like every other person.
again, kc, it is apparent that you actually need to read the Declaration of Independence in context.
That is what brought this all on, your taking and twisting it's words to support your belief that legal abortion does not violate the right to life of an already created human being, because it does not, in your personal opinion, qualify as "people".
I've read it and re-read it just as millions of other people have. In context. As an aside, how would one go about reading the Dec of Ind out of context, exactly? I'm not taking nor twisting anything about the document. There is simply no indication that the men who penned it were referring to zygotes (or a pregnancy at any stage.) My personal beliefs have nothing at all to do with it. I'm sorry that this document doesn't support your claims but that really has nothing at all to do with *me*
I cannot repost what you wrote, as youtube will not let my comment post. But it is all here for anyone who wishes to follow the line of discussion.
You altered the words a bit, which would be o.k, except you put them in " marks as if you were quoting the document, which you were not (seems like a bad habit kc)
And you used it to support the legal right we have granted women to take the right to life away from a created human being
Women had the right to determine what was the best course of action regarding their pregnancies throughout history (*we* didn't grant women this right) Abortion was only criminalized for a relatively short period of time. Further, the right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness extends to women even if they become pregnant. Women do not suddenly lose their rights immediately upon becoming pregnant, and they never will (no matter how you or your ilk *feel* about zygotes).
What does a crying infant have to do with women making the best, most moral and responsible decisions regarding their pregnancies? I'd say it's a bit of a red herring... lets do try to at least stay on topic (even though that topic does tend to move from legal to biological from time to time)
what does a crying infant have to do with the discussion at hand?
Because there are some who believe that 'personhood' does not begin until we have self-awareness, and since an infant does not have any self-awareness, to some, an infant is not a person yet. So since it is right and good for a woman to end the life of her unborn embryo when it interferes with her right to pursue happiness, because not everyone recognizes that embryo as a person, then the same should be with infants
Again, what does an infant have to do with the subject at hand. Do you believe an infant is not a person? I don't know any person who doesn't believe an infant to be a person... could you direct me to a relevant post which reflects this sentiment? Comparing the murder a person (of any age) with a woman deciding if, when, with whom and under what circumstances to bring a child into her family & into the world is deliberately dishonest, fallacious and quite frankly: emotive nonsense.
I've asked you this before, and you have never answered the question:
when is a human a person?
Some believe a 'personhood' starts at 'self-actualization' which obviously an infant does not have, so obviously some do not recognize an infant as a person
Who are you to say they are wrong when you admit you do not know when "personhood" begins?
What does this have to do with the subject?
You insist that "personhood" is important to the subject, so I'm finally biting the bait
We must be on the same page on some level because I totally read it as "self-awareness" and had to re-read it per your correction to realize what you'd actually written. Crazy, huh?
I am well aware that there is no consensus among scholars, theologians, philosophers or lay people regarding persohood & that science alone cannot justify any particular belief. However, there is no disputing whether a (pregnant) woman is a person, nor is there any question whether a neonate is a person. You are being intentionally emotive in your attempts to justify your personal beliefs that the zygote (prior to a pregnancy, mind you) is afforded certain rights (which no person has, mind you)
kc, but there indeed is questions about whether or not infants (neonates) are "persons".
If legal abortion can be justified on the grounds that not everyone recognizes an unborn human's "personhood", then so too can infanticide, because not everyone recognizes infants as "persons".
Just because YOU recognize them as such, does not mean everyone does. And if abortion is legal on these same grounds, I ask you then why do you not justify infanticide for the very same reasons?
No, there is no questioning whether neonates are people (not in this Country anyway) anyone born or naturalized is a citizen fully due their rights. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough in my posts and I apologize for that; I've tried to convey that the rights which people have (citizenship rights) are paramount to any beliefs you or I have regarding the biological life of the zygote. I think personhood was brought up while referencing those rights & there is no debating the personhood of women.
"personhood" was brought up by you while I kept bringing up human life. You deemed it the deciding factor as to who gets to keep their right to life and who doesn't
As for there being no question re: whether neonates are people, indeed there is: by bioethicists
Your whole 'human life has to be considered a person in order to have any sort of human rights', is FOUNDED by bioethicists like John Harris, Tom L. Beauchamp, and Peter Singer.
They started the 'the unborn are not people' concept
Ah no... I "kept bringing up" the fact that pregnant woman are citizens due their full rights. I "kept bringing up" the fact that pregnant women are the most qualified people to be making decisions regarding their pregnancies. Further, I "kept bringing up" the fact that anyone born or naturalized in the US is due their full citizenship rights... even pregnant women... even if their pregnancies are unwanted (or doomed) Peter Singer does not decide our citizenship rights (and neither do you.)
kc, I never stated you were not bringing those points up. I was responding to your statement about "personhood".
Are you saying that your concept of "personhood" interferes with these rights you have just mentioned? If not, what is your point?
If abortion, the taking of created human life endowed with the right to life by the creator, is justifiable because some of society does not recognize that created life as a "person", why not also infants?
I guess what you can't understand is the difference between the rights of people
(ie citizens) and what you perceive to be the "rights" of zygotes. Women are due their full citizenship rights, even if their pregnancies are unwanted.
Why the inconsistency when it comes to pregnant women & pregnant women alone?
kc, again, citizenship rights are alienable. They are conferred upon people by people. They do not trump unalienable rights conferred to us by the creator upon our creation.
That is the whole concept of the Declaration of Independence.
Pregnant women have rights, I never said otherwise. But what they do not have is the extraordinary right to take away another created human beings right to life. We can grant them that civil right, but it is wrong to do so since the right to life is UNALIENABLE
Please do feel free to prove that our Creator bestowed any rights upon zygotes (let alone rights which no person has)... I've been waiting and I've yet to read a retort which consists of anything other than your personal beliefs. I'd be more than willing to entertain anything other than your personal opinions... could you at least try?
I have repeatedly provided you with scientific textbook quotes that state human beings are CREATED at conception
Your response is continually that the D of I does not mean human beings when it states "all men are CREATED equal", that it means "persons", yet completely admit that there is no way to know when "person" are "created".
So obviously they did not mean "persons" when they used the term "created", they meant human beings, and science proves that human zygotes are created humans
To quote Pete Singer in "Practical Ethics": "Since neither a newborn infant nor a fish is a person, the wrongness of killing such beings is not as great as the wrongness of killing a person."
Mr.Singer is one of the people that created and promoted the concept that human life must first be considered "people" in order to have a right to life. If you support his theory in regards to abortion, what say you on his theory regarding infanticide.
Peter Singer is just as contrary to historical and present legal president as those who wish to bestow rights upon zygotes are. I consider his points as valid as I consider yours. Although, he believes the parents of any ill neonate to trump those of the general public & you wish *your* idea's regarding zygotes to trump those of the general public. I'm pretty sure that the general public would wish to make any & all medical decisions regarding their pregnancies and/or their children.
Are you saying that the DofI lies? Isn't that what brought up this whole line of discussion?
Let's look at those words again, shall we?
We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are CREATED (not "developed" or "reach when the attain personhood"... CREATED) equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR (not 'bestowed upon by humans' ) with certain UNALIENABLE rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We've established that the Dec of Ind does not reference zygotes... your elementary school students are capable of recognising this fact. Most people (including those on the Supreme Court) are able to comprehend that the pregnant woman is the most qualified person to be making decisions regarding her pregnancy... why can you not accept that fact? Why do you believe that you are more qualifi
Marcotte is a sexist anti-male pig.
bluestars982 1 month ago
What an ignorant hypocrite that woman is.
dfbhcf 8 months ago
I have been accused of so many things b/c I'm pro-choice, and even MORE things b/c I had an abortion and DON'T regret it. Seriously, the accusations and implications of why i 'really' had an abortion, or how i 'really' feel about it.. ranges anywhere from I did it for satan, I'm a pedophile, I'm racist, I was lazy, I wanted to have sex, I was mad at the 'baby'.. it is rediculous. Supposedly I'm all those things, hate babies, am depressed about aborting.. these people don't know me or ANYONE.
ryddelwearsahat 8 months ago
Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. It's about supporting each individual and family unit in their choosing to be pregnant, to get pregnant. It's about acknowledging that those with female sex organs are not breeding cattle.
The belief that parenthood is awesome disgusts me. Saying that someone who is not ready to be a parent will change their mind once an irreversible change has occurred to their body is like saying "sorry you're mentally ill; just be normal and you'll feel better."
hannibaled 1 year ago
Most of the arguments here are actually not that bad. However, 60% of Americans regard abortion as inherently immoral. Feminists want to make a women's right to control her body the only issue but how on earth is that ever going to politically fly?
Abortion rights will always be tenuous until feminists can find a way to address pubic concern about the rights of the fetus. Until then, conservatives are going to get away with weakening abortion rights because pubic support wil be way too weak.
braintree2 1 year ago
@braintree2 Not all Conservatives are against safe, legal access to abortion. A political label that covers both social and fiscal views (but not necessarily both in the same body) had nothing to do with anti-choice or pro-choice.
As a Conservative, I still feel that every person should make the choice for his/herself. Honestly? A fetus has no rights. One doesn't even have enough functioning systems to live outside my body until around 22 weeks. Even then, it has a low chance of survival.
hannibaled 1 year ago
@hannibaled You have not really addressed my point. Conservatives do not constitute a majority (according to a Gallup poll it's about 40%). But a landslide-scale majority of 60% considers abortion to be inherently immoral. Until feminists can find some way to address that support for abortion rights will always be weak.
braintree2 1 year ago
Here's a simple suggestion that I find most pro-choice advocates have a hard time refuting; responsibility. When having sex, if you don't want a kid, use a goddamn condom/other birth control method. If you fear your contraceptives failing, don't have sex until you're ready to accept the risk of having a kid.
If you fuck up, it's your fault, not the kid.
Eat a dick, dipshits, and learn to man up and take some goddamn responsibility for your actions.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian Sorry, but you can't force everyone to remain chaste until they marry and decide they want kids and you can't force a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and pregnancy shouldn't be used as a punishment or time out for sex. Also, I'd say having a first term abortion when one is not physically, emotionally or financially ready for pregnancy and childbirth seems like a fairly responsible move.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
I have to disagree. Consent to sex is by an extension a consent to pregnancy, just as drinking more than one can handle is to accept that you are responsible for your actions while under the influence.
Plus, I never said anything about marriage. All that abortions do is provide a cop-out method for fucking up. I'm actively having sex outside of marriage, and if I got my girlfriend pregnant, intentional or no, I'd do everything in my power to prevent an abortion.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian No, consent to sex with one's partner is consent to sex, not pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood. A pregnancy should not be a forced consequence, a punishment or a time out for having sex. You may as well be saying that if an accident or injury was your fault then you should just be made to suffer and rot without any treatment.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
I'm going to dismiss about half of your argument, seeing as how it's all about how it's a woman's body and it's her choice blah blah blah. If a father feels that he wants the child, I see absolutely no reason why a woman has the right to deny him that.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian If a man feels he wants a child, then he can find a woman who is willing to have one with him, he can get a vasectomy and reverse it when both he and the woman decide to have a child, or he can go out and adopt. Women are not men's personal baby making machines or reproductive slaves. And again, if the woman wants an abortion, what is it in the man's rights to do? Kidnap her, lock her up and tie her down for nine months?
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Orjahlian But then, you are only a 21 year old kid. Grow up some more and get yourself a better education in women's issues before you discuss and debate them further.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
Yes, because my youtube profile is such an accurate way to gather information about me. I also put down that I'm from Benin, and according to the picture on my profile, I'm a gray mass vaguely resembling a human form!
Also, lol "women's issues." Learn proper English grammar and spelling before you talk to me about an education. Or at least use the spellchecker built into most browsers, Christ...
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian Then you should put in your real age, and we are not discussing English, grammer or spelling.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
No, thank you, I will not use anything related to who I really am in my youtube profile. In fact, using very commonly available resources and nothing but your username, I managed to find your DeviantArt, the fact that you live in Canada (There's a city, too, but out of respect for your privacy I won't reveal it), and about four other websites you frequent.
Nice drawings, by the way.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
And no, abortion is not a cop out method for sex. Watch the video again. If a woman is not emotionally, medically, or financially ready for pregnancy and childbirth, is not willing to go through with it, then nobody but her gets to make or carry through with that decision. Certainly not the male who's body and life are not affected in any way.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
Now, to address the only argument of yours with any actual merit. It's not a punishment for having sex. It's a punishment for your mistakes. We don't live in a worry-free world filled with sunshine and rainbows that spit out gold coins at every happy-go-lucky traveler, as part of some global hold-hands-and-fornicate-without-worry fuckwit train.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian Again, sorry, but a pregnancy, a risky medical condition, should not be a forced punishment for anything. You don't force a woman to have a baby against her will to punish her for a mistake. And yes, I know that the world isn't all blue skys, sunshine and rainbows; there are miscarriages, babies tragically dying at birth, women dying in childbirth and women who have abortions. Like you said, it's not a perfect world.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
This I will accept. In spite of your insinuating pregnancy isn't a condition brought on oneself. I'll admit, I'm not against all abortions, INCLUDING ones that threaten the life of the mother. But when all of that health risk/rape/incest scenarios are totaled together, it still barely accounts for 5% of them. So odds are playing in my favor that they're some retarded bitch who fucked up.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
Also, as for pregnancy being a risky medical condition, I'd rather risk that than force death, an irreversible and 100% fatal medical condition, mind you, upon a life that hasn't been given a "choice."
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian Then perhaps someday you can find a way to carry the pregnancy yourself, then you can be the one who makes that decision. In the meantime, neither you or anyone else can force it on an unwilling woman or girl.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
Also, what do you feel is in your power or right to do to prevent an abortion? Kidnap the woman, lock her up and tie her down for nine months? Really, the best thing would be for you, the male, to have a vasectomy (much simpler and safer then an oporation for a woman) and reverse it whenever you and your partner decide to have children.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
So here's a scenario for you: a man (or woman, since you're all so sex-conscious) fires a gun into a sparsely populated street, because that's how they get their kicks. Sure, it's unlikely to hit someone, but if it does I guarantee you nobody would debate that it was their fault.
While not as extreme as firing a gun at people, it's the same basic principle. You took a chance, and luck didn't favor you. You've gone and created another life that you're responsible for.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian That's a pretty poor senario since having sex isn't exactly firing a gun or any weapon in public. Yes, in the case of pregnancy, the actions of the male and female created the life, but it's the woman's body that it's inhabiting and living off of, so she gets to decide on weather it's allowed to keep using her body as it's life support or not. And, personally, I'd say aborting a pregnancy she is neither emotionally, medically, or finacially ready for is a pretty responsible move.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
I'd say not having sex if you're not emotionally, medically, or financially ready for a baby would be a pretty responsible move. But that's just me, apparently. Also, note, I didn't say that scenario was the metaphor to end all metaphors. The point is, they played roulette with their bodies, and it's their fault.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian You d realize that people can be ready for sex with their partners but not ready for pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood, don't you?
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
If you'd paid any attention to my previous arguments, then you would realize, yes, I do. I'm actively having sex with my partner, and I'm not ready for pregnancy, childbirth, or parenthood. If I ended up impregnating my girlfriend, you can bet your ass I'd do everything in my power to convince her not to get an abortion.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian Okay, you're not ready for parenthood, yet you would still want a baby? Why young boys who think like that don't get vasectomys so they can have sex without worrying about that, I don't know.
And again, how would you convince a woman not to have an abortion if she wanted one? Kidnap her? Lock her up and tie her down for nine months?
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
You tend to recycle that last bit a lot. Got that handy on the clipboard for a nice copy/paste? Anyways, yes, I would. I'm not ready, but if I made a mistake, then it's my fault. I chose not to get a vasectomy, and she chose not to get her tubes tied. So, I'll be damned if I let a life extinguish because of me, or my girlfriend.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian So then, she can also chose not to carry a pregnancy in her body. And again, I ask you, what would you do to prevent it if you couldn't change her mind?
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
Beg, plead, maybe? I'm not some psychopath, as you seem determined to believe. I'm just rude.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
And as for convincing a woman, you seem to have that word mixed up with "forcing." The entire point of this debate is to dissuade people thinking about it, from getting it. Or have you missed that very large point?
It's not very practical to go about strapping every woman down for nine months that's pregnant, even if it would be more efficient.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian You're right, it's not practical to force every woman to carry a pregnancy against her will, which is the point I was getting at. So if the man can neither convince or force the woman not to have an abortion then he has to accept that he's SOL
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
So, you're against equality? Typical.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian No, I'm not against equality, which is why I wouldn't have a problem with men having abortions either if they could get pregnant and didn't want to be. However, as pregnancy affects the *woman's* body, health and lifestyle, *they* get to make that choice.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
So, what if the child is a woman? What choice does she have in this matter?
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian That's really not the point, because to a woman who doesn't want it in her body it doesn't matter if the fetus is male or female. Most abortions are carried out in the first trimester when it's impossible to tell the zygotes gender anyway.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
Really, I believe we've settled every issue here except for the most basic; does the fetus deserve it's own chance? I believe so, you believe the mother's choice supersedes it. I believe the mother's prior choices, since they obviously led up to the situation, waive her rights to a second set of choices in favor of the one who hasn't yet been allowed to live.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian That is what you believe, however, I believe that the rights of those who are already born and living in this world take priority over the unborn. You say a fetus deserves it's own chance to live; very well, the fetus is free to have it's chance to live *outside of my body*
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
Congratulations. I thought you had reached the peak of your stupidity some time ago. If this is the culmination of your education in "Women's Problems", I respectfully have to request you kill yourself to cause a raise in the average IQ of the planet.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian And you think that replys like that are going to help your argument in any way?
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
Well, I was hoping that pointing out just how retarded that argument was would help you figure out just that; that argument is retarded.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
So far your only argument against such is that it's unreasonable to expect people to not be retarded about sex, or that you can't force a woman to not get an abortion. Which, in the end, only dodges my assertion that 90% of the people who practice this are retarded, and should take responsibility for their actions.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian So far your only argument is that it's reasonable to punish people for having sex. And you really believe that 90% of women who don't want to keep a pregnancy are retarded? That's pretty harsh, not only towards women but towards those who actually have Down Syndrome.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
To say that's punishing them for sex is like saying sending a drunk driver to jail is punishing them for drinking. And there is no way that second part isn't trolling, right? Please tell me you're trolling.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian So, a pregnancy should be treated as jail time for sex?
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
Comment removed
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
Seriously? Either you have a comprehension problem, or as you suggested, down syndrome.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian Seriously, again, attacks, accusations and insults don't help you or your argument. Perhaps it's best to agree to disagree since neither is going to convince the other. It's really pointless to discuss and argue womens issues with men anyway, unless they are qualified, unbiased docters.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
The funniest part of this whole thing is your blind to your own hypocrisy and bias. Actually, it's not so much funny as it is irritating.
At least try to be upfront about how much you dislike someone instead of taking the psuedo-superiority route.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
herp derp it's a woman only issue so only a woman could understand.
You know, that's the same argument they used to keep women out of politics and military matters for several thousand years.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian Yes, It's a woman only issue because women are the only ones whose bodies can carry a pregnancy and give birth. Therefore, they get to make that decision, not the male. Politics and millitary matters don't have anything to do with what goes on inside a man's or a woman's body, so they're open for both genders.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
But it requires both a man and a woman to conceive, does it not? Unless, of course, you're talking about artificial insemination. So, a man should be denied the ability to speak up about his child? I hardly think that's fair.
I was just thinking that since you seemed so keen on segregation, you wouldn't have minded that men kept women out of politics and war, since those were fields that only men dealt with at the time. True story.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian The man can have an opinion, but as it's the *woman* who will have to go through the pregnancy and childbirth then *she* gets to make the decision. And until it's actually born "his child" is in someone else's body, therefore it's not "his child" then, it's *her* zygote/embryo/fetus and she gets to decide weather it uses her body as it's life support or not. And again, politics and war have nothing to do with what goes on inside men's and women's bodies, so it concerns both genders.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Orjahlian And, like I said, for a woman or girl who isn't emotionally, medically or financially ready for pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood, an abortion *is* taking responsibility rather then having a kid she resents and can't take care of properly or throwing the kid into an unreliable foster care system.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
Once again, you're just shifting the responsibility from the actions of the mother and father to nowhere. It's their fault she's pregnant, and she KNOWINGLY PARTOOK IN ACTIONS THAT LEAD TO THIS.
And if the child is thrown into an unreliable foster care system, at least it's given a chance. I'd rather be given a chance to make my way in the world, then killed just because I'm unlikely to get anywhere.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian It doesn't really matter how a woman got pregnant or who is at fault. If she doesn't want to be pregnant or give birth then she doesn't have to, and nobody can force her, no matter their own opinions.
And I would rather not give birth to a child at all then have it and not be able to take care of it properly or throw it out into the world with no gaurantee of it's well being.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
"It doesn't really matter how a woman got pregnant or who is at fault."
Now, see, THERE is where I disagree, and I need you to elaborate for me. How doesn't it matter? I think it's very relevant to this whole situation. Her actions led her to where she is, so prove to me it's not relevant.
Opinions aren't facts, however, this is: she brought herself to that situation, unless you can definitively give me reason to believe otherwise.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian Now, I disagree that it doesn't matter if the pregnancy was completely the woman's fault or not, because if, as you said "her actions led her to where she is" or "she brought herself to that situation" then she also has the right to take action and deal with her situation as she sees fit. To me, terminating a pregnancy when you know you aren't ready for it in any way, deciding not to bring a life into the world where it won't be cared for properly, *is* taking responsibility.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
... You lost me at the double negative. But, either way, you seem to be saying that by making a mistake she should be allowed to do whatever she pleases with another life. That is ridiculous.
As for attacking you, I'd rather be upfront about my dislike for your incurable stupidity than use your passive-aggressive method of implying I'm a psycopath who would love nothing less than to tie all pregnant women down until they gave birth.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian Yes, because this is the kind of mistake neither you or anyone else is entitled to punish a woman for. She can do as she pleases with whatever is inside of her own body, a life or not. I'll say it again, if men want to prevent abortions and want babies so much then they can take more responsibility by adopting an unwanted child, finding a partner who is willing to have a baby with them or getting a vasectomy and reversing it when they and their partner decide to have kids.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
So then, Karenjade, what should a WOMAN do to prevent abortion? Say for a second that I was a woman, what's different now? You're just as biased as you were before, except this time you have one less card up your sleeve; you can't pull a "Oh, you wouldn't understand." There are plenty of women who share the same view as I.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian Women can prevent abortions by not having one if she *wants* the pregnancy, birth and motherhood. If she doesn't, then you can't force it on her aginst her will. There are plenty of women who don't believe in abortion either, so they don't have to get one if they don't want one. It's also a true fact that the majority of anti-choicers are *men* and that none of them will ever be pregnant.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Orjahlian Anyway, I alread said I was through discussing and debating this. You aren't changing my mind or my opinion, so you may as well stop replying.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
k
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian Anyway, as I said, no sense in continuing the discussion further because attacks and insults aren't changing my opinion, and I don't wish to further debate and discuss women's issues and reproductive rights with a man unless he is my qualified, unbiased doctor.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Orjahlian And here's a senario for you; Person A will die unless person B donates their blood, tissue or organ to them, but person B is unwilling to do so. So, should they then be caught, pinned down and forcefully have it taken from their body so Person A can live? Just like we are not required to donate our blood/tissue/organs etc against our will to keep another person from dying, neither are we required to donate our wombs.
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
Also, props on talking crap on my scenario and then defecating whatever the fuck this was. How about this for a scenario: Person A was injured and will die as a result of something Person B did. To save their life, they have to lend a non-vital organ at B's expense for a set period of time, at which point Person A is allowed to go about their own damn business as usual.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian And if that person refuses to give the organ/tissue/blood etc to save the other''s life, then what? How do you force someone to donate their organ, tissue or blood against their will? How should a woman be forced to donate her womb and body against her will?
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
@Karenjadegirl
Who said I gave them a second chance? They messed up the first time. It's their responsibility to care for the afflicted, whether they want it or not. Hell, since we're on the subject, what about those who survive abortions and their feelings on the subject? They're often born with a handicap and physical deformities as a result of their mother making continuous bad choices. That doesn't sound very fair, either.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
@Orjahlian Hell yeah!They could just get fixed.
Vada4 1 year ago
Women are stupid. What part of the baby is the woman's body? None. Abortion is not an easy fix. Many woman can't have a baby. You are ready to rid your BODY of the one person that you can save and protect?
Vada4 1 year ago
@Vada4 The part that is living inside of and off of her body, that's what part. If a woman does not want another person inside of her body then she is not obliged to let it stay in there. And what of issues like rape, underage pregnancy, danger to the woman's health and life, or if the fetus already died in the womb or wouldn't live long once born?
Karenjadegirl 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Women are stupid. What part of the baby is the woman's body? None. Abortion is not an easy fix. Many woman can't have a baby. You are ready to rid your BODY of the one person that you can save and protect?
Vada4 1 year ago
Women are stupid. What part of the baby is the woman's body? None. Abortion is not an easy fix. Many woman can't have a baby. You are ready to rid your BODY of the one person that you can save and protect?
Vada4 1 year ago
Women are stupid. What part of the baby is the woman's body? None. Abortion is not an easy fix. Many woman can't have a baby. You are ready to rid your BODY of the one person that you can save and protect?
Vada4 1 year ago
Need an abortion? What? Sick. They do have them to get rid of babies. They only love themselves.
Vada4 1 year ago
Need an abortion? What? Sick. They do have them to get rid of babies. Thyey only love themselves.
Vada4 1 year ago
There is no anti choice on the abortion issue! It is pro life, and anti life! Now the truth about these people is that they do not have any comprehension of Frankenstein, and the reason I say this is because of that was a story about a doctor who created life in a science lab, and I will not hear anyone who is for abortion being a right talk about how someone can take their own genetic make up to artificially create a natural human life!
kjbhlogkh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kjbhlogkh A fundamental misunderstanding of the abortion issue lies in the way people often refer to anti-choice and pro-choice as "two sides." In fact, the anti-choice are in favour of forced motherhood, and the opposite of that is forced abortion. Pro-choice opposes both of these extremist positions.
Diannakw 1 year ago
Congratulations, lady. You just completely missed the point of the pro-life argument.
Bookworm846 2 years ago
2:53 "Women...can make the right choices...about their bodies." You are saying that the fetus is part of the woman's body. If so, you are saying that a woman who is pregnant with a female fetus has two vaginas (hers and the baby's). And if she is pregnant with a male fetus, the woman has both a penis and a vagina. Weird.
catburger1000 2 years ago
"Anti-choice". Here's a "reality check" for you. Words have meaning. When one says "I am pro-choice", be honest enough to finish the sentence. To accurately finish it, you need to say "I am pro-choice to kill" the human unborn baby. "Pro-choice" leaders are advocating the "choice" to crush (slice, or otherwise dismember) an unanesthesized unborn baby to death. When they honestly acknowledge the "choice" they are advocating, their "anti-choice" label begins to sound like a genuine compliment.
kweer58 2 years ago
@kweer58 A fundamental misunderstanding of the abortion issue lies in the way people often refer to anti-choice and pro-choice as "two sides." In fact, the anti-choice are in favour of forced motherhood, and the opposite of that is forced abortion. Pro-choice opposes both of these extremist positions.
Diannakw 1 year ago
"convenience", more than 90% of abortions are done for reasons other than
rape, incest or if the mother's life was in
danger. "convenience", more than
1,000,000 innocent babies are aborted each year in the U.S. That's alot of
choices out of ,"convenience".
Repent and stop promoting abortion.
2000yrCatholic 2 years ago
ksorci, I respect your uncany ability for using LOGIC AND REASONING--something these fundie fucktards wouldn't know the first thing about obviously--but you're arguing with a brick wall. I could take every single one of these moron's arguments and prove how stupid each of them are point-by-point, but I can easily refute all of them with this one argument: the government can't force me to give up a kidney to someone with heart failure, therefore, who are they to force pregnancy on women? OWNED!
Headhunter004 2 years ago
Merci, headhunter. I understand that most extremists do not even begin to comprehend the fact that pregnant women are the most qualified people to be making decisions regarding their pregnancies; however, I post in order to reach the people who are not so inclined to accept emotive nonsense. I've met countless numbers of rational people who merely need to hear the voices of these women in order to understand why reproductive freedom is so very important.
kcsorci 2 years ago
@Headhunter004
11 months late, perhaps, but I can't go and let people think they're superior when their supposed superior stance is a delusion caused by mild-to-sever retardation. There is a sense of irony in respecting people for using "logic and reasoning" and then bringing your argument down to their level.
At least I'm consistent.
Fucktard.
Orjahlian 1 year ago
You know, I'm sick of this.
I will not allow you to slander me anymore.
I'm done.
I hope you find peace with your abortion.
I truly do
In the dark of the night, know that you are not alone
There is peace for you again, it's waiting for you to choose it.
And you are worthy of being at peace again, k.c., you really are.
afterabortion(dot)com
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
*You're* sick of this? Sheesh, now image how "sick" you'd be if I were advocating stripping you of your rights merely because of your biological ability to reproduce. I'd image you'd be positively nauseous if that were the case, eh? Consider yourself lucky that you are merely "sick."
How nice for you to be able to be "done" at your whim, but myself and every other woman on this planet will not be "done" until we are given the respect and God-given rights that we deserve as people.
kcsorci 2 years ago
Now, I'm slandering you? Listen man, the things you write are what damage your reputation, you require no help from me or any other person.
PS I think you meant "libel" (written word) not "slander" (spoken word)
kcsorci 2 years ago
kcsorci,
I'm still interested in whether or not you are familiar with where the statement you paraphrased (""We, all people, have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness") came from and if you had read it in context.
Are you and have you?
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
The Declaration of Independence? Do you mean the document wherein we (the colonies/states... United States) drew up when we decided to break from the King/Great Britain to become free & independent states and in which we vowed to protect & ensure our safety and happiness? I'm familiar with it... I guess you could say I'm kind of a fan.
kcsorci 2 years ago
Excellent,
then you know that the statement you use to support your belief that it is fine to allow women to abort the created unborn life growing within them because it is their right to choose to do so actually states:
"We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Abortion violates the unalienable rights of created humans
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
Um... no. The Dec of Ind says nothing of the zygote, embryo &/or fetus (even a viable fetus) Please do feel free to quote the portion that states that any & all biological life is protected. So the life, liberty & pursuit of happiness of certain citizens (those women & girls of reproductive age, to be specific) isn't on par with the life, liberty & pursuit of happiness of zygotes? Huh, somehow, I don't think the logic follows your assertions; please, feel free to explain how you believe it does.
kcsorci 2 years ago
Logic follows my assertions this way:
CREATE: "to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes." (dictionary's first definition)
A born human naturally evolves from a zygote, but does not naturally evolve from a sperm or an ova. A union of the two must be made first.
Ergo, "men" (which our forefathers used with the common usage to mean all humankind) are CREATED at the moment the sperm enters an ova.
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
That is a stretch (at best) to pretend that the men who penned the Dec of Ind were in any way speaking of zygotes. You would be hard-pressed to prove that the men who penned the Dec of Ind meant "humankind" when they wrote "men"... heck, it'd be quite a task to prove that they meant to include women when they wrote "men" (as evidence by the few rights women held at the time) And lastly, you must not forget the inconvenient truth that without the sperm + ova there would be no zygote.
kcsorci 2 years ago
kcsorci,
the Declaration of Independence uses the word "CREATED". If they did not mean the word, they would not have used it.
If they did not mean for it to include men at all stages of life, they would've used the word another word, like the word "born".
But they did not.
They used the word "CREATED". In using that word, they included humans in the stage of development known now to us as zygote. For if a zygote exists, it means the human in that stage of development is CREATED.
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
Ah no. Even if you s-t-r-e-t-c-h the word "created" you could not encompass the zygote. A zygote is the cell formed by the union of two gametes... nothing about gametes in the Dec of Ind. Cancer is created by a mutation of cells... merely because the world "created" was used, doesn't suddenly make these things people, due their full citizenship rights. It is silly to pretend that the Dec of Ind was referencing these cells, in any way.
kcsorci 2 years ago
"A zygote is the cell formed by the union of two gametes"
look up the difference between a cell and an organism.
A zygote is an organism. It divides, reproduces, takes in food, grows and develops. A cell does not
An organism can be one celled, but a human zygote is one celled only momentarily
When men are created, they are zygotes. It's a scientifically proven fact. Therefore the DofI when stating that all men are created equal, they are including zygotes. Unless you choose to ignore science
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
Are you kidding me with this? A zygote is the cell formed by the union of two gametes. If you have an issue with that you should take it up with medical science because *I* didn't just make that stuff up... it's a scientific fact. Further, I think the men who penned the Dec of Ind were bright enough to have included some sort of verbiage regarding zygotes if they expected them to have all of these rights. Or perhaps they just trusted women... crazy notion, eh?
kcsorci 2 years ago
It is ironic that you claim you didn't make that stuff up that it's a scientific fact when I have already posted several scientific textbook quotes that support my claims that a zygote is an organism which is a newly created human life, and you have posted no textbook that supports your claims even tho I have repeatedly requested that you do
kc, if you have to continue to lie to yourself about these proven scientific fact in order to justify abortion, then you are obviously not on solid ground
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
I've never disputed that the zygote is both biologically alive and human... just as the sperm & ova which formed it are. I've not lied about anything. I've not even shared my personal opinions regarding "life"... I'm merely sharing the fact that (a) women are moral, competent beings, fully capable of determining if, when, with whom & under what circumstances to bring a child into this world and (b) zygotes have never (ever, in the history of the world) been considered people.
kcsorci 2 years ago
again,
I ask you then,
when do YOU claim that humans are created then if not at conception?
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
Why should my personal beliefs dictate public policy?
kcsorci 2 years ago
Why should your personal belief dictate public policy?
That is a good question, and quite frankly I would like to know the answer. Because public policy on abortion is solely based on the personal belief such as you have expressed here which is quite frankly DISCRIMINATION
You claim that a created human life in their zygote stage of development is not worthy of the right to keep that right, because it does not meet certain qualifications which YOU have deemed necessary
That is discrimination
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
It would be discriminatory to take rights away from sexually active women of childbearing age in order to protect & bestow special rights on zygotes. At present, public policy is based on the FACT that pregnant women are due their full citizenship rights and also, they are the most qualified people to be making decisions regarding their pregnancies.
PS discrimination is the unequal treatment of PEOPLE
PPS pregnant women are PEOPLE
kcsorci 2 years ago
kcsorci,
again it is not us that "bestow" the right to life on humans, nor is the right to life a "special right" for humans in the zygote stage of life.
All human organisms ALREADY HAVE life. It is a right they ALREADY HAVE. A right which is granted to them the moment they are created. It is INALIENABLE.
When we grant women "abortion rights", we are allowing them to take human life and destroy it, which REMOVES the already granted right to life from a unique human organism.
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
"All human organisms already have life"... what are you going on about? You are again using your personal belief that the biological life of a sperm, ova or zygote is on par with the lives of pregnant women. I happen to disagree. You cannot prove your belief (that zygotes are due their "rights") and yet, throughout history, people (men & women) have been granted these rights, rights which I fully support.
kcsorci 2 years ago
kc, all men are CREATED equal and already HAVE the INALIENABLE right granted by their CREATION (if they did not have it, they would not exist) to life.
Science textbooks state that human organisms are created AT CONCEPTION.
I have provided you with proof. It is not a "personal belief". I have proved it repeatedly
You have denied it repeatedly, WITHOUT support of any kind except your OWN personal belief
If you must deny facts to hold on to your beliefs, then you are not strong in your beliefs
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
Right, all people (regardless of gender) are due their inalienable right granted by their Creator, including (but not limited to) life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. No science textbook has ever declared that a person is present upon conception. Never. You are claiming something which has never, ever (in the history) of the world been accepted as fact... that zygotes = people. This is merely your OWN personal belief (which you are entitled to) & I am entitled to disagree.
kcsorci 2 years ago
kc, if a zygote is NOT human life...what is it?
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
I've never claimed that the zygote wasn't both human (if it is the combination of human sperm & ova) and alive. What it is not, is a person (or citizen) due any and all constitutional rights. A pregnant woman, however, is a person (& a citizen) due her full constitutional rights (even if her pregnancy is unwanted.) I gather you also believe that women are both people and deserving of their rights... correct?
kcsorci 2 years ago
kcsorci,
again, making determinations on which human beings should be considered persons and which should not be considered persons is downright discrimination.
I won't participate in discrimination. You can keep bringing it up all you want, but I simply won't participate.
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
No, all people are people. You are committing a strawman fallacy by proclaiming that my argument has ever been determining that *some* people aren't actually people. Further, you claim that you won't "participate in discrimination" and yet you support the unequal treatment of pregnant women only... psssst, that IS discrimination. You cannot violate a persons civil rights (due process, equal treatment under the law of all people regarding enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and protection)
kcsorci 2 years ago
You claim that all people are people, yet you have yet to tell me when people are created.
So what is people?
And when are they created?
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
Legally, a person is present upon birth. Science does not tell use when a person exists and neither does religion nor philosophy & scholars cannot come to a consensus either. Please do not expect me to take *your* word that zygotes are people (or should be afforded the same rights as people)
kcsorci 2 years ago
kc, I never asked for you to take my word that zygotes are people, because in absolute honesty you do not know whether I believe zygotes are "people" or not, as I have never made one claim one way or the other. You can make assumptions on the matter, but you do not know.
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
Sorry, but citizens of the US are entitled to their rights... in order to be a citizen, one could either be born or naturalized in the US. Are you actually claiming that we should grant zygotes citizenship?
Holy cow.
kcsorci 2 years ago
kc, no, I am not making that claim.
I am making the claim that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Nothing more, nothing less.
That is all I am claiming
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
Well then, we're all good because we agree that pregnant women are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, including (but certainly not limited to) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, this begs the question... why do you continue to proclaim that zygotes have rights?
kcsorci 2 years ago
Because kscorci, a zygote in a human woman's womb is a created human being with an unalienable right to life endowed to him by his Creator.
Science proves that human beings are created at the moment of conception. I have posted several textbook quotes that blatantly say as much.
You then insist that when the D of I authors wrote "all men are created equal" , they meant "people" yet claim that it is impossible to know when "people" are created. Which means either you or they are wrong.
*sigh*
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
No, a zygote is the cell formed by the union of two gametes... this is basic scientific fact. A pregnant woman is a person with an unalienable right to life endowed to her by her Creator. Science does not tell us when a person/human being is present... you've posted nothing which supports that assertion. What you've posted states that the zygote is both alive and human. This does not make the zygote a person. There is no dispute that men & women are people... this isn't' something I must prove.
kcsorci 2 years ago
you keep saying that it is a basic scientific fact even though I have provided scientific textbook proof that it is more then "a cell" as you make it out to be, textbook quotes that state that it is a created human being, unique and alive.
I have asked repeatedly for you to support your claim of 'basic scientific fact', and you simply have not come up with any at all.
Saying it is so, does not make it so.
A zygote is a one-celled organism, it is not "a cell" as you claim.
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
It is a basic scientific fact. Check any medical dictionary, talk to any biologist. Ask an OB/GYN (I did.) Does the zygote experience cleavage? Yes, it does. Does this make it a person? Not by any legal standards I've ever read of. No matter what amount of semantic gymnastics you attempt, the zygote does not, has not & never will be a person (or whatever you wish to call it) afforded any rights. A pregnancy does not, has not & never will have any rights beyond those of the pregnant woman.
kcsorci 2 years ago
Science INDEED DOES tell us when a human being is present.
Here, I will repost it AGAIN, if youtube will allow it:
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
First, I am surprised that youtube is allowing you to re-post the same response... maybe it only catches this within a certain time period. Secondly, This does not in any way alter the fact that the zygote is the cell formed by the union of two gametes and that never, ever in the history of the word has any civilization considered (nor treated) zygotes as people.
kcsorci 2 years ago
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), is the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
A woman is pregnant when she has an embryo implanted in her uterus. The biggest scourge of humanity would be if zygotes were people... considering at least 200 million die each year. Nothing you've written alters the fact that a zygote is the cell formed by the union of two gametes. We can certainly keep going around if you'd like, but it will not change the facts.
kcsorci 2 years ago
you keep insisting that the drafters of the D of I were only referring to your concept when they wrote it
But how can this be if, it is as you claim that, even with TODAY's technology science cannot not tell us when "people" are created?
How could THEY in the 1700's then honestly claim THEY knew HOW men were created if it is impossible to know WHEN men are created, as you claim?
They even blatantly claimed it was "self-evident"!
Either you or they, are wrong. You cannot both be right
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
Noooo. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any person on earth who doesn't believe the men who penned the Dec of Ind were referring to people. That's kind of an accepted fact. Further, at no time did our forefathers write anything about knowing HOW a person is created (mostly because they didn't know and neither do you or I) However, there is no doubt that a pregnant woman is a person & if born or naturalized in the US, she's a citizen. Fully due her civil rights, just like every other person.
kcsorci 2 years ago
again, kc, it is apparent that you actually need to read the Declaration of Independence in context.
That is what brought this all on, your taking and twisting it's words to support your belief that legal abortion does not violate the right to life of an already created human being, because it does not, in your personal opinion, qualify as "people".
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
I've read it and re-read it just as millions of other people have. In context. As an aside, how would one go about reading the Dec of Ind out of context, exactly? I'm not taking nor twisting anything about the document. There is simply no indication that the men who penned it were referring to zygotes (or a pregnancy at any stage.) My personal beliefs have nothing at all to do with it. I'm sorry that this document doesn't support your claims but that really has nothing at all to do with *me*
kcsorci 2 years ago
you quoted it out of context to suit your purpose
I cannot repost what you wrote, as youtube will not let my comment post. But it is all here for anyone who wishes to follow the line of discussion.
You altered the words a bit, which would be o.k, except you put them in " marks as if you were quoting the document, which you were not (seems like a bad habit kc)
And you used it to support the legal right we have granted women to take the right to life away from a created human being
Irony
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
Women had the right to determine what was the best course of action regarding their pregnancies throughout history (*we* didn't grant women this right) Abortion was only criminalized for a relatively short period of time. Further, the right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness extends to women even if they become pregnant. Women do not suddenly lose their rights immediately upon becoming pregnant, and they never will (no matter how you or your ilk *feel* about zygotes).
kcsorci 2 years ago
kc, what if a woman's infant crying in the middle of the night keeps her awake and interferes with her right to pursue happiness?
Why does she not have the right to take it's life?
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
What does a crying infant have to do with women making the best, most moral and responsible decisions regarding their pregnancies? I'd say it's a bit of a red herring... lets do try to at least stay on topic (even though that topic does tend to move from legal to biological from time to time)
kcsorci 2 years ago
kcsorci,
what does a crying infant have to do with the discussion at hand?
Because there are some who believe that 'personhood' does not begin until we have self-awareness, and since an infant does not have any self-awareness, to some, an infant is not a person yet. So since it is right and good for a woman to end the life of her unborn embryo when it interferes with her right to pursue happiness, because not everyone recognizes that embryo as a person, then the same should be with infants
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
Again, what does an infant have to do with the subject at hand. Do you believe an infant is not a person? I don't know any person who doesn't believe an infant to be a person... could you direct me to a relevant post which reflects this sentiment? Comparing the murder a person (of any age) with a woman deciding if, when, with whom and under what circumstances to bring a child into her family & into the world is deliberately dishonest, fallacious and quite frankly: emotive nonsense.
kcsorci 2 years ago
kcsorci,
I've asked you this before, and you have never answered the question:
when is a human a person?
Some believe a 'personhood' starts at 'self-actualization' which obviously an infant does not have, so obviously some do not recognize an infant as a person
Who are you to say they are wrong when you admit you do not know when "personhood" begins?
What does this have to do with the subject?
You insist that "personhood" is important to the subject, so I'm finally biting the bait
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
**excuse me, I meant "self-awareness" in my previous post, not "self-actualization".**
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
We must be on the same page on some level because I totally read it as "self-awareness" and had to re-read it per your correction to realize what you'd actually written. Crazy, huh?
kcsorci 2 years ago
I am well aware that there is no consensus among scholars, theologians, philosophers or lay people regarding persohood & that science alone cannot justify any particular belief. However, there is no disputing whether a (pregnant) woman is a person, nor is there any question whether a neonate is a person. You are being intentionally emotive in your attempts to justify your personal beliefs that the zygote (prior to a pregnancy, mind you) is afforded certain rights (which no person has, mind you)
kcsorci 2 years ago
kc, but there indeed is questions about whether or not infants (neonates) are "persons".
If legal abortion can be justified on the grounds that not everyone recognizes an unborn human's "personhood", then so too can infanticide, because not everyone recognizes infants as "persons".
Just because YOU recognize them as such, does not mean everyone does. And if abortion is legal on these same grounds, I ask you then why do you not justify infanticide for the very same reasons?
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
No, there is no questioning whether neonates are people (not in this Country anyway) anyone born or naturalized is a citizen fully due their rights. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough in my posts and I apologize for that; I've tried to convey that the rights which people have (citizenship rights) are paramount to any beliefs you or I have regarding the biological life of the zygote. I think personhood was brought up while referencing those rights & there is no debating the personhood of women.
kcsorci 2 years ago
"personhood" was brought up by you while I kept bringing up human life. You deemed it the deciding factor as to who gets to keep their right to life and who doesn't
As for there being no question re: whether neonates are people, indeed there is: by bioethicists
Your whole 'human life has to be considered a person in order to have any sort of human rights', is FOUNDED by bioethicists like John Harris, Tom L. Beauchamp, and Peter Singer.
They started the 'the unborn are not people' concept
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
Ah no... I "kept bringing up" the fact that pregnant woman are citizens due their full rights. I "kept bringing up" the fact that pregnant women are the most qualified people to be making decisions regarding their pregnancies. Further, I "kept bringing up" the fact that anyone born or naturalized in the US is due their full citizenship rights... even pregnant women... even if their pregnancies are unwanted (or doomed) Peter Singer does not decide our citizenship rights (and neither do you.)
kcsorci 2 years ago
kc, I never stated you were not bringing those points up. I was responding to your statement about "personhood".
Are you saying that your concept of "personhood" interferes with these rights you have just mentioned? If not, what is your point?
If abortion, the taking of created human life endowed with the right to life by the creator, is justifiable because some of society does not recognize that created life as a "person", why not also infants?
Why the inconsistency?
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
I guess what you can't understand is the difference between the rights of people
(ie citizens) and what you perceive to be the "rights" of zygotes. Women are due their full citizenship rights, even if their pregnancies are unwanted.
Why the inconsistency when it comes to pregnant women & pregnant women alone?
kcsorci 2 years ago
kc, again, citizenship rights are alienable. They are conferred upon people by people. They do not trump unalienable rights conferred to us by the creator upon our creation.
That is the whole concept of the Declaration of Independence.
Pregnant women have rights, I never said otherwise. But what they do not have is the extraordinary right to take away another created human beings right to life. We can grant them that civil right, but it is wrong to do so since the right to life is UNALIENABLE
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
Please do feel free to prove that our Creator bestowed any rights upon zygotes (let alone rights which no person has)... I've been waiting and I've yet to read a retort which consists of anything other than your personal beliefs. I'd be more than willing to entertain anything other than your personal opinions... could you at least try?
kcsorci 2 years ago
I have repeatedly provided you with scientific textbook quotes that state human beings are CREATED at conception
Your response is continually that the D of I does not mean human beings when it states "all men are CREATED equal", that it means "persons", yet completely admit that there is no way to know when "person" are "created".
So obviously they did not mean "persons" when they used the term "created", they meant human beings, and science proves that human zygotes are created humans
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
the reason you do not 'get it' is because you deny the scientific fact that a zygote is a created human life.
period.
you have to deny scientific fact in order to justify your reasoning
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
Zygotes aren't people. This is common knowledge...
kcsorci 2 years ago
it doesn't matter if they are people or not.
They are created humans
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
To quote Pete Singer in "Practical Ethics": "Since neither a newborn infant nor a fish is a person, the wrongness of killing such beings is not as great as the wrongness of killing a person."
Mr.Singer is one of the people that created and promoted the concept that human life must first be considered "people" in order to have a right to life. If you support his theory in regards to abortion, what say you on his theory regarding infanticide.
I recommend you look deeper into your beliefs
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
Peter Singer is just as contrary to historical and present legal president as those who wish to bestow rights upon zygotes are. I consider his points as valid as I consider yours. Although, he believes the parents of any ill neonate to trump those of the general public & you wish *your* idea's regarding zygotes to trump those of the general public. I'm pretty sure that the general public would wish to make any & all medical decisions regarding their pregnancies and/or their children.
kcsorci 2 years ago
strawman again
bestow rights upon zygotes?
huh?
Are you saying that the DofI lies? Isn't that what brought up this whole line of discussion?
Let's look at those words again, shall we?
We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are CREATED (not "developed" or "reach when the attain personhood"... CREATED) equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR (not 'bestowed upon by humans' ) with certain UNALIENABLE rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
LumpyEggNog 2 years ago
We've established that the Dec of Ind does not reference zygotes... your elementary school students are capable of recognising this fact. Most people (including those on the Supreme Court) are able to comprehend that the pregnant woman is the most qualified person to be making decisions regarding her pregnancy... why can you not accept that fact? Why do you believe that you are more qualifi