NOBODY LISTEN TO THIS GUY HE SAID HE GETS HIS MORALS FROM RELIGION SO THE ONE AND ONLY REASON HE DOESNT RAPE AND KILL IS CAUSE A PIECE OF SHIT BOOK TOLD HIM NOT TO
@nazra7 Using ur words the only morals u get are from religion. Ergo if religion didnt exist u would have no morals. Ergo the only reason u dont kill and rape is cause a book told u so. Now how is that defaming????? PS U do know that science has 100% proven that the universe came from nothing. How could god create the universe if it arose from empty space? Please rebute that! i fucing dare u! i fucking dare anyone to use logic and rebute that fact!
@nazra7 "That's where everyone gets their morals because religions are moral crusading institutions."
Then why are you not killing unruly children? Of course, because you do not get your morality from religion, you are only brainwashed into thinking you do.
pregnancy is a hard thing to go through, it's easier to say, don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant but even with contraceptives there is no guarantee, but when you deal with the emotions every day, the pain sometimes, morning sickness, and baby moving, you have to really love the baby or care to keep the pregnancy going to term to deliver, because it's a very overbearing situation sometimes...all I am saying is it's easier to look on the outside instead of actually living it.
should that mother have to live with the fact she had a child with a rapist? it's easier to say it is immoral or unethical, but until you are truly in the situation and weighing the pros and cons it's hard to judge the degree of pain, suffering, or hurt. Of course abortion hurts an innocent life that did not ask to be born, but there are situations in life beyond some of our control, and people have to live with what they choose...
In life there are 2 wrongs all the time if not more, and sometimes wrongs can make it right, for example, if a woman is pregnant with a man who raped her, and goes through all of the stress, anxiety, etc. of being pregnant by that guy, which is emotionally putting a toll on her health and well-being, and she cannot carry a baby to term because she keeps having visions, nightmares, and terrors of the rape and she thinks of suicide, and aborts, should she be punished?
@prettylyricsmarie I don't see how getting an abortion would eliminate the psychological trauma caused by being rape. Are you suggesting that's the case? I mean, I'm a guy so I would never know what its like to be pregnant, or even being pregnant with a child of a rapist. Perhaps it makes for a good study.
@nazra7 for some people if you have a child, and you were raped it might be harder to put the issue behind you if you constantly are looking at the child from the rape. other people can raise the child, whether rape or incest and be perfectly okay, because they don't blame the child for the rape, but the rapist, and see the child, as part of them. depends. you might be raped and the child looks like you, or what if it looks like the rapist. These are things to take into consideration!
@nazra7 When I called the abortion clinic they made me think it wasn't even developed that far the fetus, but in the live abortion video I saw the fetus looked like a baby. I think a fetus starts to look like a baby during the first trimester when most women abort. There are some people in life who don't want to give their child up for adoption, don't have the funds to raise the child, and think abortion is easier and quicker, it depends on how the person feels in their heart.
@nazra7 Again we live in such an immoral society, it's easy for people to convince themselves of their rights and priviledges, rather than their responsibility. I never hear anything about a fetuses rights, guess it doesn't have much because it's in the womb. It's very hypocritical, because once a baby is born, if you take it's life, it's murder, but abortion isn't. A baby develops in the womb from a fetus.
@nazra7 If every woman had an abortion there would be very few, if any babies on this planet, so how is it not murder- if every woman practiced that right to her body where would our population be? To each it's own, at the end of the day you have to live with your decisions and suffer the consequences for them.
@prettylyricsmarie Err.. not sure what greed has to do with what we were talking about, other then arguing that miscellaneous abortions is greedy. But in any case, its immoral to use murder as a means for population control.
@prettylyricsmarie greed is immoral, abortions are immoral...all of these things are signs of what is becoming of our society more and more immorality, less people with depth, and less people with soul! everything is interconnected, when you have 1 immoral act it can transfer to another and another after that...abortion is a very profittable business, for each abortion a doctor can get anywhere from 100-300 dollars if not more. so if you think about it, what is driving our society profit.
@prettylyricsmarie Wow, I just now realized you were arguing against abortion. I wonder why that eluded me at first. I thought you were arguing for abortion. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
@prettylyricsmarie So you base your whole argument on a personal experience, and because of that, you think abortions should become illegal, including life-saving operations?
Have you considered that banning abortion is only the first step that the scientifically illiterate evangelicals want? What will follow is a call to make homosexuality illegal, ban the teaching of evolution, and ban contraceptives. Do you want to live in a second South Africa?
@Nidair Did I say make it illegal, no. I said I think it's immoral, and it was an immoral decision for me based on my experience. I am not condemning someone who has had an abortion. Also, I said each person get's to decide if they want to abort or not, and they have to live with what they've done. I would have to do some research to see how living in South Africa is, I haven't been there, and don't know much about the region.
@prettylyricsmarie haha, I was trying to show that it's not the right decision for me, but others it could be. I think it's unfair that the fetus doesn't have any rights in the womb, but rights outside of the womb. I think each person gets to decide if they want to abort or not, but I tried to show both sides of why someone might feel the need to abort, while others might not want to abort.
@prettylyricsmarie Oh I see. But I don't agree because a human fetus is still a human, and killing innocent humans is murder. You should listen to what an abortion survivor has to say about the matter. A beautiful person, who would have never lived if the abortion has worked.
@nazra7 So should we make miscarriages illegal by arresting those women on the charge of manslaughter or negligent parenting? What about having to push out a dead baby? What about a baby being born into a financially unstable environment. What about a woman who doesn't want to live with a reminder of being raped for her entire life? What about a woman who's life in endangered by the pregnancy. What about the woman simply not wanting to endure that much pain? It's not our place to say. It's hers.
@strkszone "So should we make miscarriages illegal by arresting those women on the charge of manslaughter or negligent parenting?"
This is one reason why I oppose laws that makes abortion murder without making a difference between miscarriages and medical abortions. Women have miscarriages, and there's not much they can do about it in some cases. I oppose the legality of medical abortions, not miscarriages.
@nazra7 That's being hypocritical then. Miscarriages are accidental losses of childbirth. If medical abortion is to be equated with murder then obviously the accidental causing of death to another is manslaughter. You would have to draw that line of relation without being hypocritical.
@strkszone "If medical abortion is to be equated with murder then obviously the accidental causing of death to another is manslaughter."
By medical, I mean an abortion caused by medical - as in being caused by some medical procedure such as taking a pill or having a surgery, a miscarriage does not fit that category.
@nazra7 Sure, but I'm not equating a miscarriage to MURDER... read my analogy. Manslaughter does not equal murder. Therefore, according to our legal system. The accidental causing of someone's death is manslaughter. In the case of pregnancy, if medical abortion = murder; then miscarriage = manslaughter... NOT MURDER... And yes, manslaughter is a crime.
@strkszone I'm a major in justice studies and from my text book it says:
"Manslaughter is an alternative category of criminal homicide typically charged when a killing occurs under circumstances that are not sever enough to constitute murder, yet are beyond justifiable or excusable homicide." - James A. Incardi
So there are two problems with your proposition here:
1. Miscarriages are not necessarily caused by the mother and,
@nazra7 If you get in a car accident and it's your fault and you kill somebody in the car you're driving or in the car you hit, you are charged with manslaughter. Let's say a woman accidentally tripped and fell down the stairs. Her baby is dead. If the car accident was "unforeseeable", as was the woman tripping down the stairs, and it resulted in a life lost. Then they are equal in grounds if you view abortion as murder.
@strkszone Manslaughter charges only apply if the accidental killing was the result of illegal activity or negligence. Tripping down the stairs does not result from illegal activity, and can only been seen as negligence if the woman was running, jumping, or moving eradicatally down the stairs, or failing to clear it of debris when she is so inclined to do so.
Again, manslaughter is not murder, they are two different degrees of seriousness in criminal homicide.
@nazra7 The keyword being negligence. If a woman has a miscarriage out of negligence should she be charged with manslaughter? Honestly that's probably one of the stupidest charges I'd have ever heard of. So if she fell down the stairs due to carelessness SHOULD SHE BE PUT IN JAIL!? If you think so, then there is no reasoning with you because that is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. A woman should have full rights to her own body, not prohibited by government. End of story.
@strkszone "A woman should have full rights to her own body, not prohibited by government."
Antiabortion legislation does not limit a woman's right to her body, they limit her rights to some one else's body. You should look at Gianna Jessen's story about being an abortion survivor. Where were her rights when she was getting aborted?
@nazra7 Well when an alternative measure of making pregnancies completely painless comes out then you can push for moving that forwards, until then the rights of an embryo shall not outweigh that of a living breathing human. It depends on when the abortion was taking place, as an embryo you do not have the same rights as a human because simply put, you're not human and you have no ability to recognize suffering.
@strkszone The word embryo refers to the stage of a human just as the word child does. A human embryo is a developing human, but a human nonetheless, therefore it should enjoy the basic rights of all humans. That's my argument on the issue.
@nazra7 And I'm arguing that an embryo is NOT a human just like an egg is NOT a chicken. The "chicken" that is inside the egg is NOT a chicken, it's that simple. It's just a clump of cells that is growing into a chicken, but a clump of cells no less. Needless to say an embryo should not have the exact same rights as a living human being because an embryo is still unborn.
@nazra7 Yes, you're a clump of many cells however you actually have a cognitive pathway and you're not causing any harm to anyone else, or at least I hope not. You're not a parasite living off of a host body that you will one day grow out of. So the rights of the host outweigh the rights of the parasite. An embryo cannot suffer, and is not a human yet, so I would disagree with the moral issue of abortion.
@strkszone "So the rights of the host outweigh the rights of the parasite."
Well, since this parasite is still a developing human, I would argue that it should enjoy all basic human rights. But I can't say right now why my standard is more accurate than yours. I'll have to do more research.
In the mean time, there's another argument against pro-abortion. And that is its immoral to unjustly kill "a life like ours". That is, a life that will experience a life like we do.
@nazra7 That argument that claims it's injust to kill a life that has the potential to experience life like we do would fall under the same masturbation analogy of killing sperm which are potential zygotes/babies. I would argue that it is unjust to make a woman have to suffer the pains of a pregnancy if he/she does not wish to bring a child into this world. I would then back it up with the whole women's rights outweigh the rights of the parasite analogy.
@strkszone I don't see that, because sperm does not have a potential life like we do until it fertilizes an egg, and at that point, it wouldn't be sperm anymore.
Also, Don Marquis's argument is immune to the parasite analogy you gave because, even if its a parasite, it still will have a life like ours, so you will have to show how killing a life like ours unjustly is not immoral, a zygote will not have a life like ours, or that abortion before 3rd trimester is justly.
@nazra7 Again Don Marquis's argument would fall subject to the sperm because it DOES have the potential to come to life because for ever sperm that does not reach its egg you can think of a life getting lost. So for every life getting lost that has the potential to have a life like ours we'd be wasting. Therefore my sperm analogy is still valid. The parasite analogy basically sums up that one party is suffering while another is benefiting, when neither has to feel suffering.
@strkszone "it DOES have the potential to come to life because for ever sperm that does not reach its egg you can think of a life getting lost."
If the conclusion is that sperm is potential life and the premise is sperm that does not get fertilized is life lost, that's using a premise of sperm having potential life to conclude sperm having potential life which is circular...
@strkszone Now with that said, I hope you don't take that too personally. But what I'm trying to get you to do is to tell me why you are saying that such a charge is absurd.
I mean, all I want to do is discuss this, I love debating. I'm not trying to present my side as "I'm right and you must accept it". I am very interested in your side of the story too. You may think of something that I didn't. When I debate, I present my thoughts as a "peer review" type submission.
@nazra7 It is absurd because simply put, offspring are like parasites. They feed off of your nutrition until they're grown up and then you have to go through immense labor to try and get them out of you alive. If a woman decides to not want to go through with it, she shouldn't have to and that is the underlining reason why outlawing abortion is absurd. Just read a story about children who go through adoption, and see how much better of an alternative that is.
@nazra7 The child would remind her more of those memories. We link memories with objects in our life. Hence why we have "sentimental value" This almost reminds me of the forcing the woman to marry her rapist. If a woman does not wish to bear the child of her rapist she should NOT have to. It's absurd. The choice of the living should completely be priority over the choice of a being that cannot give consent and is capable of causing pain to its host. Immense pain for that matter.
@strkszone "The child would remind her more of those memories. We link memories with objects in our life."
Well, let's take this proposal and formulate a counter example to show why this is an unsound argument:
Suppose you and I are inmates by force, and no intervention is allowed to separate us, and one day you decide to beat the crap out of me, is it OK then for me to kill you because the sight of you will remind me of my terrible beating?
@nazra7 I'm an actual live person with cognitive recognition. If I decided to beat you there are alternative ways to prevent this, such as isolated imprisonment. Since there are alternative measures that can be taken to prevent suffering, that measure should be taken. If there was a way to get the baby out of the woman without causing her to suffer, then I'd be all for that. Since there isn't abortion being available until such a way is developed has my support.
@nazra7 If no alternative is available for you, then you have permissible reason to defend yourself. Killing me would probably be self defense if I was not compliant. This is a bit circumstantial, it depends on how hard I was hitting and how severe you were suffering. However, this is irrelevant, since we are discussing a scenario in which it is easily avoided through alternatives.
@strkszone "Killing me would probably be self defense if I was not compliant."
Self defense only applies during the fact, not after the fact. We could go on and on about analogies all day. But one inescapable fact remains, abortion kills human beings, thus is immoral. Whether or not it should be deemed murder depends on the situation.
@nazra7 You attribute morality to your religion. "abortion kills human beings, thus is immoral" if that were the case then self-defense would be immoral to you. The majority of abortions happen within the first 2 months of pregnancy. The fact that people masturbate they're killing 1000s of potential children. Does that mean we should outlaw masturbation? The rights of a clump of cells do not get to outweigh the rights of a live and breathing person.
@strkszone Eh.. yeah that was clumsily said, sorry. What I meant was abortion is killing an innocent human being - one that has done nothing to deserve being killed and killing generally is done in an unjustified manner - that is what's immoral.
"The fact that people masturbate they're killing 1000s of potential children. "
Not really, because those sperm cells won't become children on their own where as an embryo would.
@nazra7 Key word was potential. Also, what about natural miscarriages that happen during the pregnancy? Surely if God really cared about things like abortion he wouldn't be allowing natural abortions occur daily? My masturbation comparison to abortion was to draw the line between a clump of cells with no cognitive ability to even recognize pain/suffering having more rights than a living breathing human who does. A woman should not have to be forced into a pregnancy it's ridiculous.
@strkszone Sperm cells are not potential children until they fertilize an egg, and at that point it would be a zygote, not a sperm cell.
A woman would not be charged with murder or manslaughter if the child dies due to natural causes unless she had an active role in it.
I'm not so sure God cares about whether or not abortions happen, but he probably does care about people not realizing that its wrong and should not be done.
@nazra7 Potential children meaning having the potential to make children. Just as you say, energy is omnipotent because it has "power over all things" really being the potential of having power over all things. I'm comparing abortion through natural causes as God's abortion, not having to do with anything of the legal system, rather criticizing God for aborting a child if he's so against it. If he's naturally aborting babies then he's not setting a very good example now is he?
@nazra7 Natural miscarriages occurs. Your God has the power to prevent them. He is in charge of the universe. If he does not wish to prevent them with his omnipotence, why not? He is either sitting their and letting it happen for whatever reason, or actually causing it to happen. Therefore God can be said to be the one responsible for natural miscarriages which are in a sense abortions done by God himself since he's letting it happen and put it here in the first place.
@strkszone Well, for one to be responsible for something, one needs to be credited for that thing to be happening. If I had the power to prevent a murder, but did not do so, do I really deserve credit for the murder? Of course not. So I don't see why people say that because God permits it, therefore he's responsible.
What this really looks like (I'm not accusing you of this) is an attempt to shift blame.
@nazra7 If you had to power to prevent it from happening, yes you would be a bystander. A bystander in my book is just the same as the guy driving the getaway vehicle. You would be just as immoral as the person doing the murder, just as the person who orders a hitman to kill someone for him is just as responsible for the murder. God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the universe, so yes, he is. The blame is rightly placed, he put in plagues, why not miscarriages?
@strkszone "God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the universe"
Hmmm.. well you seem to think that responsibility includes being a bystander which is not how the word is actually defined. But still, I think its an over generalization to say bystanders are as bad as the perpetuates because there's plenty of justifications for why some one may decide not to intervene, such as fearing for their own lives, or not understanding what was going on.
@nazra7 Lol, fearing for your own life means you do not have the power or capability of actually preventing it. After all, if you had the power to prevent a murder from happening it means you can actually get it done. Just as I'm sure God doesn't fear for his life when a natural miscarriage is about to ensue. If God is omniscient I'm pretty sure he understands exactly what is going on since natural miscarriages are a thing that he can observe and should know.
@strkszone "And I'm arguing that an embryo is NOT a human just like an egg is NOT a chicken."
An egg is not a chicken yes, but the embryo inside the egg is. At least, that's what I would argue. But you seem be equivocating the word embryo, because it seems like you're trying to use it in a medical sense when you're using it in an biological sense.
But aside from that, what standard are you using to say something is human? Sentience?
@nazra7 A human is whenever all the DNA forms in the fetus to which its cells are working and functioning. Usually this takes place in the 3rd trimester of a pregnancy far enough along to where I would agree that it would be immoral killing the baby since they had months to plan an abortion instead and should face the consequences of not doing so earlier. That is by the critieria that I believe a human to be, whenever it has a nervous system.
@strkszone Well, that's definitely a unique standard for deciding what a human is or is not. In fact, I have no rebuttal to that at this time, I'll have to do more research on the topic. So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree... for now.
@nazra7 Obviously the child is just a group of cells during the point where most abortions take place. I am only against 3rd trimester abortions. Since a woman who is already commited to going through with the pregnancy should stick to her commitment. However, I am still pro choice when it comes to 1st and 2nd trimester abortions, since cognitive ability isn't recognized during those times.
@strkszone "However, I am still pro choice when it comes to 1st and 2nd trimester abortions, since cognitive ability isn't recognized during those times."
Cognitive or not, its still a person being killed in such a manner that is indistinguishable from pulling the plug on a person who is in a comma, but has a very high chance of recovery.
@nazra7 That person who is in a comma and has a very high chance of recovery isn't going to cause a host body any suffering is it? It's not like that person in a coma is somehow causing pain and anguish physically to a body that's carrying it. So as I've said before "being that cannot give consent and is capable of causing pain to its host. "
@nazra7 well we live in an unethical and immoral society, which gets worse as time progresses. of course abortion is morally wrong, but how can you convince someone to be moral when our society throws theories which are not moral, just, ethical, or fair. interesting you mention all this, because I am 15 weeks pregnant, and I considered abortion, adoption, and keeping it. I was convinced by society, friends, and family, I would not be able to support my child, and I'm 25, with a B.A in sociology
@nazra7 given the way our society is going, in my mind I thought this isn't the society I would want my child to be raised in, but then I saw a live abortion, and it changed my mind on ever having an abortion, I saw the fetus, ripped out piece, by piece, from the legs, body, and then the head taken off. It was one of the sickest and most disturbing things I've ever seen, and perhaps that kind of awareness, might convince others not to abort.
What happens when the child finds out the father is a rapist, how will that child feel, knowing half of it is of a man who is evil and sick, and without a father in his or her life...
Not to mention that at the time a woman gets pregnant by a sperm cell, about a million other cells, each containing human DNA, will die off. So if you are against abortion because it would end the existence of something containing human DNA, you should never have sex.
how can you say that you are going to not take the typical pro-life or pro-choice take on it then immediately give the pro-life argument with no evidence how you jumped from equating word to word.
if a fetus is a child why don't we count it on the census?
if a fetus is a child how come there isn't a funeral if there's a miscarriage?
if a fetus is a child why do people say we have 2 children and 1 on the way? why not just say we have 3 children?
"Morality" is a social construct. The things we say are moral and immoral can change. For example one person says murder one say mercy killing. But the definition of morality isnt the debate, I just enjoy talking about it. Anyways, the religious will say it is immoral because it is against gods commands. For me it would be immoral to tell a woman what she can and cannot do to her child. I wouldnt want people dictating rules for my children (I dont have any, just for argument).
@CurryCobra The way I see it is, everyone knows that killing an "innocent" person is wrong. No question about it. The only question is who is "innocent"? That leads me to conclude that morality is independent of us, we just don't fully understand it yet.
@CurryCobra "Anyways, the religious will say it is immoral because it is against gods commands."
From what I understand, the argument made by Christians is actually that abortion is wrong because its killing a young human being. This is known as the "person hood debate".
@CurryCobra A child isn`t their parents property parents don`t have the right to do whatever they want with their children cause their children have rights also.
I'm trying not to spam, but the more I watch of this, the more you come-off as a sick fuck. 2 wrongs making a right? Selfishness? You cant be serious, how can you call a rape victim selfish, how can accuse them of being in the wrong for wanting to avoid full-blown birth (which can be a fairly dangerous thing, with a risk of death). What if it were a 14 year old girl? Oh, never mind, I forgot that you condoned rape, my bad...
@xMTBxBOYx27x "how can you call a rape victim selfish, how can accuse them of being in the wrong for wanting to avoid full-blown birth"
Somehow, playing on the heart strings of a tragic event eliminates the tragedy of another event? Nah, that's an appeal to emotion. In fact, if you want to argue this then you might as well argue that its ok to kill another person's child because they killed yours.
@nazra7 you couldn't possibly equate this as being "an-eye-for-an-eye." I am astounded that you actually feel an impregnated rape victim should be held-accountable for bearing and bringing-up the child; it honestly shows how little sympathy you can have for a human being that actually has feelings, and the capacity to understand what has happened. Whereas a fetus does not, and seeing as the abortion can occur at relatively early stages of pregnancy, the fetus has no mental capacity.
@xMTBxBOYx27x Adoption is far more ethical than abortion. A fetus does have a mental capacity (after 8 weeks an embryo develops into a fetus and its brain starts developing).
Even if the abortion was to terminate an embryo, its diabolical to suggest that its ok to terminate something with no mental capacity when terminating it will prevent it from having a mental capacity. That's a scapegoat.
Morality is logical, and logic has to be consistent.
@nazra7 But logic is sparse when someone shows no empathy for a rape victim. You have to remember, its not the woman's fault here, she was unknowingly, unwillingly, and maliciously impregnated, and therefore, for this special case, it is completely left to choice. You said you would look at this topic at a different "angle," but as-of now, your beliefs are entirely that of a Pro-Life stance. In the case of rape, it is almost sickening to hold the victim accountable for the child.
@xMTBxBOYx27x Empathy for a rape victim does not require letting her choose whether or not the child should live. And where's the empathy for the child?
I have complete empathy for rape victims, however, if this is a special case to give the woman a choice to kill, then you should say one person who kills another's child has the choice to kill the child of their child's killer. Otherwise, its special pleading.
@nazra7 well this will never be settled, because at my stance I am pro-choice, and you are obviously pro-life, so this is pretty much a never ending debate, I just feel, in the case or rape, the woman should tend to her needs and not have to worry about the "child." Basically, I don't look at a fetus as a human-being in the same sense you do, so there is no point in continuing this.
@nazra7 We live in a society constructed on profit and greed, which isn't based on morality or common sense, so since that's the case, what can you really expect a society of people destroying themselves, while not even knowing it, and when they realize it, it's too late.
@nazra7 If you look at it as a means of evolution, perhaps its easier to digest, but it's very disheartening, not just for me seeing it, and my child growing up in it, but for other generations to come. The debt our government has ranked up can't be paid back, so many wars unsolved overseas, and jobs disappearing and economy recovery a fallacy.
ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE!? YOU THINK A RAPE VICTIM IS SELFISH!? YOU MAKE YOURSELF SOUND LIKE A DANGEROUS PERSON, AS IF CONDONING SEXUAL VIOLENCE, YOU REALLY NEED TO REASSESS YOUR OWN MORALS AND BELIEFS, BECAUSE THEY ARE SO BACKWARDS ITS UNHEARD OF.
It should be pro choice, the bearer of the child can determine if they believe the fetus is a person or not, not having to subject themselves to the birth of this child, or having to put said child through unreasonable living conditions due to unpreparedness by the parent's. Also, deserving death or not has nothing to do with murder (in modern times), so being innocent or not is out of the question. Lastly, laws and moral conventions go hand-in-hand, so shut the fuck up, your socially awkward.
@xMTBxBOYx27x The bearer of the child can determine whether the fetus is a person or not?? But it is a person so do we give one person the right to strip another of their human rights??? Also whether someone has the right to live is relevant, you can`t kill someone out of convinience.
@reviewreviewer1 Everybody seems to be missing the bigger picture here, and I do find all your arguments valid, but when arguing against an impregnated rape victim, it just makes you seem like scum
dude, you are fucking clueless. you want mothers to carry out her fetus to term after she was raped? to raise a child she wasn't even prepared for or didn't plan to raise? and to always live with the fact that that child's father was someone who raped her instead of someone who lovingly planned to raise that child? are you out of your mind? you have no proof that a fetus is a person. i see no good moral argument against terminating that thing before it ever felt anything or knew the difference.
"We define a person to be a human" I just gotta stop you there. Because you're getting into a qhole problem of equivocation just outright, especially when what defines somethign as being a 'human' is extreemly vague, and INCLUDES things like sentience and being bipedal.
I mean you try and get over the complicated part of defining what a human is by saying, "It's us." but that doesn't define what a human is at all.
@BigLundi The problem with the 'sentience defense' is it assumes that personhood automatically entails sentience, when there are plenty of humans that, in some point in their lives, loose their sentience, such as people who fall into comas, yet it wouldn't it be absurd to say people who are in comas are no longer persons?
As for me saying we know what we ought not do, I was speaking on the behalf of Christians.
@nazra7 Nooo, YOU'RE the one assuming personhood includes sentience, because you've defined a person to be a human, and humans are humans because of their sentience.and higher inteligence. And by the by, sentience is but one of MANY requirements in order to be considered human in a phylogenal scientific sense. And 'losing' one's sentience at some point in their lives inplies they HAD sentience already.
You know what...I'll be going over this in the video as soon as I work on the script.
@BigLundi I don't mean to drag on the convo since I know you're working on a response. But the being of "human" I am using here is simply a taxonomical statement.That is to say, those that are human belong to the homosapien species. You seem to be using a more philosophical sense of the word human.
@nazra7 Well, no offense Nazra, but I am using the scientific phloygenetic sense of the word, you are not. Unless you think, "Us." is the scientific definition of the word. Also, we aren't homosapiens. We're homo sapien sapiens. Plus, YOU are the one, in your own video, saying, "I'm going to approach this in a more philosophical way." So please, even if you PERCIEVE I'm using philosophical terms, this is what you wanted.
@BigLundi To approach something from a philosophical position doesn't imply using only philosophical terms.
When you said "and humans are humans because of their sentience", that seemed to imply the use of the word human as in 'humane' because they have human like feelings. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted. In any case, humans are not sentient before they become sentient, and humans are capable of loosing sentience. That proves sentience is not a necessary condition for being human biologically.
@reviewreviewer1 Human DNA, ok, so all descendents of humans, including any speciation version of a human, is a human. And a chromosome is equivalent to a human. IF that's so, every time you wash your hands, you're committing mass murder.
@reviewreviewer1 Your DNA is heavily mutated compared to the DNA of your ancestor who lived in the 1st century. Are you saying that one of you is not human?
Or are you going to do the wise thing and say that having human DNA is not a valid way to distinguish a human from a micro-organism?
@Nidair Well my DNA is not mutated enough if it was I wouldn`t be so similar, if you want to use other standards we get into dangerous territorry, what distinguishes developped humans from animals is there intelegence which babies lack, there conciousness which animals??
@reviewreviewer1 You are missing the point. We do not decide what is a human and what is not a human by its DNA alone, because sperm cells, sweat, and even all the micro-organisms on your fingertips are full of DNA identical to that of a human being. Are all of those things humans? No, none of them are, and neither is a zygote.
@Nidair You ignored my question as to what would be the standard but I said lifeforms with human genetics, cells aren`t lifeforms, a zygote is, and sperms have half the chromosomes.
@reviewreviewer1 Looks like someone did not pay attention to blood structures in biology class. Cells are lifeforms, dear.
As for your question about what is the standard for a human being, I can be simple: there is none. However, we empathize with things we can identify as human beings. And that starts when a fetus looks humanlike and is sentient.
Yes, our innate empathy works completely different than christian objective morality. I would say it works far better.
@Nidair They are not organisms they are not selfsustaining or independently programmed, a fetus has it`s own programming and a body which keeps it alive.
Oke so a fetus is what we decide is like the majorty of humans, great so those qithout legs, deformed, or well even women differ greatly from men, are not human. Actually if there is a lifeform created by a human mother and father we know it is human and again if it ain`t human it will never become human cause lifeforms can`t evolve from..
@reviewreviewer1 So basically your whole opinion of abortion is based on ignorance.
You have no idea how evolution works, you are unaware of the millions of micro-organisms in your body, most of which share your DNA, and you have no idea of the dangers of banning abortion, which range from illegal and unsafe alternatives being used to the deaths of thousands of pregnant women with fertilization complications.
@Nidair That cell point is rediculous, those cells aren`tseperate organisms, a zygo embryo and fetus is. Also by your comparing logic we can legalise infancide because babies are very similar to animals interms of intelegence selfawareness and behaviour, they are similar to apes and we don`t give those human rights.
Al;so if people get dangerous alternatives and die, it is their own fault and I couldn`t care less, if you try to kill someone you deserve to die.
@reviewreviewer1 You think a baby is as intelligent as a giraffe? Or as a dolphin? Are you aware of the fact intelligence varies enormously between animals, even among animals closely related like eagle owls and grey owls. Among the entire animal kingdom, though, it is rare to find an animal with the learning capacity and mental strength as a human baby.
Again, why should anyone take your opinion seriously if your view is based on ignorance?
@Nidair Learning capacity, the same way a zygote has imense growth capacity, but for the time being a baby is as selfaware, emotionally complex and as intelegent as a cow.
So it isn`t ignorance babies are as instinctive and basic as animals, they have the capacity to grow the same way zygotes have the capacity to this capacity.
@nazra7 Did she experience an abortionj and remember it as a zygote? Because if not, I don't care. I'm already against late term abortions because third trimester fetuses can be shown to feel pain, as they have a complex nervous system formed at that point.
@BigLundi No DNA which has a certaion form of patern, at it`s corse and can have minor differences but not major ones, also if human is something else you are saying we base specieses on abritarry standards but more that a lifeform can start of nonhuman, which would raise the question as to what it is and can then evolve into another species, uh no lifeforms never change species also what are you saying is human, selfawareness which fetuses lack or concious which animals have???????
@BigLundi Yes, humans become sentient after our brains develop to a certain stage (which implies that humans do not have sentience before they do), however, if one looses sentience, or if one is being inhuman, that doesn't mean they loose their personhood.
@BigLundi In conclusion, to say being a person requires sentience because persons are sentient is simply the fallacy of composition. Humans also have eyes, however, not everything that has eyes is human.
@nintendo768 "she don't want the child to suffer the life of being a rape baby?"
That's the problem, the defense is assuming the baby will suffer, when its possible, if not likely, it won't. Besides, if you wanted to argue that then you might as well argue that we should start killing everyone people because everyone will suffer eventually.
"because you don't know if they will live through it until it actually happens."
Doctors can make fairly accurate predictions about those things.
@nazra7 I guess you got the one about the suffering.
Well they may be fairly accurate, but only way to know if the mother will survive is to deliver. If there was a 100% probability that the mother and the child would die, then it is ok to abort. If it is just the mother and not the child, then that is selfishness.
@nazra7 well if the choice was her or baby and she chooses her that is selfishness.
Though I won't use this reason to justify abortion, but what if the mother does not want anyone to be alive that was not born the right way? Yes this does mean killing all bastards regardless of age.
@Nidair That is how it is defined in the Princeton dictionary. Besides, a fetus develops into a child, thus a fetus is a developing child, but a child non-the-less.
@nazra7 'child' implies a sentient being. A fetus (well, a abortable fetus, that is) is not sentient, and thus not a child yet. It cannot think any more than the blood cells in your body do. In fact, those blood cells are far more active.
Also, are you really in favor or creating more poverty by forcing people to make more babies they cannot take care of? Are you unaware that poverty is already 1 of America's worst problems?
@Nidair The word child alone does not imply sentience since many children of things do not have feelings such as young muscles for example. This is the pro-choice's argument which is too narrow.
If people don't want babies then they shouldn't be having sex, or at least make sure proper birth control is in place before they do. Plus more people is not what makes poverty. In America alone, we produce more than enough food to feed the world each day, it just gets wasted.
@nazra7 Muscles have feelings? What are you talking about? You are not making sense. But whatever, muscles are formed around the same time as the brain, so this is irrelevant anyway.
Birth control - now that is a good one. Unless you follow the christian doctrine, in which anticonceptives are forbidden because apparently 1000001 sperm cells dying is not forgivable, but 1000000 dying is.
Yea, that is the 'logic' your faith demands you to have.
Muscles as in the muscles found in shells, similar to clams. They're incapable of feelings, but that doesn't mean a "child" muscle is not a young muscle. Thus sentience is not a necessary condition for a child.
"Unless you follow the christian doctrine, in which anticonceptives are forbidden"
That is true, however it is a lesser evil than getting an abortion and is a far more ethical choice for people who cannot control their sexual cravings.
@Nidair "because apparently 1000001 sperm cells dying is not forgivable, but 1000000 dying is. Yea, that is the 'logic' your faith demands you to have."
Nah, that just shows you do not understand the principles and teachings of Christianity. But that's another debate to be had.
@nazra7 if people dont want car accidents, they shouldnt drive. or at least they should drive at 10 mph. more than enough food? in america, poverty is not based on how much food you have. poverty is a relative term. this isnt ethiopia. innocence has no bearing on whether something shouldnt be killed--animals are innocent. irrelevant.
@payasoinfeliz "if people dont want car accidents, they shouldnt drive"
Similarly, if people don't want babies they really shouldn't be having sex. If you're going to have sex you should accept the consequences just as if you're going to drive you have to accept the consequences.
"innocence has no bearing on whether something shouldnt be killed--animals are innocent."
It does when it comes to people because people have the right to exist, animals don't legally, but I think they do morally.
@nazra7 "if people don't want babies they really shouldn't be having sex"
Oh come on. I thought you were above that. Are you really with the pro-AIDS crowd?
"sentience is not a necessary condition for a child"
At this point, I am curious about how you think a child is formed from the moment of conception to a fetus with a fully developed brain. Because I think your view of it - like that of most pro-lifers - is not exactly compatible with what is observed.
@Nidair Pro-aids? What does chastity have to do with being pro-aids?
I'm no biologist so I don't know the stages of zygote development however I assume it is a accumulative process similar to a plant growing from a seed. My argument is simply:
A fetus is an offspring.
An offspring is a child. < You probably object to this premise.
Abortions kills fetuses.
Therefore, Abortions kills children.
Mentioning the development of the fetus or zygote doesn't really have anything to do with my argument.
@nazra7 Actually, after a few weeks, it has only grown to a multicellular organism. After the 5th week, the organism resembles a human baby. This is the point where abortion is debatable. The heart beats, the body is formed, so I can imagine people having objections to abortion at that point. After 7 weeks, abortion takes some risk for the mother. Most abortion clinics refuse at this point.
So, any objection to abortion within 5 weeks is really ungrounded because you cannot speak of a child.
@nazra7 Abstinence-only sex-ed does not work. Contraceptives are forbidden in central Africa, and look at the HIV rates there. Teen pregnancy rates are very high in the most fundamentalist-heavy states in the USA. People are going to have sex despite being told not to, and without giving any knowledge of contraceptives, you essentially give STD's an open door.
Stop this pro-life campaign based on ignorance. By making abortion illegal, people are forced to get illegal and unsafe treatment.
@Nidair From the moment the zygote is fertilized, the fetus is developing into a child, thus even within the first 5 weeks are are speaking of a developing child. Yes, I would prefer people to have their abortions before the 5th week, however it is the best choice not to have an abortion at all unless the mother or the child will die. In the same instance, I would prefer people to use contraceptives if they do not want a child but it would be far better, if they could, to not have sex at all.
NOBODY LISTEN TO THIS GUY HE SAID HE GETS HIS MORALS FROM RELIGION SO THE ONE AND ONLY REASON HE DOESNT RAPE AND KILL IS CAUSE A PIECE OF SHIT BOOK TOLD HIM NOT TO
AnonymousTheMusician 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@AnonymousTheMusician Eheh, now you're attempting to defame me? You know that's illegal right?
nazra7 1 week ago
@nazra7 Using ur words the only morals u get are from religion. Ergo if religion didnt exist u would have no morals. Ergo the only reason u dont kill and rape is cause a book told u so. Now how is that defaming????? PS U do know that science has 100% proven that the universe came from nothing. How could god create the universe if it arose from empty space? Please rebute that! i fucing dare u! i fucking dare anyone to use logic and rebute that fact!
AnonymousTheMusician 1 week ago
@AnonymousTheMusician That's where everyone gets their morals because religions are moral crusading institutions.
nazra7 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 "That's where everyone gets their morals because religions are moral crusading institutions."
Then why are you not killing unruly children? Of course, because you do not get your morality from religion, you are only brainwashed into thinking you do.
Nidair 1 week ago
@AnonymousTheMusician "PS U do know that science has 100% proven that the universe came from nothing."
No, I did not know that, please give citations.
"How could god create the universe if it arose from empty space?"
If nature could do it, I'm sure an all-powerful God could too. Plus the idea of creation ex-nihilo was originally a theological idea.
nazra7 1 week ago
pregnancy is a hard thing to go through, it's easier to say, don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant but even with contraceptives there is no guarantee, but when you deal with the emotions every day, the pain sometimes, morning sickness, and baby moving, you have to really love the baby or care to keep the pregnancy going to term to deliver, because it's a very overbearing situation sometimes...all I am saying is it's easier to look on the outside instead of actually living it.
prettylyricsmarie 1 month ago
should that mother have to live with the fact she had a child with a rapist? it's easier to say it is immoral or unethical, but until you are truly in the situation and weighing the pros and cons it's hard to judge the degree of pain, suffering, or hurt. Of course abortion hurts an innocent life that did not ask to be born, but there are situations in life beyond some of our control, and people have to live with what they choose...
prettylyricsmarie 1 month ago
In life there are 2 wrongs all the time if not more, and sometimes wrongs can make it right, for example, if a woman is pregnant with a man who raped her, and goes through all of the stress, anxiety, etc. of being pregnant by that guy, which is emotionally putting a toll on her health and well-being, and she cannot carry a baby to term because she keeps having visions, nightmares, and terrors of the rape and she thinks of suicide, and aborts, should she be punished?
prettylyricsmarie 1 month ago
@prettylyricsmarie I don't see how getting an abortion would eliminate the psychological trauma caused by being rape. Are you suggesting that's the case? I mean, I'm a guy so I would never know what its like to be pregnant, or even being pregnant with a child of a rapist. Perhaps it makes for a good study.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 for some people if you have a child, and you were raped it might be harder to put the issue behind you if you constantly are looking at the child from the rape. other people can raise the child, whether rape or incest and be perfectly okay, because they don't blame the child for the rape, but the rapist, and see the child, as part of them. depends. you might be raped and the child looks like you, or what if it looks like the rapist. These are things to take into consideration!
prettylyricsmarie 1 month ago
@prettylyricsmarie "t might be harder to put the issue behind you if you constantly are looking at the child from the rape."
Then wouldn't you say it would be the ethical thing to give the child up for adoption instead of killing it?
nazra7 4 weeks ago
@nazra7 When I called the abortion clinic they made me think it wasn't even developed that far the fetus, but in the live abortion video I saw the fetus looked like a baby. I think a fetus starts to look like a baby during the first trimester when most women abort. There are some people in life who don't want to give their child up for adoption, don't have the funds to raise the child, and think abortion is easier and quicker, it depends on how the person feels in their heart.
prettylyricsmarie 4 weeks ago
@nazra7 Again we live in such an immoral society, it's easy for people to convince themselves of their rights and priviledges, rather than their responsibility. I never hear anything about a fetuses rights, guess it doesn't have much because it's in the womb. It's very hypocritical, because once a baby is born, if you take it's life, it's murder, but abortion isn't. A baby develops in the womb from a fetus.
prettylyricsmarie 4 weeks ago
@nazra7 If every woman had an abortion there would be very few, if any babies on this planet, so how is it not murder- if every woman practiced that right to her body where would our population be? To each it's own, at the end of the day you have to live with your decisions and suffer the consequences for them.
prettylyricsmarie 4 weeks ago
@prettylyricsmarie Err.. not sure what greed has to do with what we were talking about, other then arguing that miscellaneous abortions is greedy. But in any case, its immoral to use murder as a means for population control.
nazra7 3 weeks ago
@prettylyricsmarie greed is immoral, abortions are immoral...all of these things are signs of what is becoming of our society more and more immorality, less people with depth, and less people with soul! everything is interconnected, when you have 1 immoral act it can transfer to another and another after that...abortion is a very profittable business, for each abortion a doctor can get anywhere from 100-300 dollars if not more. so if you think about it, what is driving our society profit.
prettylyricsmarie 3 weeks ago
@prettylyricsmarie Wow, I just now realized you were arguing against abortion. I wonder why that eluded me at first. I thought you were arguing for abortion. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
nazra7 3 weeks ago
@prettylyricsmarie So you base your whole argument on a personal experience, and because of that, you think abortions should become illegal, including life-saving operations?
Have you considered that banning abortion is only the first step that the scientifically illiterate evangelicals want? What will follow is a call to make homosexuality illegal, ban the teaching of evolution, and ban contraceptives. Do you want to live in a second South Africa?
Nidair 3 weeks ago
@Nidair Did I say make it illegal, no. I said I think it's immoral, and it was an immoral decision for me based on my experience. I am not condemning someone who has had an abortion. Also, I said each person get's to decide if they want to abort or not, and they have to live with what they've done. I would have to do some research to see how living in South Africa is, I haven't been there, and don't know much about the region.
prettylyricsmarie 3 weeks ago
@prettylyricsmarie haha, I was trying to show that it's not the right decision for me, but others it could be. I think it's unfair that the fetus doesn't have any rights in the womb, but rights outside of the womb. I think each person gets to decide if they want to abort or not, but I tried to show both sides of why someone might feel the need to abort, while others might not want to abort.
prettylyricsmarie 3 weeks ago
@prettylyricsmarie Oh I see. But I don't agree because a human fetus is still a human, and killing innocent humans is murder. You should listen to what an abortion survivor has to say about the matter. A beautiful person, who would have never lived if the abortion has worked.
Everyone has the right to life.
nazra7 3 weeks ago
@nazra7 So should we make miscarriages illegal by arresting those women on the charge of manslaughter or negligent parenting? What about having to push out a dead baby? What about a baby being born into a financially unstable environment. What about a woman who doesn't want to live with a reminder of being raped for her entire life? What about a woman who's life in endangered by the pregnancy. What about the woman simply not wanting to endure that much pain? It's not our place to say. It's hers.
strkszone 3 weeks ago
@strkszone "So should we make miscarriages illegal by arresting those women on the charge of manslaughter or negligent parenting?"
This is one reason why I oppose laws that makes abortion murder without making a difference between miscarriages and medical abortions. Women have miscarriages, and there's not much they can do about it in some cases. I oppose the legality of medical abortions, not miscarriages.
nazra7 3 weeks ago
@nazra7 That's being hypocritical then. Miscarriages are accidental losses of childbirth. If medical abortion is to be equated with murder then obviously the accidental causing of death to another is manslaughter. You would have to draw that line of relation without being hypocritical.
strkszone 3 weeks ago
@strkszone "If medical abortion is to be equated with murder then obviously the accidental causing of death to another is manslaughter."
By medical, I mean an abortion caused by medical - as in being caused by some medical procedure such as taking a pill or having a surgery, a miscarriage does not fit that category.
nazra7 3 weeks ago
@nazra7 Sure, but I'm not equating a miscarriage to MURDER... read my analogy. Manslaughter does not equal murder. Therefore, according to our legal system. The accidental causing of someone's death is manslaughter. In the case of pregnancy, if medical abortion = murder; then miscarriage = manslaughter... NOT MURDER... And yes, manslaughter is a crime.
strkszone 3 weeks ago
@strkszone I'm a major in justice studies and from my text book it says:
"Manslaughter is an alternative category of criminal homicide typically charged when a killing occurs under circumstances that are not sever enough to constitute murder, yet are beyond justifiable or excusable homicide." - James A. Incardi
So there are two problems with your proposition here:
1. Miscarriages are not necessarily caused by the mother and,
2. An unforeseeable miscarriage is excusable.
nazra7 3 weeks ago
@nazra7 If you get in a car accident and it's your fault and you kill somebody in the car you're driving or in the car you hit, you are charged with manslaughter. Let's say a woman accidentally tripped and fell down the stairs. Her baby is dead. If the car accident was "unforeseeable", as was the woman tripping down the stairs, and it resulted in a life lost. Then they are equal in grounds if you view abortion as murder.
strkszone 3 weeks ago
@strkszone Manslaughter charges only apply if the accidental killing was the result of illegal activity or negligence. Tripping down the stairs does not result from illegal activity, and can only been seen as negligence if the woman was running, jumping, or moving eradicatally down the stairs, or failing to clear it of debris when she is so inclined to do so.
Again, manslaughter is not murder, they are two different degrees of seriousness in criminal homicide.
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@nazra7 The keyword being negligence. If a woman has a miscarriage out of negligence should she be charged with manslaughter? Honestly that's probably one of the stupidest charges I'd have ever heard of. So if she fell down the stairs due to carelessness SHOULD SHE BE PUT IN JAIL!? If you think so, then there is no reasoning with you because that is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. A woman should have full rights to her own body, not prohibited by government. End of story.
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@strkszone "A woman should have full rights to her own body, not prohibited by government."
Antiabortion legislation does not limit a woman's right to her body, they limit her rights to some one else's body. You should look at Gianna Jessen's story about being an abortion survivor. Where were her rights when she was getting aborted?
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@nazra7 Well when an alternative measure of making pregnancies completely painless comes out then you can push for moving that forwards, until then the rights of an embryo shall not outweigh that of a living breathing human. It depends on when the abortion was taking place, as an embryo you do not have the same rights as a human because simply put, you're not human and you have no ability to recognize suffering.
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@strkszone The word embryo refers to the stage of a human just as the word child does. A human embryo is a developing human, but a human nonetheless, therefore it should enjoy the basic rights of all humans. That's my argument on the issue.
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@nazra7 And I'm arguing that an embryo is NOT a human just like an egg is NOT a chicken. The "chicken" that is inside the egg is NOT a chicken, it's that simple. It's just a clump of cells that is growing into a chicken, but a clump of cells no less. Needless to say an embryo should not have the exact same rights as a living human being because an embryo is still unborn.
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@strkszone "It's just a clump of cells that is growing into a chicken, but a clump of cells no less."
Hey, I'm a clump of cells too, every organ of mine is just one big clump of cells, am I not a person?
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@nazra7 Yes, you're a clump of many cells however you actually have a cognitive pathway and you're not causing any harm to anyone else, or at least I hope not. You're not a parasite living off of a host body that you will one day grow out of. So the rights of the host outweigh the rights of the parasite. An embryo cannot suffer, and is not a human yet, so I would disagree with the moral issue of abortion.
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@strkszone "So the rights of the host outweigh the rights of the parasite."
Well, since this parasite is still a developing human, I would argue that it should enjoy all basic human rights. But I can't say right now why my standard is more accurate than yours. I'll have to do more research.
In the mean time, there's another argument against pro-abortion. And that is its immoral to unjustly kill "a life like ours". That is, a life that will experience a life like we do.
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@nazra7 That argument that claims it's injust to kill a life that has the potential to experience life like we do would fall under the same masturbation analogy of killing sperm which are potential zygotes/babies. I would argue that it is unjust to make a woman have to suffer the pains of a pregnancy if he/she does not wish to bring a child into this world. I would then back it up with the whole women's rights outweigh the rights of the parasite analogy.
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@strkszone I don't see that, because sperm does not have a potential life like we do until it fertilizes an egg, and at that point, it wouldn't be sperm anymore.
Also, Don Marquis's argument is immune to the parasite analogy you gave because, even if its a parasite, it still will have a life like ours, so you will have to show how killing a life like ours unjustly is not immoral, a zygote will not have a life like ours, or that abortion before 3rd trimester is justly.
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@nazra7 Again Don Marquis's argument would fall subject to the sperm because it DOES have the potential to come to life because for ever sperm that does not reach its egg you can think of a life getting lost. So for every life getting lost that has the potential to have a life like ours we'd be wasting. Therefore my sperm analogy is still valid. The parasite analogy basically sums up that one party is suffering while another is benefiting, when neither has to feel suffering.
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@strkszone "it DOES have the potential to come to life because for ever sperm that does not reach its egg you can think of a life getting lost."
If the conclusion is that sperm is potential life and the premise is sperm that does not get fertilized is life lost, that's using a premise of sperm having potential life to conclude sperm having potential life which is circular...
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@strkszone "The parasite analogy basically sums up that one party is suffering while another is benefiting,"
Even if I grant you this, its still depriving the embryo of a future life like ours.
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@strkszone Now with that said, I hope you don't take that too personally. But what I'm trying to get you to do is to tell me why you are saying that such a charge is absurd.
I mean, all I want to do is discuss this, I love debating. I'm not trying to present my side as "I'm right and you must accept it". I am very interested in your side of the story too. You may think of something that I didn't. When I debate, I present my thoughts as a "peer review" type submission.
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@nazra7 It is absurd because simply put, offspring are like parasites. They feed off of your nutrition until they're grown up and then you have to go through immense labor to try and get them out of you alive. If a woman decides to not want to go through with it, she shouldn't have to and that is the underlining reason why outlawing abortion is absurd. Just read a story about children who go through adoption, and see how much better of an alternative that is.
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@strkszone "What about a woman who doesn't want to live with a reminder of being raped for her entire life?"
Aborting her child isn't going to take away those memories. But if the sight of her child is that disturbing then adoption would be the best choice.
nazra7 3 weeks ago
@nazra7 The child would remind her more of those memories. We link memories with objects in our life. Hence why we have "sentimental value" This almost reminds me of the forcing the woman to marry her rapist. If a woman does not wish to bear the child of her rapist she should NOT have to. It's absurd. The choice of the living should completely be priority over the choice of a being that cannot give consent and is capable of causing pain to its host. Immense pain for that matter.
strkszone 3 weeks ago
@strkszone "The child would remind her more of those memories. We link memories with objects in our life."
Well, let's take this proposal and formulate a counter example to show why this is an unsound argument:
Suppose you and I are inmates by force, and no intervention is allowed to separate us, and one day you decide to beat the crap out of me, is it OK then for me to kill you because the sight of you will remind me of my terrible beating?
nazra7 3 weeks ago
@nazra7 I'm an actual live person with cognitive recognition. If I decided to beat you there are alternative ways to prevent this, such as isolated imprisonment. Since there are alternative measures that can be taken to prevent suffering, that measure should be taken. If there was a way to get the baby out of the woman without causing her to suffer, then I'd be all for that. Since there isn't abortion being available until such a way is developed has my support.
strkszone 3 weeks ago
@strkszone "Since there are alternative measures that can be taken to prevent suffering that measure should be taken"
Ah, but I ruled out alternatives saying that we are not allowed to be separated. So this rebuttal doesn't stand.
nazra7 3 weeks ago
@nazra7 If no alternative is available for you, then you have permissible reason to defend yourself. Killing me would probably be self defense if I was not compliant. This is a bit circumstantial, it depends on how hard I was hitting and how severe you were suffering. However, this is irrelevant, since we are discussing a scenario in which it is easily avoided through alternatives.
strkszone 3 weeks ago
@strkszone "Killing me would probably be self defense if I was not compliant."
Self defense only applies during the fact, not after the fact. We could go on and on about analogies all day. But one inescapable fact remains, abortion kills human beings, thus is immoral. Whether or not it should be deemed murder depends on the situation.
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@nazra7 You attribute morality to your religion. "abortion kills human beings, thus is immoral" if that were the case then self-defense would be immoral to you. The majority of abortions happen within the first 2 months of pregnancy. The fact that people masturbate they're killing 1000s of potential children. Does that mean we should outlaw masturbation? The rights of a clump of cells do not get to outweigh the rights of a live and breathing person.
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@strkszone Eh.. yeah that was clumsily said, sorry. What I meant was abortion is killing an innocent human being - one that has done nothing to deserve being killed and killing generally is done in an unjustified manner - that is what's immoral.
"The fact that people masturbate they're killing 1000s of potential children. "
Not really, because those sperm cells won't become children on their own where as an embryo would.
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@nazra7 Key word was potential. Also, what about natural miscarriages that happen during the pregnancy? Surely if God really cared about things like abortion he wouldn't be allowing natural abortions occur daily? My masturbation comparison to abortion was to draw the line between a clump of cells with no cognitive ability to even recognize pain/suffering having more rights than a living breathing human who does. A woman should not have to be forced into a pregnancy it's ridiculous.
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@strkszone Sperm cells are not potential children until they fertilize an egg, and at that point it would be a zygote, not a sperm cell.
A woman would not be charged with murder or manslaughter if the child dies due to natural causes unless she had an active role in it.
I'm not so sure God cares about whether or not abortions happen, but he probably does care about people not realizing that its wrong and should not be done.
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@nazra7 Potential children meaning having the potential to make children. Just as you say, energy is omnipotent because it has "power over all things" really being the potential of having power over all things. I'm comparing abortion through natural causes as God's abortion, not having to do with anything of the legal system, rather criticizing God for aborting a child if he's so against it. If he's naturally aborting babies then he's not setting a very good example now is he?
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@strkszone Who said God is aborting babies?
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@nazra7 Natural miscarriages occurs. Your God has the power to prevent them. He is in charge of the universe. If he does not wish to prevent them with his omnipotence, why not? He is either sitting their and letting it happen for whatever reason, or actually causing it to happen. Therefore God can be said to be the one responsible for natural miscarriages which are in a sense abortions done by God himself since he's letting it happen and put it here in the first place.
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@strkszone Well, for one to be responsible for something, one needs to be credited for that thing to be happening. If I had the power to prevent a murder, but did not do so, do I really deserve credit for the murder? Of course not. So I don't see why people say that because God permits it, therefore he's responsible.
What this really looks like (I'm not accusing you of this) is an attempt to shift blame.
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@nazra7 If you had to power to prevent it from happening, yes you would be a bystander. A bystander in my book is just the same as the guy driving the getaway vehicle. You would be just as immoral as the person doing the murder, just as the person who orders a hitman to kill someone for him is just as responsible for the murder. God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the universe, so yes, he is. The blame is rightly placed, he put in plagues, why not miscarriages?
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@strkszone "God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the universe"
Hmmm.. well you seem to think that responsibility includes being a bystander which is not how the word is actually defined. But still, I think its an over generalization to say bystanders are as bad as the perpetuates because there's plenty of justifications for why some one may decide not to intervene, such as fearing for their own lives, or not understanding what was going on.
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@nazra7 Lol, fearing for your own life means you do not have the power or capability of actually preventing it. After all, if you had the power to prevent a murder from happening it means you can actually get it done. Just as I'm sure God doesn't fear for his life when a natural miscarriage is about to ensue. If God is omniscient I'm pretty sure he understands exactly what is going on since natural miscarriages are a thing that he can observe and should know.
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@strkszone "And I'm arguing that an embryo is NOT a human just like an egg is NOT a chicken."
An egg is not a chicken yes, but the embryo inside the egg is. At least, that's what I would argue. But you seem be equivocating the word embryo, because it seems like you're trying to use it in a medical sense when you're using it in an biological sense.
But aside from that, what standard are you using to say something is human? Sentience?
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@nazra7 A human is whenever all the DNA forms in the fetus to which its cells are working and functioning. Usually this takes place in the 3rd trimester of a pregnancy far enough along to where I would agree that it would be immoral killing the baby since they had months to plan an abortion instead and should face the consequences of not doing so earlier. That is by the critieria that I believe a human to be, whenever it has a nervous system.
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@strkszone Well, that's definitely a unique standard for deciding what a human is or is not. In fact, I have no rebuttal to that at this time, I'll have to do more research on the topic. So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree... for now.
nazra7 2 weeks ago
@nazra7 Alrighty then, good talk.
strkszone 2 weeks ago
@strkszone "What about a woman who's life in endangered by the pregnancy."
I said abortion is justified in that case on the grounds of self defense, did I not?
"What about the woman simply not wanting to endure that much pain?"
What about the child who wants to live?
nazra7 3 weeks ago
@nazra7 Obviously the child is just a group of cells during the point where most abortions take place. I am only against 3rd trimester abortions. Since a woman who is already commited to going through with the pregnancy should stick to her commitment. However, I am still pro choice when it comes to 1st and 2nd trimester abortions, since cognitive ability isn't recognized during those times.
strkszone 3 weeks ago
@strkszone "However, I am still pro choice when it comes to 1st and 2nd trimester abortions, since cognitive ability isn't recognized during those times."
Cognitive or not, its still a person being killed in such a manner that is indistinguishable from pulling the plug on a person who is in a comma, but has a very high chance of recovery.
nazra7 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nazra7 That person who is in a comma and has a very high chance of recovery isn't going to cause a host body any suffering is it? It's not like that person in a coma is somehow causing pain and anguish physically to a body that's carrying it. So as I've said before "being that cannot give consent and is capable of causing pain to its host. "
strkszone 3 weeks ago
@nazra7 well we live in an unethical and immoral society, which gets worse as time progresses. of course abortion is morally wrong, but how can you convince someone to be moral when our society throws theories which are not moral, just, ethical, or fair. interesting you mention all this, because I am 15 weeks pregnant, and I considered abortion, adoption, and keeping it. I was convinced by society, friends, and family, I would not be able to support my child, and I'm 25, with a B.A in sociology
prettylyricsmarie 4 weeks ago
@nazra7 given the way our society is going, in my mind I thought this isn't the society I would want my child to be raised in, but then I saw a live abortion, and it changed my mind on ever having an abortion, I saw the fetus, ripped out piece, by piece, from the legs, body, and then the head taken off. It was one of the sickest and most disturbing things I've ever seen, and perhaps that kind of awareness, might convince others not to abort.
prettylyricsmarie 4 weeks ago
What happens when the child finds out the father is a rapist, how will that child feel, knowing half of it is of a man who is evil and sick, and without a father in his or her life...
prettylyricsmarie 1 month ago
Watch George Carlin on abortion. That's all you need to know.
SaltineGirl 1 month ago
Not to mention that at the time a woman gets pregnant by a sperm cell, about a million other cells, each containing human DNA, will die off. So if you are against abortion because it would end the existence of something containing human DNA, you should never have sex.
Nidair 1 month ago
how can you say that you are going to not take the typical pro-life or pro-choice take on it then immediately give the pro-life argument with no evidence how you jumped from equating word to word.
if a fetus is a child why don't we count it on the census?
if a fetus is a child how come there isn't a funeral if there's a miscarriage?
if a fetus is a child why do people say we have 2 children and 1 on the way? why not just say we have 3 children?
southpawOO7 1 month ago
@southpawOO7 All those things you mention are because until birth a fetus hasn`t started his life in this wotld yet.
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
"Morality" is a social construct. The things we say are moral and immoral can change. For example one person says murder one say mercy killing. But the definition of morality isnt the debate, I just enjoy talking about it. Anyways, the religious will say it is immoral because it is against gods commands. For me it would be immoral to tell a woman what she can and cannot do to her child. I wouldnt want people dictating rules for my children (I dont have any, just for argument).
CurryCobra 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@CurryCobra The way I see it is, everyone knows that killing an "innocent" person is wrong. No question about it. The only question is who is "innocent"? That leads me to conclude that morality is independent of us, we just don't fully understand it yet.
nazra7 2 months ago
@CurryCobra "Anyways, the religious will say it is immoral because it is against gods commands."
From what I understand, the argument made by Christians is actually that abortion is wrong because its killing a young human being. This is known as the "person hood debate".
nazra7 2 months ago
@CurryCobra Parents can`t abuse their children that is the right of the strong!!!!
freewilllover 2 months ago
@CurryCobra A child isn`t their parents property parents don`t have the right to do whatever they want with their children cause their children have rights also.
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
I'm trying not to spam, but the more I watch of this, the more you come-off as a sick fuck. 2 wrongs making a right? Selfishness? You cant be serious, how can you call a rape victim selfish, how can accuse them of being in the wrong for wanting to avoid full-blown birth (which can be a fairly dangerous thing, with a risk of death). What if it were a 14 year old girl? Oh, never mind, I forgot that you condoned rape, my bad...
xMTBxBOYx27x 2 months ago
@xMTBxBOYx27x "how can you call a rape victim selfish, how can accuse them of being in the wrong for wanting to avoid full-blown birth"
Somehow, playing on the heart strings of a tragic event eliminates the tragedy of another event? Nah, that's an appeal to emotion. In fact, if you want to argue this then you might as well argue that its ok to kill another person's child because they killed yours.
No offense or anything, but THAT is sick as F***.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 you couldn't possibly equate this as being "an-eye-for-an-eye." I am astounded that you actually feel an impregnated rape victim should be held-accountable for bearing and bringing-up the child; it honestly shows how little sympathy you can have for a human being that actually has feelings, and the capacity to understand what has happened. Whereas a fetus does not, and seeing as the abortion can occur at relatively early stages of pregnancy, the fetus has no mental capacity.
xMTBxBOYx27x 2 months ago
@xMTBxBOYx27x Adoption is far more ethical than abortion. A fetus does have a mental capacity (after 8 weeks an embryo develops into a fetus and its brain starts developing).
Even if the abortion was to terminate an embryo, its diabolical to suggest that its ok to terminate something with no mental capacity when terminating it will prevent it from having a mental capacity. That's a scapegoat.
Morality is logical, and logic has to be consistent.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 But logic is sparse when someone shows no empathy for a rape victim. You have to remember, its not the woman's fault here, she was unknowingly, unwillingly, and maliciously impregnated, and therefore, for this special case, it is completely left to choice. You said you would look at this topic at a different "angle," but as-of now, your beliefs are entirely that of a Pro-Life stance. In the case of rape, it is almost sickening to hold the victim accountable for the child.
xMTBxBOYx27x 2 months ago
@xMTBxBOYx27x Empathy for a rape victim does not require letting her choose whether or not the child should live. And where's the empathy for the child?
I have complete empathy for rape victims, however, if this is a special case to give the woman a choice to kill, then you should say one person who kills another's child has the choice to kill the child of their child's killer. Otherwise, its special pleading.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 well this will never be settled, because at my stance I am pro-choice, and you are obviously pro-life, so this is pretty much a never ending debate, I just feel, in the case or rape, the woman should tend to her needs and not have to worry about the "child." Basically, I don't look at a fetus as a human-being in the same sense you do, so there is no point in continuing this.
xMTBxBOYx27x 2 months ago
@xMTBxBOYx27x "I just feel, in the case or rape, the woman should tend to her needs and not have to worry about the "child.""
This can be achieved with adoption.
"Basically, I don't look at a fetus as a human-being in the same sense you do"
I don't see a fetus as a human being, I see a fetus as a stage of a human being.
nazra7 2 months ago
@nazra7 Regardless, this is a never ending debate, too much controversy here.
xMTBxBOYx27x 2 months ago
@nazra7 We live in a society constructed on profit and greed, which isn't based on morality or common sense, so since that's the case, what can you really expect a society of people destroying themselves, while not even knowing it, and when they realize it, it's too late.
prettylyricsmarie 4 weeks ago
@nazra7 If you look at it as a means of evolution, perhaps its easier to digest, but it's very disheartening, not just for me seeing it, and my child growing up in it, but for other generations to come. The debt our government has ranked up can't be paid back, so many wars unsolved overseas, and jobs disappearing and economy recovery a fallacy.
prettylyricsmarie 4 weeks ago
ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE!? YOU THINK A RAPE VICTIM IS SELFISH!? YOU MAKE YOURSELF SOUND LIKE A DANGEROUS PERSON, AS IF CONDONING SEXUAL VIOLENCE, YOU REALLY NEED TO REASSESS YOUR OWN MORALS AND BELIEFS, BECAUSE THEY ARE SO BACKWARDS ITS UNHEARD OF.
xMTBxBOYx27x 2 months ago
It should be pro choice, the bearer of the child can determine if they believe the fetus is a person or not, not having to subject themselves to the birth of this child, or having to put said child through unreasonable living conditions due to unpreparedness by the parent's. Also, deserving death or not has nothing to do with murder (in modern times), so being innocent or not is out of the question. Lastly, laws and moral conventions go hand-in-hand, so shut the fuck up, your socially awkward.
xMTBxBOYx27x 2 months ago
@xMTBxBOYx27x The bearer of the child can determine whether the fetus is a person or not?? But it is a person so do we give one person the right to strip another of their human rights??? Also whether someone has the right to live is relevant, you can`t kill someone out of convinience.
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
@reviewreviewer1 Everybody seems to be missing the bigger picture here, and I do find all your arguments valid, but when arguing against an impregnated rape victim, it just makes you seem like scum
xMTBxBOYx27x 1 month ago
@xMTBxBOYx27x Well I am not sure about rape but doesn`t the child have rights regardless???
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
dude, you are fucking clueless. you want mothers to carry out her fetus to term after she was raped? to raise a child she wasn't even prepared for or didn't plan to raise? and to always live with the fact that that child's father was someone who raped her instead of someone who lovingly planned to raise that child? are you out of your mind? you have no proof that a fetus is a person. i see no good moral argument against terminating that thing before it ever felt anything or knew the difference.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist Rape children can be adopted.
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
There was too much wrong with this video, I'll have to make a whole video in response.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi I'm looking forward to your video response.
nazra7 3 months ago
"We define a person to be a human" I just gotta stop you there. Because you're getting into a qhole problem of equivocation just outright, especially when what defines somethign as being a 'human' is extreemly vague, and INCLUDES things like sentience and being bipedal.
I mean you try and get over the complicated part of defining what a human is by saying, "It's us." but that doesn't define what a human is at all.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi The problem with the 'sentience defense' is it assumes that personhood automatically entails sentience, when there are plenty of humans that, in some point in their lives, loose their sentience, such as people who fall into comas, yet it wouldn't it be absurd to say people who are in comas are no longer persons?
As for me saying we know what we ought not do, I was speaking on the behalf of Christians.
nazra7 3 months ago
@nazra7 Nooo, YOU'RE the one assuming personhood includes sentience, because you've defined a person to be a human, and humans are humans because of their sentience.and higher inteligence. And by the by, sentience is but one of MANY requirements in order to be considered human in a phylogenal scientific sense. And 'losing' one's sentience at some point in their lives inplies they HAD sentience already.
You know what...I'll be going over this in the video as soon as I work on the script.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi I don't mean to drag on the convo since I know you're working on a response. But the being of "human" I am using here is simply a taxonomical statement.That is to say, those that are human belong to the homosapien species. You seem to be using a more philosophical sense of the word human.
nazra7 3 months ago
@nazra7 Well, no offense Nazra, but I am using the scientific phloygenetic sense of the word, you are not. Unless you think, "Us." is the scientific definition of the word. Also, we aren't homosapiens. We're homo sapien sapiens. Plus, YOU are the one, in your own video, saying, "I'm going to approach this in a more philosophical way." So please, even if you PERCIEVE I'm using philosophical terms, this is what you wanted.
And, by the by,
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi To approach something from a philosophical position doesn't imply using only philosophical terms.
When you said "and humans are humans because of their sentience", that seemed to imply the use of the word human as in 'humane' because they have human like feelings. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted. In any case, humans are not sentient before they become sentient, and humans are capable of loosing sentience. That proves sentience is not a necessary condition for being human biologically.
nazra7 3 months ago
@nazra7 "Humans are not sentient before they become sentient, and humans are capable of losinng sentience."
There is so much irony and things wrong in this statement...Gah. The video should be up by tomorrow.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Ok. And I reserve the possibility of being wrong.
nazra7 3 months ago
@BigLundi Humans are those with human DNA.
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
@reviewreviewer1 Human DNA, ok, so all descendents of humans, including any speciation version of a human, is a human. And a chromosome is equivalent to a human. IF that's so, every time you wash your hands, you're committing mass murder.
BigLundi 1 month ago
@BigLundi Altereed DNA isn`t human DNA, also an organism with chromosomes is human, not the chromosome itself.
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
@reviewreviewer1 Ah, so the DNA isn't what makes us human then.
BigLundi 1 month ago
@BigLundi No it is truelly human, not mutated DNA.
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
@reviewreviewer1 All human DNA is mutated. Your DNA is not the same as mine. That's how evolution works. :D
BigLundi 1 month ago
@BigLundi Now mutated to a too large degree.
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
@reviewreviewer1 Your DNA is heavily mutated compared to the DNA of your ancestor who lived in the 1st century. Are you saying that one of you is not human?
Or are you going to do the wise thing and say that having human DNA is not a valid way to distinguish a human from a micro-organism?
Nidair 1 month ago
@Nidair Well my DNA is not mutated enough if it was I wouldn`t be so similar, if you want to use other standards we get into dangerous territorry, what distinguishes developped humans from animals is there intelegence which babies lack, there conciousness which animals??
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
@reviewreviewer1 You are missing the point. We do not decide what is a human and what is not a human by its DNA alone, because sperm cells, sweat, and even all the micro-organisms on your fingertips are full of DNA identical to that of a human being. Are all of those things humans? No, none of them are, and neither is a zygote.
Nidair 1 month ago
@Nidair You ignored my question as to what would be the standard but I said lifeforms with human genetics, cells aren`t lifeforms, a zygote is, and sperms have half the chromosomes.
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
@reviewreviewer1 Looks like someone did not pay attention to blood structures in biology class. Cells are lifeforms, dear.
As for your question about what is the standard for a human being, I can be simple: there is none. However, we empathize with things we can identify as human beings. And that starts when a fetus looks humanlike and is sentient.
Yes, our innate empathy works completely different than christian objective morality. I would say it works far better.
Nidair 1 month ago
@Nidair They are not organisms they are not selfsustaining or independently programmed, a fetus has it`s own programming and a body which keeps it alive.
Oke so a fetus is what we decide is like the majorty of humans, great so those qithout legs, deformed, or well even women differ greatly from men, are not human. Actually if there is a lifeform created by a human mother and father we know it is human and again if it ain`t human it will never become human cause lifeforms can`t evolve from..
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
@reviewreviewer1 Lifeforms can evolve, and this discussion is going nowhere.
Why do you not give me your definition of a human being, and how it relates to your claim of any kind of abortion being immoral.
Nidair 1 month ago
@Nidair No lifeforms can only evolve over generations bot themselves.
Oke a human being is a lifeform with human genetics a fetus has this and because of that killing it is murder.
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
@reviewreviewer1 So basically your whole opinion of abortion is based on ignorance.
You have no idea how evolution works, you are unaware of the millions of micro-organisms in your body, most of which share your DNA, and you have no idea of the dangers of banning abortion, which range from illegal and unsafe alternatives being used to the deaths of thousands of pregnant women with fertilization complications.
Why should anyone take your opinion seriously?
Nidair 1 month ago
@Nidair That cell point is rediculous, those cells aren`tseperate organisms, a zygo embryo and fetus is. Also by your comparing logic we can legalise infancide because babies are very similar to animals interms of intelegence selfawareness and behaviour, they are similar to apes and we don`t give those human rights.
Al;so if people get dangerous alternatives and die, it is their own fault and I couldn`t care less, if you try to kill someone you deserve to die.
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
@reviewreviewer1 You think a baby is as intelligent as a giraffe? Or as a dolphin? Are you aware of the fact intelligence varies enormously between animals, even among animals closely related like eagle owls and grey owls. Among the entire animal kingdom, though, it is rare to find an animal with the learning capacity and mental strength as a human baby.
Again, why should anyone take your opinion seriously if your view is based on ignorance?
Nidair 1 month ago
@Nidair Learning capacity, the same way a zygote has imense growth capacity, but for the time being a baby is as selfaware, emotionally complex and as intelegent as a cow.
So it isn`t ignorance babies are as instinctive and basic as animals, they have the capacity to grow the same way zygotes have the capacity to this capacity.
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
@Nidair .. species to species. Also the identification argument can be used to support racism and sexism.
So when you are in a position of power abusing this to give rightys to those you like is oke??
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
@Nidair What about human corpses? Are they not biologically human because they lack sentience?
nazra7 1 month ago
@reviewreviewer1 Which is why there's no such thing as 'human DNA' there's just 'DNA' that just so happens to form a human-esque creature.
BigLundi 1 month ago
@BigLundi Hey BigLundi, you should look up on youtube "abortion survivor" and listen to her story.
nazra7 1 month ago
@nazra7 Did she experience an abortionj and remember it as a zygote? Because if not, I don't care. I'm already against late term abortions because third trimester fetuses can be shown to feel pain, as they have a complex nervous system formed at that point.
BigLundi 1 month ago
@BigLundi No DNA which has a certaion form of patern, at it`s corse and can have minor differences but not major ones, also if human is something else you are saying we base specieses on abritarry standards but more that a lifeform can start of nonhuman, which would raise the question as to what it is and can then evolve into another species, uh no lifeforms never change species also what are you saying is human, selfawareness which fetuses lack or concious which animals have???????
reviewreviewer1 1 month ago
@BigLundi Yes, humans become sentient after our brains develop to a certain stage (which implies that humans do not have sentience before they do), however, if one looses sentience, or if one is being inhuman, that doesn't mean they loose their personhood.
nazra7 3 months ago
@BigLundi In conclusion, to say being a person requires sentience because persons are sentient is simply the fallacy of composition. Humans also have eyes, however, not everything that has eyes is human.
nazra7 3 months ago
What if a raped mother wanted an abortion because she don't want the child to suffer the life of being a rape baby?
Because it will kill the mother is not really a good defense because you don't know if they will live through it until it actually happens.
nintendo768 3 months ago
@nintendo768 "she don't want the child to suffer the life of being a rape baby?"
That's the problem, the defense is assuming the baby will suffer, when its possible, if not likely, it won't. Besides, if you wanted to argue that then you might as well argue that we should start killing everyone people because everyone will suffer eventually.
"because you don't know if they will live through it until it actually happens."
Doctors can make fairly accurate predictions about those things.
nazra7 3 months ago
@nazra7 I guess you got the one about the suffering.
Well they may be fairly accurate, but only way to know if the mother will survive is to deliver. If there was a 100% probability that the mother and the child would die, then it is ok to abort. If it is just the mother and not the child, then that is selfishness.
nintendo768 3 months ago
@nintendo768 The mother has a right to protect herself form death too.
nazra7 3 months ago
@nazra7 well if the choice was her or baby and she chooses her that is selfishness.
Though I won't use this reason to justify abortion, but what if the mother does not want anyone to be alive that was not born the right way? Yes this does mean killing all bastards regardless of age.
nintendo768 3 months ago
@nintendo768 "well if the choice was her or baby and she chooses her that is selfishness."
It may be, but its justified on the grounds of self-defense.
nazra7 3 months ago
dude put it the same way i did even, nice video.
kevinjjfr 4 months ago
I agree.
Z6D4C4 4 months ago
"A fetus is an unborn child."
Wrong.
Nidair 5 months ago
@Nidair That is how it is defined in the Princeton dictionary. Besides, a fetus develops into a child, thus a fetus is a developing child, but a child non-the-less.
nazra7 5 months ago
@nazra7 'child' implies a sentient being. A fetus (well, a abortable fetus, that is) is not sentient, and thus not a child yet. It cannot think any more than the blood cells in your body do. In fact, those blood cells are far more active.
Also, are you really in favor or creating more poverty by forcing people to make more babies they cannot take care of? Are you unaware that poverty is already 1 of America's worst problems?
Nidair 5 months ago
@Nidair The word child alone does not imply sentience since many children of things do not have feelings such as young muscles for example. This is the pro-choice's argument which is too narrow.
If people don't want babies then they shouldn't be having sex, or at least make sure proper birth control is in place before they do. Plus more people is not what makes poverty. In America alone, we produce more than enough food to feed the world each day, it just gets wasted.
nazra7 5 months ago
@nazra7 Muscles have feelings? What are you talking about? You are not making sense. But whatever, muscles are formed around the same time as the brain, so this is irrelevant anyway.
Birth control - now that is a good one. Unless you follow the christian doctrine, in which anticonceptives are forbidden because apparently 1000001 sperm cells dying is not forgivable, but 1000000 dying is.
Yea, that is the 'logic' your faith demands you to have.
Nidair 5 months ago
@Nidair "Muscles have feelings?"
Muscles as in the muscles found in shells, similar to clams. They're incapable of feelings, but that doesn't mean a "child" muscle is not a young muscle. Thus sentience is not a necessary condition for a child.
"Unless you follow the christian doctrine, in which anticonceptives are forbidden"
That is true, however it is a lesser evil than getting an abortion and is a far more ethical choice for people who cannot control their sexual cravings.
nazra7 5 months ago
@Nidair "because apparently 1000001 sperm cells dying is not forgivable, but 1000000 dying is. Yea, that is the 'logic' your faith demands you to have."
Nah, that just shows you do not understand the principles and teachings of Christianity. But that's another debate to be had.
nazra7 5 months ago
@nazra7 if people dont want car accidents, they shouldnt drive. or at least they should drive at 10 mph. more than enough food? in america, poverty is not based on how much food you have. poverty is a relative term. this isnt ethiopia. innocence has no bearing on whether something shouldnt be killed--animals are innocent. irrelevant.
payasoinfeliz 5 months ago
@payasoinfeliz "if people dont want car accidents, they shouldnt drive"
Similarly, if people don't want babies they really shouldn't be having sex. If you're going to have sex you should accept the consequences just as if you're going to drive you have to accept the consequences.
"innocence has no bearing on whether something shouldnt be killed--animals are innocent."
It does when it comes to people because people have the right to exist, animals don't legally, but I think they do morally.
nazra7 5 months ago
@nazra7 "if people don't want babies they really shouldn't be having sex"
Oh come on. I thought you were above that. Are you really with the pro-AIDS crowd?
"sentience is not a necessary condition for a child"
At this point, I am curious about how you think a child is formed from the moment of conception to a fetus with a fully developed brain. Because I think your view of it - like that of most pro-lifers - is not exactly compatible with what is observed.
Nidair 5 months ago
@Nidair Pro-aids? What does chastity have to do with being pro-aids?
I'm no biologist so I don't know the stages of zygote development however I assume it is a accumulative process similar to a plant growing from a seed. My argument is simply:
A fetus is an offspring.
An offspring is a child. < You probably object to this premise.
Abortions kills fetuses.
Therefore, Abortions kills children.
Mentioning the development of the fetus or zygote doesn't really have anything to do with my argument.
nazra7 5 months ago
@nazra7 Actually, after a few weeks, it has only grown to a multicellular organism. After the 5th week, the organism resembles a human baby. This is the point where abortion is debatable. The heart beats, the body is formed, so I can imagine people having objections to abortion at that point. After 7 weeks, abortion takes some risk for the mother. Most abortion clinics refuse at this point.
So, any objection to abortion within 5 weeks is really ungrounded because you cannot speak of a child.
Nidair 5 months ago
@nazra7 Abstinence-only sex-ed does not work. Contraceptives are forbidden in central Africa, and look at the HIV rates there. Teen pregnancy rates are very high in the most fundamentalist-heavy states in the USA. People are going to have sex despite being told not to, and without giving any knowledge of contraceptives, you essentially give STD's an open door.
Stop this pro-life campaign based on ignorance. By making abortion illegal, people are forced to get illegal and unsafe treatment.
Nidair 5 months ago
@Nidair From the moment the zygote is fertilized, the fetus is developing into a child, thus even within the first 5 weeks are are speaking of a developing child. Yes, I would prefer people to have their abortions before the 5th week, however it is the best choice not to have an abortion at all unless the mother or the child will die. In the same instance, I would prefer people to use contraceptives if they do not want a child but it would be far better, if they could, to not have sex at all.
nazra7 5 months ago