Would you prefer we call ourselves "Pro-Death"? O_o , its "pro-CHOICE" , therefore we believe its womens CHOICE. If you believe you should keep your baby because of all the points pro-lifers make thats your CHOICE. DO NOT force that on other people. People who make the choice to ABORT their babies
@GIRinDisguise It's funny how girls say... "It's my body! I get to decide whether my baby lives or dies!" That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. First of all, it isn't their body because it's God's. Second, their babies life isn't theirs either, it's God's. You're suppose to raise God's children to be followers of Jesus Christ, not kill them. Pro-choice makes very little sense. Don't reply saying God isn't real, just play with a Ouija board and see how much "fun" you have.
@LxE100 That was the most ignorant, close-minded comeback I've ever read.You didn't even make any valid points. Good job using "God" as a scapegoat though and assuming I'm Wiccan or anything along those lines.
@GIRinDisguise Using God isn't a scapegoat, it's just the truth. The subject of abortion revolves greatly around God. A fetus isn't a human being just because it doesn't have full awareness because it's premature? Oh wait...isn't that what being premature is? Just because you're premature doesn't mean you aren't a human being... So what's the best thing you have to say in defence of pro-choicers? If it's the same thing I commented on, don't even bother. Come up with something more intelligent.
Well, I suppose it depends on your opinion. I'm not going to bother to try to change your mind if that's you opinion. However, what you are suggesting is illegal and there's a bit of a difference between an embryo/fetus that cannot survive outside the womb no matter what anyone does and an infant that would survive with the help of anyone. That's there are laws allowing parents to abandon a child at certain locations without question, because those infants can survive with anyone's help.
Are you German? You sound just like my old foreign exchange student. I'm having the same problem with pro-choicers believing that some invisible soul enters sometime in the grey area like "BAM! now you have a right to live, you didn't a second ago but now you do" and letting the un-informed mothers decide when that is. When confronted they just revert to "a zygote shouldn't have rights cause its small and simple".
Ah, og forresten... Uansett hvor overbevisende og lett forståelige noen av disse kommentarene nedenfor er, virker det som at du allerede har satt hjernen din i ignorer-modus, og kommer med usaklige kommentarer tilbake.... Det nytter ikke å diskutere en seriøs sak med noen som holder på sånn... Seriøst.. Om jeg skulle beskrevet deg med tre ord, ville nok dem vært: Useriøs og barnslig (unless you can prove me wrong)
@Finkeism Mulig jeg er useriøs og barnslig, men jeg kan ihvertfall telle til tre ;) Og jeg tillatere meg å erklære deg inhabil i spørsmålet om hvor overbevisende dine egne argumenter er, og den tilhørende konklusjonen om at det er noe galt med meg fordi jeg ikke lar meg overbevise.
Seriously, dude... You pretend to care about the unborn child, but you don't seem to be thinking about his future, no matter what the circumstances may be..
@Finkeism How kind of you to kill people when it's in their best interest. Wouldn't it however be a better approach if you gave them a chance to have a good life, and then when they pass, say 30, and you still determine their life to be sub-standard you can kill them then?
@OmvendtVideo Did you just delete my comment? Real mature.
Anyway, i'll give it another try.. If your sister was raped when she was 15-16, and she got pregnant... What would you have told her to do? If she kept the child, it would forever remind her of that horrible night.. But if she killed the offspring while it was still a part of her body, and totally under her control, she would be able to move on. And forget it ever happend..
@Finkeism Yes I'm trying to keep it somewhat family friendly on here. This one I'll leave on since you managed to make a complete sentence without swearing.
And yes, I would urge her to keep the child. Adding a murder to a rape doesn't make the rape - or the memories of it - go away. The child is not a part of her body, it is a separate body located inside of her body. And why do I keep having to answer this hypothetic question? The vast majority of abortions are in no way related to rape.
@OmvendtVideo says: Oh, you mean like black people used to be?
~~~~~~~~~~~ Blacks were NOT considered "people" until they got rights. Thats why they COULD be owned...JUST like a fetus who isnt a person w/ rights until birth. You dont know much, do you? Why have you chose to be uneducated in every area you touch on> take some pride in yourself and get smarter.
@OmvendtVideo says: Wouldn't it however be a better approach if you gave them a chance to have a good life,
~~~~~~~~~~~ A "chance"? Do you know "risk" is one defintion of chance? You can have all the babies you want and risk their happiness, but dont expect smart women to follow your lead. AND, parents KNOW if they have what it takes to raise a child in the manner it DESERVES. Why have a child and not give it that?
@Sueezee1 Even assuming you're a prophet who can accurately foretell the future of every unborn person, most people when given a choice between being brutally murdered or risking unhappiness, chose the latter. If you want to deny them this option, you can not call yourself pro-choice. You're just pro-self, at the expense of those who are weaker than you.
@OmvendtVideo says: Even assuming you're a prophet who can accurately foretell the future of every unborn person,
~~~~~~~~~~~~ You idiot, dont you know how to comprehend what you read?? of course, you dont. Youre prolife! Where in the hell did you see that I said I could predict anything... That pregnant women should not have babies because I ...ME..could define their childs future??? Take a reading class & get back w/ me when you can understand what you read.
Your preoccupation with this is evidence of your feminine pregnancy envy, which alos may include childbirth and breastfeeding. No man/male is obsessed with embryos that arent even his, unless he has this disorder. Read, "Eve's Seed: Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History". You'll see what I mean.
Ludicrous, far more than it's "location" changes. A baby in the womb is parasitic, it takes what it needs and is integrated into the mother's biology. Without severe medical intervention, a fetus cannot survive outside its mother. It is dependent on HER body and thus cannot be considered a separate entity. A newly born baby is just generally dependent; it doesn't use any one person's body to the exclusion of all others. At that point, the mother isn't important, the care is.
@ShijiFuuten So your conditions for whether it is ok to kill someone is:
1. They need to be able to survive without "severe" medical intervention
2. They must not depend on one specific person, but depending on others is permissible.
What I want to know is how you determined these moral standard, and also who died and made you the king of the universe with the right to impose these arbitrary morals on unborn children.
@OmvendtVideo Your morals have nothing to do with it. I was pointing out how you were wrong in saying it's merely a difference of location. It's the mother's body, she may decide what to do with it; I won't mince words and say "you're not taking human life", because you are. That was a baby, but it was in the mother's body and the mother gets ultimate dominion over what happens to her body; as the baby is effectively a PART of her body, that comes under her purview as well.
@ShijiFuuten I need to point out that the fetus has it's own DNA, and is not a part of the body of the mother, but rather a separate, unfinished body depending on the mothers body. But that aside, your supreme doctrine is that a womans right to decide what may happen to her body surpasses every other moral standard, even to the point of taking the life of another. I won't mince words either. That's utterly depraved. End of story.
@OmvendtVideo I said that it was "effectively" a part of her body; as it can't sustain itself and is so connected to and dependent upon her systems, it cannot be considered a separate entity within itself, and the woman should have control over what occurs to her body. I find the idea that you can lord power over another being's reproductive control utterly depraved, so we're even. I believe that the bodily integrity of the host is paramount; you believe the unborn child is paramount.
@ShijiFuuten To that I would only add that where our belief systems differ is that mine does not open up the door to take innocent life for the sake of convenience while yours does.
@OmvendtVideo You insult me by labeling it "for the sake of convenience" and your condescension is palpable. Abortion is never convenient and your vilification of someone with different ideas than yours is an embarrassment. It's self-righteous Christians like you who make me feel twinges of aggravation and shame for my religion.
@OmvendtVideo fetus has its own DNA not mothers body but separate
~~~~~~~ I find it so funny that prolifers scream "DNA" as if it matter in the realm of legal abortion or that we didnt know it was of the human species. . And, a fetus in the womens body may be separate but itis her personal and private property to do w/ as she choose.
@WyattsFreakinChannel Please cite your sources for your information about my views on the second amendment, capital punishment, support for US troops, genocide in Iraq and whatever the God killed people thing is. Or alternatively, admit to being a prejudiced fool who just parrots liberal catchphrases that you heard on TV and didn't think through properly.
This is an incredibly illogical argument. Yes, something changes after the birth. The baby is not inside the woman. Therefore, it is no longer an issue of a woman's right to her own body. I am consistently pro-choice that it is a women's right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or end it.
@aislynnmidnight It's location changes. It's nature does not. It is the same thing after it was born as it was before. If it is wrong to kill it after it's born, it would be wrong to kill it before birth.
@OmvendtVideo Well, then they can "evict" an embryo.fetus prior to viability and simply allow it to naturally expire. Thus, no "killing" involved, simply a change of location and the pregnancy still comes to an end. Everyone wins.
@aislynnmidnight You mean kind of like leaving an infant out in the snow through a cold winter night? Yup. No killing involved there. Just a change of location, and then let nature do it's thing.
@ENDRENOABORTION Been there. Evicted a little over a year ago, with three children to support. Guess what? None of you gave a shit. None of you would have put yourselves or acted to your own detriment in order to support me. Would you have taken food out of your own children's mouths or risked your own life so that I, a clearly living person, might be given a chance to live anywhere from a few more days to a few dozen more years? Why do you thinks others should be forced to do that?
I spent years volunteering my time to feed the hungry and homeless; the parish I am at now has a program that houses homeless families. After the federal government, the Catholic Church is the number one provider of social services. Yes we do care.
Finally, it is not my responsibility to feed your kids- it is yours.
Life is meaningless, people are everything. Prove to me a fetus is a thinking, feeling, self-aware person, and not just an empty, developing human shell, and I'll call abortion murder, plain and simple. Until then, I aborted at 14 and don't regret it one bit. Please, do what every other so-called pro'life'r out there does and play god w/ my personal history and tell me why I did it, how I feel, and where I will be in the next ten years..
@ryddelwearsahat If a persons worth is only derived from their ability to think, feel and be self-aware you are right to assert your right to not only kill an unborn fetus, but anyone you find lacking in these characteristics. Which could be all of us, because there is no clear cut line where you can say that someone is, eg. self aware. The sad thing about a worldview that asserts people are everything, is that it always ends up in people are worth nothing. You proved that by killing a child.
@OmvendtVideo It is also based on independence. Can born children be adopted? Are the handicapped or elderly, or comatose inside of someone else- are people forced to care for them, even if it leads to their own detriment, job/education loss, even their own death? I have enver once found an actual person lacking in personhood- blacks, jews, criminals, children, ect.. the only humans who lack this are the braindead or fetuses. Born infants are reactive, conscious from birth onward, are people.
@ryddelwearsahat Do you realize that the distinctions you make are completely arbitrary, and only a matter of your personal opinion? You base other's worth on your definition of personhood, self-awareness or independence. How is that different from basing it on skin color, gender or age?
@OmvendtVideo How much do you know about brain function, neurology? Psychology? The way the brain functions and develops is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Kindly explain how a fetus has the same personhood ability a born person does, when it's brain is in stasis or non even developed enough for it to feel pain or pleasure, let alone store information and develop opinions, react consciously..?
@ryddelwearsahat You missed my point. Let me rephrase. By what autority do you assert that brain development is the determining factor for the worth of a person as opposed to for example skin color, gender or age?
@OmvendtVideo It isn't, like I said- but it is one of them. Another factor is whether or not that person is inside of another person and putting them at risk. It is a combination of factors that, NOWHERE, NO-WHEN else in human life, natural or unnatural, do we face at the same time. Skin color and gender have nothing to do w/ it- please don't try to compare me to a racist or sexist asshole.. And age is pointless once born- someone else can WILLINGLY assume care.
@ryddelwearsahat You are asserting things. not making arguments, or giving reasons why you believe them to be so. That renders your assertions invalid, as you are in fact only stating your personal opinion. I'm surprised at your moral outrage at the prospect of racism or sexism or ageism. Would it help if i told you black people are vastly overrepresented on abortion statistics. So are girls, especially in asian countries. Not to mention they are all a certain age.
@OmvendtVideo ....Lol this is funny. Prove me wrong then, that after birth, somewhere down the line, humans go back inside other humans.. or that a fetus can be adopted/removed from the womb immediately, and not AFTER birth.. or that a fetus CAN think and feel- PLEASE. I'd LOVE to hear such things.. God.. no wonder abortion is legal, lol.
@ryddelwearsahat Yes, you would love to hear such rediculous things, bacause that would be easier to argue against than the things that I'm actually saying. If you want to build a strawman and knock him down, feel free to do so. If you want to come back after you're done and talk more about this, let me know.
@OmvendtVideo Lol, kindly explain your position sensibly, then.. What are you actually saying? Things aren't so very clear when they are swiss cheese.
@ryddelwearsahat I'm saying that every distinction that your'e trying to make between a human and a non-human is completely arbitrary, and you have offered me no reason not to dismiss them as merely your opinion. I have not argued with the existence of such distinctions, I have argued with your arbitrary application of them as factors determining human worth.
@OmvendtVideo I never said a fetus wasn't human, first off- I said it was not a person. Do you not understand the difference between those two terms? Would you like links and scientific facts supporting what i have said about the human brain and personhood? Legal doctrine..? Would you like me to explain what slavery or rape is, and what lethal force is, and the difference between killing for survival, and murder?
@ryddelwearsahat Perhaps you would kindly offer me your definition of personhood. Then offer me a reason why I should use that definition of personhood, and lastly offer me a reason why whatever you think personhood is should be a factor in determining the worth of a human life.
@OmvendtVideo Wiki it, dictionary it.. YT does not allow copy/paste- more than half the time it makes the comment disappear as spam.. but here goes The term personhood refers to the state or condition of being an individual person, the essential meaning and constituent properties of what it is to be a person.
While in common parlance "person" and "human" are effectively synonyms, specific fields such as philosophy, law, and others, use the term with specialised context-specific meanings.
@OmvendtVideo The treason is b/c it is a medical fact that a fetus cannot think or feel, and that a woman obviously can. Making a person suffer needlessly for a non-person's sake is barbaric.. and that opinion is supported by a great many people who do not hide behind religion or half-truths or chauvinism or anti-sex propaganda.. In example- I'd choose you over a fetus if the choice came down to it. It's an overused hypothetic question, BUT- if you had to choose between a frozen embryo, or -c
-c or a 5yo child, and both were facing immediate death, which would you save? The child who has memories and people who love and need it, or the embryo that is not even aware it is alive, let alone capable of suffering?
@OmvendtVideo We all place differing values on differing human lives.. You do too, whether you realize it or not, whether you are strong enough to admit it or not. Glaringly obvious examples are the embryo or the 5yo, the missionary or the serial killer, the rapist or the victim, the doctor or the drug addict.. abortion is no different- which is worse, aborting a hollow human shell w/ the POTENTIAL to think/feel/suffer or forcing a thinking/feeling woman into trauma for a POTENTIAL person?
@ryddelwearsahat The analagy may be overused, but it's stil every bit as irellevant. If given the unlikely choice between saving two people I would have to chose one regardless of personhood. If given a choice between saving my wife or saving you, i might for selfish reasons chose my wife, but that doesn't mean you're not a person. While more people would be hurt to see a 5yo die, that doesn't mean the 5yo is more worthy of life, unless we in fact derive worth only from other's estimation of us.
@OmvendtVideo True, dat.. but what would hurt you more? The loss of your wife, or me? =) What hurts the world more- the loss of a fetus, or the loss of a woman? The world can kiss my ass either way- I focus solely on the woman.. seeing as how she can think and feel and opinionate, and the fetus can't.. if a fetus was a person, I'd totally be prolife.. but it's a shell, pure and simple.. do you remember life en utero? And does the end justify the means, as hitler claimed? Forced birth, IE.
@ryddelwearsahat Herein, my friend, lies our disagreemant then. I see every human, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, as equally worthy of life. Their worth is not proportional to their fluctuating mental or emotional capability. It is derived from their creator. They are created in his image. He has defined them as valuable. Take God away, and you need something else to base human worth on. You picked mental ability. Someone else could pick race. Both equally wicked.
@OmvendtVideo Too bad that law and science do not support or need god to function properly.. god is as much of an opinion as a favorite color. Race has nothing to do w/ whether or not your existence puts someone else's life at risk- it is action and placement.. a fetus is neither guilty nor innocent, but that does not change the fact that sometimes pregnancy puts the woman at risk, and her life is more valuable than the fetus for glaringly obvious reasons. God is not real anyway, lol..
@ryddelwearsahat Law and sciecnce both wroks only from christian presuppositions, like the existence of absolute morals, and an orderly, logical, consistent set of natural laws. Currently they both try to pretend that they stand on their own, and neither presuppose of prove the existence of God. Having received spiritual wisdom, I am no longer impressed with the pretence of worldly wisdom.
@OmvendtVideo I'm not xtain, and I still know science, math, I still have values and morals- and they aren't based off of fear of what might happen when I die. I think it is quite pitiful that you can only be a 'good person' if you fear eternal suffering in the afterlife.. I used to believe in god until I realized it was a lie made out of fear, guilt, and shame. I actually have more respect for people and got where I am today by throwing away and rejecting god..
@ryddelwearsahat Don't worry, I never mistook you for a Christian. You say you have morals, but by what standard do you judge that? Every man will proclaim his own goodness, the proverb says. By what standard do you make that claim? Are you moral by conforming to God's eternal law, or by conforming to your personal moral preferences? And if you chose the latter, has not every evil person you can think of in world history considered themselves good by their own standard?
@OmvendtVideo Actually, most predaitive, evil people know they are evil and in the wrong.. and do not care. I know when i am in the wrong, and try to treat others the way i want to be treated at all times, even sometimes when I don't want to treat them kindly, b/c they are being a psychopathic bitch or an asshole or whathaveyou. I'm curious.. do you think slavery is moral? Or killing rape victims who are afraid to report a rape? Please tell me, if you want to play this by god's hand.
@ryddelwearsahat I've spent enough time chasing red herrings that I usually don't bother with it. I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but the slavery routine is kind of old. Watch my two part video "Ten questions every Christian has answered a million times" for what I have to say on that. The rape victim thing I haven't heard before though. So just out of curiosity as to what scripture you will mangle to pull that one off, I'll bite. you may proceed with reeling me in.
@OmvendtVideo I'm just curious as to whether or not you believe the OT laws still apply or not, and whther or not you think the NT laws are valid, and agree w/ everything Jesus says- like HIS support of slavery.. and his support of OT laws.. or the fact that the very existence of jesus, if he DOES invalidate OT law, undoes the very existence of god b/c god is perfect, cannot make mistakes, and his word and law are perfect- and thus never 'needed' changing from the get-go.. b/c you cannot -c
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. Oh wait,. that's rape-marriage, lol. Or would you prefer the KJV verseS? Let me provide those and carry on.. -c
@ryddelwearsahat Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (King James Version) 28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Now, you'd think that's just crazy sex-marriage, lol rite? Nope- next verse, lol, puts it into context -c
@ryddelwearsahat Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (King James Version) 23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
-cried not-.. Kill em' then is good, but not now, lol?
@ryddelwearsahat I'm disappointed. I actually thought you would have some original material. Sorry, mate this is way off topic, and I have been in this exact same debate dozens of times already. I have a life, and I simply don't have the time to go into an eternal loop of you ripping something off some atheist website, ignoring my answer, and then repeating the whole procedure. Google it or something. You'll find to your great surprise that it's been answered before.
@OmvendtVideo Sory, but i have yet to meet a single religious person who will explain this to me- i just get personal insults or people like you who blow me off. so, pity- when all else fails, run away.. Well, w/e your reasoning may be, god is not law, nor will it ever be, god is evil, is outdated and is slowly being removed from the pages of time by science, freedom, and education- and abortion will remain legal so long as freedom reigns supreme. So, hate not, waste not. See you.
like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like
Oh and your point about life starting at conception is stupid, the egg is alive before conception and so is the sperm. Is a womans period abortion, or a man masturbating?Of course not! At what point something is alive is meaningless, or else women commit murder every month and men, ahem, more often then that. Whats important is when it becomes conscious, a human being instead of just the potential to one day become one. Most embryologists will tell you this occurs around late 2nd trimester.
Wow you really destroyed my argument there didnt you? I'm blinded by your embryological expertise! Who's being stupid here? Do you have anything to add to this debate, anything at all? You think I'm being stupid? EXPLAIN WHY
@Firework219 First off, fair play for responding when challenged man, seriously (most dont). OK its not about cell numbers, or even about complexity. All complex life on Earth is made up of living cells in varying forms and amounts and we already treat different forms of life differently. No-body is accused of murder for picking flowers. You may think Im being silly but Im not, my point is that Humans have marked themselves out as unique and our lives uniquely important from all other life....>
<.....and we are right to do so. So for me the abortion debate is not about living/nonliving, as I said the nature of living cells pre-conception renders the argument meaningless, but is about when a developing phetus becomes HUMAN not just a collection of living cells with the potential to someday become one. I hope that clarifies things for you mate, if not, ask away!
@thebrassdubliner says: its about when a developing phetus becomes human.
~~~~~~~~~~ A fetus is of the "human" species from day one. Do you mean when it becomes a human BEING? It becomes a human being at birth, and it gets rights w/ that title.
"Nothing really changes to the feotus when its born" Correct! sooo....whats your point!? Im pro choice and Id never argue on some huge difference occuring at birth, but then Im not arguing for abortion up to 9months am I, no-one is. Whats important is not some big change at 9months but the ENORMOUS change that takes place over those nine months, from single celled organism to conscious being.
iron: fetuses & babies are the same well, hell yes they are! babies scream, say dada, play patty cake, wear diapers, have temper tantrums, walk, crawl, plan, think, emote, eat applesause, love bert & ernie, laugh, pick up toys, throw them, kiss, hug, Yep, that the same as a fetus you people are kooks, and it dosent matter if you call a fetus a Ford F 150...abortion wold still be legal. So, make a god damned valid point if you can
iron: ???? What cant you understand? YOU said fetuses and babies were the same. I just proved you wrong by defintion. It that why you didnt reply ..instead, acting ignorant of what I said?
Without trying to sound snarky please read a person's post along with their punctuation more closely before rushing to a statement. Read my OP again and tell me if I am pro choice or pro life.
There is a big difference between having something attached to you and sucking off of you and something that can survive outside without being connected. Once a baby is born and the umbilical cord cut, the baby is can now breathe on it's own and is no longer connected to the mother's body.
Looks like someone had a lobotomy ;). seriously though i would recoment you get a uterus, get raped and pregnant then give birth (and be forced). then maybe you'll understand. Seriously though... a Fetus does not become sentiant untill the week before birth. unlike the women who is an actual thinking citizen. Im glad you're not prochoice because it would only mean we'd have more eneducated loonies belittling our efforts.
this man is stupid, once you are born you have legal rights to protect you and if someone kills you it's murder...unborn has no rights and protection and if abortionist kill a fetus it's abortion and it's perfectly legal.
born is keyword here!
unborn is the property of the woman because it's inside her body and if that woman decided to get abortion, well it's within her legal rights to do so.
Silly one, human beings can't be property, you lost that debate over 150 years ago.
Futhermore again you use circular logic. No duh, they don't have legal protections but that's the current state not a reason to keep abortion legal.
Why is birth such a big deal. It's common legal sense that you can't own a human being but what law says everything inside an item of your property is also your property.
When a man is inside a woman his penis doesn't suddenly become her property.
retarded, one you can't own born humans outside your body which is your property and that embryo is your property as well.
i don't care about my circle logic because it' the truth and you can't stop any woman from having abortion...go ahead and try it.
because the embryo is INSIDE another human, and until born and free of the women is a legally independent body...go ask a lawyer, if you don't believe me...stop asking the same questions that refute your pro-life fascist argument.
But think about how childish you are. Shouting slogans and not even attempting to debate me with a comperhensive argument.
Last time I checked laws against owning human beings didn't have the pre-condition of haveing been born. That's why bio-tech corporations can't claim frozen embryos as assets or copyright a specfic human being. Its illegal and the courts have specifically said who can't own unborn human beings.
a circle logic is only bad when it's the truth and it's against your fake, non-legal and illogical argument.
maybe because the embryos doesn't biologically belongs to them...but the woman who carried her biological embryo and that formed from her biological eggs ...inside her body is her property....go ask a lawyer and obgyn.
"a circle logic is only bad when it's the truth and it's against your fake, non-legal and illogical argument"
Is anyone paying attention to this?!
First off its CIRCULAR LOGIC, a logical fallacy. If my argument is illogical why can't you refute it?
"maybe its becuase the embryos doesn't biologically belongs to them...but the woman who carried her biological embryo and that formed from her biological eggs...inside her body is her property...go ask a lawyer and obgyn."
Yes "its legal so it should stay legal" and embryos don't have any rights becuase their embryos" is circular logic. Circular logic has nothing to do with what your arguing for or against, its a matter of illogical cuasation.
Even if your conclusion is right you can still use circular logic, i.e. My house can fit more people becuase it can fit more people. It may be able to fit more people but the reason given is the conclusion its trying to prove. If someone can't find a reason one they lose.
is that all you got? abortion is legal, can only be overturn by the supreme court and you can't stop any woman from having one...you have no power over any woman.
You still haven't made any argument for abortion without useing circular logic. All you can say is "its legal, so its legal". You're hilarious.
Listen there are arguments for abortion they're weak but they do exist. OMG do you want me to post them for you? Are you that ignorant? Why am I asking you are the person who didn't think abortion existed in the 1800's?!
How dumb are you? Yes, useing the fact that abortion is legal as an argument for why abortion should be legal is a strong indication of you being an idiot.
Do you think everything that has been legal/is legal should always legal? If not then stop useing this argument.
I suppose "Its in her body" is a slightly better argument, but this still doesn't make sense. You can't own a human being regardless of the location or age.
how dumb are you? that you can't find a better argument against legal abortion besides "YOU DON'T LIKE IT", a woman's abortion that is not in YOUR legal care is really none of your business and so feel free to watch yourself be ignored at an abortion rally.
I WOULDN'T CALL SOMEONE ELSE "DUMB" WHEN YOU CAN'T SPELL "USING" CORRECTLY.
What are you talking about!? There's plenty of things I don't like and I'm morally opposed to that I still think should be legal as the government has no place in it. For example: Hardcore Porn, Fake Child Porn, Prostition, Concensual Incest, Alcohol and Narcotics Abuse, Hate Speech, ect... But all of these are victemless crimes and a free society can't outlaw them.
Abortion at its heart is simply another round of bigots picking a group to dehumanize and persecute so you can feel superoir.
Consistant logic and values do help me sleep at night. How do you sleep at night , how can you live with yourself? Are you so detached from reality you don't even realize your princibles of freedom and equality directly conflict with your pro-infanticide position, or do you not even support equality and freedom?
you do know that infanticide is the killing of BORN babies...maybe you should google a word before you type.
i sleep very good and live just fine, thank you!
for the millionth time, you should ask a lawyer for legal abortion because, again, how i can i deny one's rights...when they never had them in the first place?
again, how can you deny a woman's civil rights to her body and want to force her to stay pregnant against her will?
i guess you really don't support equality and freedom!
Everyone has a right to do whatever the hell they want to do to their bodies, unless it puts harms or endangers other people. People have the right to shoot herion, though the government illegally imprisons them for it, but people DON'T have the right to shoot herion and then drive on the freeway.
The real debate is not what can people do with their bodies but rather "Are all human beings created equal deserving of legal personhood and protection under the law."
no, the real debate is already over...you get legal personhood when you're born, so your legal personhood doesn't conflict the civil rights of your mom and her body, since you're inside her body.
I do believe you. Are you so idiotic that you thought I believed children in the womb were granted legal personhood?!
No shit they aren't legal persons otherwise abortion would be illegal. My argument is why they SHOULD be legal persons. I used scientific and legal evidence to back up my stance. So far you haven't even attempted to defend why they shouldn't be legal persons, only moronically chanting that they aren't, and pretending that's an argument.
WHY IS BIRTH THE KEY? What fundemental changes happen to this lump of parasitic tissue during an 8-inch trip down the vagina that makes it into one of the most cherished things in the world, deserving of the strictest protection?
The only difference is that we can see the child. If wombs were tansparant abortion wouldn't be an issue. Its this bigoted culture obsesed with appearance that cuased this, same as racsim. Humanity NOT our how we feel about someone gives then thier right to life.
human:The only difference is that we can see the child. Thats IT, man! how do you give rights to somehting that you CANT see, & who dosent exist in the realm of everything that denotes our humanbeingness? Just because you have an alter in your house, with photos of Fetal scans, burning candles, a CD playing "having my baby", dosent mean shit.
hum:If wombs were tansparant abortion wouldn't be an issue. LIAR. One has to be BORN to have rights. NOT frickin VISIBLE!
Are you serious? Becuase you can't see them someone isn't a legal person. The only thing is thats its easier to ignore, thats why you loons hate it when confronted with pictures of what you actually support.
"One has to be BORN to have rights."
Once again WHY? I've made the argument that all human beings are created equal, and backed this up with overwhelming legal evidence, and showed that children in the womb are human beings and backed this up with overwhelming scientific evidence.
"and living in reality, would of showed you that we're not created equal...not even close"
Finally! I've lured out your vile nature for the world to see. No, not everyone is intelligent (obvious from your posts) nor strong, but we should all be treated equal under the law. This is a basic princible of western government and one which has been eroded by the sick instition of abortion.
The end result of this erosion is that it produces a society of freedom-hating, pro-death, morons.
you finally realized you can't fight abortion of a legally because a woman's civil right to her body, and now you call me bigoted for me telling you why abortion is legal and why it will still legal... this all you got?
you sound desperate.
"humanrights4everyone" how would forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will is not violating her right to her body?
nevermind, that is what you support FORCE.
you can't stop abortion, because it's not your call...it's a woman's choice.
I support "FORCE", to stop the muder of an innocent child. If she can find a way to not be pregnant without killing an innocent child, she has every right to.
Its the loons like you who defy logic and claim we're not all equal or that there is no intrinsic worth to human life, that not all human beings are people. By your logic when artificial wombs are created that can end pregnancies without killing children are developed its still okay to kill the kids.
dumbass, then you support FORCING A WOMAN TO STAY PREGNANT AGAINST HER WILL AND TAKING AWAY HER CIVIL RIGHTS TO HER OWN BODY, DUH!
think about what your position in reality.
maybe you should change your name to "againstrightsofwomen"
and what happen if she did use birth control or a condom and it failed? her rights to her body is gone? now she has to become an incubator to a unwanted embryo inside her against her will?..that you are not going help raise at once born.
Futhermore, its not the woman's body that she's choosing to have someone destroy but that of her childs. Its the childs limbs that are torn off, its the child's skull that is bashed in, its the child's brains that are sucked out and its the child's skin that is horrifically burned in a saline solution. Where's their choice, where's their right to their bodies.
And what of conjoined twins. Often one is dependent on the other. Does the independent one have the right to kill the dependent one?
You think an adult twin has the right to kill his or her twin becuase of a biological technicality. So what if they are dependent. Unlike with a fetus this dependence is permenate and far more debilitating.
Yes, sometimes a parasitic twin is killed at infancy becuase of the grave risk it carries, but we aren't talking about pregnancies or conjoined twins that pose a grave threat to the mother's/independent twin's life.
Holy shit, you really are sick, but consistent in a very evil way.
To all the "pro-choicers" looking at this, pay attention. This is the logical conclusion of your arguments. To kill fully grown born adults who have friends, family, a social life, all because he depends on some of his conjoined twin's organs to live through no choice of his own.
Do you really want to end up as a fat,white, lesbian, bitter, child-hating, 9/11 truther, who trolls around the internet?
As for the first 3, thanks to the internet, I can't say for certain but through a very complicated mathematical formula I have ascertained that their is a 95.4% chance of you being all three and a 99.8% of being at least one of them.
The other to are quite evident. "No I'm not bitter or hateful I kill the children out of love", lol. I wouldn't expect anything else from a 9/11 truther (I half expected you to deny that too).
Do research, there are dependent, adult, conjoined twins.
anymore for what? that had nothing to do with abortion.
abortion is legal and part of a woman's civil right to her body and it's her choice to have one...there's nothing you can to stop it or prevent it...ask a lawyer.
What about the adult independent twin's right to his/her own body? The dependent one is living off his/her body. Only a facist anti-choicer would oppose the choice of simply killing the dependent twin.
P.S. Why do you keep saying "ask a lawyer". No shit abortion is legal, that's why I'm arguing that it should be illegal. Are you really this dense or are you simply tring to irratate me? If you are it isn't working, I find it quite amusing actually.
Does this really make sense to you. Have you drifted so far into madness that this grouping of words has a reasonable meaning to you. It would be up to them to decide which one to kill?!?
First off dependence isn't something that would be decided it would be scientific fact. Secondly the question was would the dependent one have the right to kill the dependent one. Thirdly it can be reasonably assumed the dependent one wouldn't give consent to have their skull bashed in and brains sucked out.
hum: Becuase you can't see them someone isn't a legal person hahahah..Stop trying to fast talk me ME hum, you KNOW fucking better! Its because its not born.. save you word games for dumb polifers
hum:"One has to be BORN to have rights" Once again WHY? You know why... Christ, you love to type, dont you!!
'
hum:I've made the argument that all human beings are created equal, You know all your arguments suck. Its the reason they cant abortion illegal.
"hum:'One has to be BORN to have rights' Once again WHY?"
Can you go back to quoting me as "human: ... ". That was great, it made it seem like I was debating some evil demon or something.
Anyways, "You know why". Really? Come on, come up with something better. Prehaps your referencing a greater emotional attachment to born children then to unborn. That's simply becuase we can see them, add to our bigoted culture and you get legal abortion. Come up with a rational unbigoted reason.
BIRTH, being free and independent from another body and having your own civil rights and own legal protection...only dumbasses like yourself don't UNDERSTAND/IGNORE real legal facts.
god, how many times did i write that?
and you didn't give any legal facts, just your non-legal opinions.
the legality against abortion been destroyed and all you people got is your non-legal opinions...get over it and adopt a child.
I'm not disgusted with pictures of fetuses from 80's...I'm a horror fan!
Infants are still dependent on their mothers, and naturally would still derive their nutrition from her. You keep on repeating yourself without saying WHY you get civil rights at birth and not before. Are you trying to becuase up untill birth the child is a parasite, undeserving of legal personhood?
Becuase if you are, but are to dumb to even formulate the simplest of pro-abortion argument then, I'd be glad to refute.
hum:WHY IS BIRTH THE KEY hahahha. good god, you actually want that repeated?????? Oh yes,....it so you can type a long, uneducated response. You love that typing, dont ya buddy! lOL
Do I want the "You know..." repeated? No, I'd prefer a logical reason, so far you or that 9/11 truther "FREEAMERICANOW69" havn't been able to even attempt at providing such a reason.
I'll leave it to you Americans to tend to your own political affairs. Any flaws you may be able to point to in politicians who don't agree with your stance on this issue will not change the fact that abortion is the termination of a human life, and therefore morally wrong.
I think it would be easier to take pro-choicers seriously if their arguments were at least remotely related to the subject being discussed. I, as most pro-life people, do not take particular pleasure in telling people what to do with their bodies. If you want to pierce your navel, or have your appendix removed, I won't stand in front of the clinic holding up signs. So drop the straw man. I object to abortion because it is the termination of an innocent human life.
I wonder if the people shoving dead baby signs in the face of some 17 yr old girl at a clinic, ever wonder what type of life they are sentencing this child to when they change her mind? Doubt it.
Well it is at least life, as opposed to death. Even people who are born in difficult circumstances more often than not wants to live rather than die, when given the choice. In this regard you are the one who's anti-choice.
Do you consider yourself some type of deity, since you presume to have the right to determine which lives are worth living and not?
you make no sense whatsoever. yes, I really am pro choice.
andrewkletzien 6 months ago
@andrewkletzien
You call it choice but what you really mean is you are really for baby butchering.
ENDRENOABORTION 4 months ago
Would you prefer we call ourselves "Pro-Death"? O_o , its "pro-CHOICE" , therefore we believe its womens CHOICE. If you believe you should keep your baby because of all the points pro-lifers make thats your CHOICE. DO NOT force that on other people. People who make the choice to ABORT their babies
GIRinDisguise 6 months ago
@GIRinDisguise It's funny how girls say... "It's my body! I get to decide whether my baby lives or dies!" That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. First of all, it isn't their body because it's God's. Second, their babies life isn't theirs either, it's God's. You're suppose to raise God's children to be followers of Jesus Christ, not kill them. Pro-choice makes very little sense. Don't reply saying God isn't real, just play with a Ouija board and see how much "fun" you have.
LxE100 4 months ago
@LxE100 That was the most ignorant, close-minded comeback I've ever read.You didn't even make any valid points. Good job using "God" as a scapegoat though and assuming I'm Wiccan or anything along those lines.
GIRinDisguise 4 months ago
@GIRinDisguise Using God isn't a scapegoat, it's just the truth. The subject of abortion revolves greatly around God. A fetus isn't a human being just because it doesn't have full awareness because it's premature? Oh wait...isn't that what being premature is? Just because you're premature doesn't mean you aren't a human being... So what's the best thing you have to say in defence of pro-choicers? If it's the same thing I commented on, don't even bother. Come up with something more intelligent.
LxE100 4 months ago
That was supposed to be a reply to OmvendtVideo.
aislynnmidnight 7 months ago
Well, I suppose it depends on your opinion. I'm not going to bother to try to change your mind if that's you opinion. However, what you are suggesting is illegal and there's a bit of a difference between an embryo/fetus that cannot survive outside the womb no matter what anyone does and an infant that would survive with the help of anyone. That's there are laws allowing parents to abandon a child at certain locations without question, because those infants can survive with anyone's help.
aislynnmidnight 7 months ago
Are you German? You sound just like my old foreign exchange student. I'm having the same problem with pro-choicers believing that some invisible soul enters sometime in the grey area like "BAM! now you have a right to live, you didn't a second ago but now you do" and letting the un-informed mothers decide when that is. When confronted they just revert to "a zygote shouldn't have rights cause its small and simple".
fizzingwhizbeee 9 months ago
@fizzingwhizbeee I'm Norwegian actually, I'd imagine we'd probably have very similar accents though.
OmvendtVideo 9 months ago
Ah, og forresten... Uansett hvor overbevisende og lett forståelige noen av disse kommentarene nedenfor er, virker det som at du allerede har satt hjernen din i ignorer-modus, og kommer med usaklige kommentarer tilbake.... Det nytter ikke å diskutere en seriøs sak med noen som holder på sånn... Seriøst.. Om jeg skulle beskrevet deg med tre ord, ville nok dem vært: Useriøs og barnslig (unless you can prove me wrong)
Finkeism 9 months ago
@Finkeism Mulig jeg er useriøs og barnslig, men jeg kan ihvertfall telle til tre ;) Og jeg tillatere meg å erklære deg inhabil i spørsmålet om hvor overbevisende dine egne argumenter er, og den tilhørende konklusjonen om at det er noe galt med meg fordi jeg ikke lar meg overbevise.
OmvendtVideo 9 months ago
Seriously, dude... You pretend to care about the unborn child, but you don't seem to be thinking about his future, no matter what the circumstances may be..
Finkeism 10 months ago
@Finkeism How kind of you to kill people when it's in their best interest. Wouldn't it however be a better approach if you gave them a chance to have a good life, and then when they pass, say 30, and you still determine their life to be sub-standard you can kill them then?
OmvendtVideo 10 months ago
@OmvendtVideo Did you just delete my comment? Real mature.
Anyway, i'll give it another try.. If your sister was raped when she was 15-16, and she got pregnant... What would you have told her to do? If she kept the child, it would forever remind her of that horrible night.. But if she killed the offspring while it was still a part of her body, and totally under her control, she would be able to move on. And forget it ever happend..
Finkeism 9 months ago
@Finkeism Yes I'm trying to keep it somewhat family friendly on here. This one I'll leave on since you managed to make a complete sentence without swearing.
And yes, I would urge her to keep the child. Adding a murder to a rape doesn't make the rape - or the memories of it - go away. The child is not a part of her body, it is a separate body located inside of her body. And why do I keep having to answer this hypothetic question? The vast majority of abortions are in no way related to rape.
OmvendtVideo 9 months ago
@OmvendtVideo says: The child is not a part of her body, it is a separate body located inside of her body.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It may not be part of her body, but she owns it. Its her personal, private property to do with as she chooses.
Sueezee1 9 months ago
@Sueezee1 Oh, you mean like black people used to be?
OmvendtVideo 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OmvendtVideo says: Oh, you mean like black people used to be?
~~~~~~~~~~~ Blacks were NOT considered "people" until they got rights. Thats why they COULD be owned...JUST like a fetus who isnt a person w/ rights until birth. You dont know much, do you? Why have you chose to be uneducated in every area you touch on> take some pride in yourself and get smarter.
Sueezee1 9 months ago
@OmvendtVideo says: Wouldn't it however be a better approach if you gave them a chance to have a good life,
~~~~~~~~~~~ A "chance"? Do you know "risk" is one defintion of chance? You can have all the babies you want and risk their happiness, but dont expect smart women to follow your lead. AND, parents KNOW if they have what it takes to raise a child in the manner it DESERVES. Why have a child and not give it that?
Sueezee1 9 months ago
@Sueezee1 Even assuming you're a prophet who can accurately foretell the future of every unborn person, most people when given a choice between being brutally murdered or risking unhappiness, chose the latter. If you want to deny them this option, you can not call yourself pro-choice. You're just pro-self, at the expense of those who are weaker than you.
OmvendtVideo 9 months ago
@OmvendtVideo says: Even assuming you're a prophet who can accurately foretell the future of every unborn person,
~~~~~~~~~~~~ You idiot, dont you know how to comprehend what you read?? of course, you dont. Youre prolife! Where in the hell did you see that I said I could predict anything... That pregnant women should not have babies because I ...ME..could define their childs future??? Take a reading class & get back w/ me when you can understand what you read.
Sueezee1 9 months ago
Your preoccupation with this is evidence of your feminine pregnancy envy, which alos may include childbirth and breastfeeding. No man/male is obsessed with embryos that arent even his, unless he has this disorder. Read, "Eve's Seed: Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History". You'll see what I mean.
Sueezee1 10 months ago
@Sueezee1 Thank you for the diagnosis, doctor. I now understand why people who practice psychology in real life are required to have a license.
OmvendtVideo 10 months ago
@OmvendtVideo says: I now understand why people who practice psychology in real life are required to have a license
~~~~~~~~~~~ My bro, Psych prof at NE Un. in Oklahoma...he taught me well.
Sueezee1 10 months ago
Ludicrous, far more than it's "location" changes. A baby in the womb is parasitic, it takes what it needs and is integrated into the mother's biology. Without severe medical intervention, a fetus cannot survive outside its mother. It is dependent on HER body and thus cannot be considered a separate entity. A newly born baby is just generally dependent; it doesn't use any one person's body to the exclusion of all others. At that point, the mother isn't important, the care is.
ShijiFuuten 10 months ago
@ShijiFuuten So your conditions for whether it is ok to kill someone is:
1. They need to be able to survive without "severe" medical intervention
2. They must not depend on one specific person, but depending on others is permissible.
What I want to know is how you determined these moral standard, and also who died and made you the king of the universe with the right to impose these arbitrary morals on unborn children.
OmvendtVideo 10 months ago
@OmvendtVideo Your morals have nothing to do with it. I was pointing out how you were wrong in saying it's merely a difference of location. It's the mother's body, she may decide what to do with it; I won't mince words and say "you're not taking human life", because you are. That was a baby, but it was in the mother's body and the mother gets ultimate dominion over what happens to her body; as the baby is effectively a PART of her body, that comes under her purview as well.
ShijiFuuten 10 months ago
@ShijiFuuten I need to point out that the fetus has it's own DNA, and is not a part of the body of the mother, but rather a separate, unfinished body depending on the mothers body. But that aside, your supreme doctrine is that a womans right to decide what may happen to her body surpasses every other moral standard, even to the point of taking the life of another. I won't mince words either. That's utterly depraved. End of story.
OmvendtVideo 10 months ago
@OmvendtVideo I said that it was "effectively" a part of her body; as it can't sustain itself and is so connected to and dependent upon her systems, it cannot be considered a separate entity within itself, and the woman should have control over what occurs to her body. I find the idea that you can lord power over another being's reproductive control utterly depraved, so we're even. I believe that the bodily integrity of the host is paramount; you believe the unborn child is paramount.
ShijiFuuten 10 months ago
@ShijiFuuten To that I would only add that where our belief systems differ is that mine does not open up the door to take innocent life for the sake of convenience while yours does.
OmvendtVideo 10 months ago
@OmvendtVideo You insult me by labeling it "for the sake of convenience" and your condescension is palpable. Abortion is never convenient and your vilification of someone with different ideas than yours is an embarrassment. It's self-righteous Christians like you who make me feel twinges of aggravation and shame for my religion.
ShijiFuuten 10 months ago
@OmvendtVideo fetus has its own DNA not mothers body but separate
~~~~~~~ I find it so funny that prolifers scream "DNA" as if it matter in the realm of legal abortion or that we didnt know it was of the human species. . And, a fetus in the womens body may be separate but itis her personal and private property to do w/ as she choose.
Sueezee1 10 months ago
Your not really making any sense. You talk in circles.
pearlpearlpearl333 10 months ago
You're average Pro-Lifer:
-Abortion is baby murder!
-I won't let the gov't take my right to bear arms!
-God killed all those people -insert bullshit reason-
-Death penalty all the way!
-Support our troops!
-We should just bomb Iraq!
-_-
WyattsFreakinChannel 1 year ago
@WyattsFreakinChannel Please cite your sources for your information about my views on the second amendment, capital punishment, support for US troops, genocide in Iraq and whatever the God killed people thing is. Or alternatively, admit to being a prejudiced fool who just parrots liberal catchphrases that you heard on TV and didn't think through properly.
OmvendtVideo 1 year ago
This is an incredibly illogical argument. Yes, something changes after the birth. The baby is not inside the woman. Therefore, it is no longer an issue of a woman's right to her own body. I am consistently pro-choice that it is a women's right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or end it.
aislynnmidnight 1 year ago
@aislynnmidnight It's location changes. It's nature does not. It is the same thing after it was born as it was before. If it is wrong to kill it after it's born, it would be wrong to kill it before birth.
OmvendtVideo 1 year ago
@OmvendtVideo Well, then they can "evict" an embryo.fetus prior to viability and simply allow it to naturally expire. Thus, no "killing" involved, simply a change of location and the pregnancy still comes to an end. Everyone wins.
aislynnmidnight 7 months ago
@aislynnmidnight You mean kind of like leaving an infant out in the snow through a cold winter night? Yup. No killing involved there. Just a change of location, and then let nature do it's thing.
OmvendtVideo 7 months ago
@aislynnmidnight
Maybe we should evict you to starvation and exposure, everyone wins.
ENDRENOABORTION 4 months ago
@ENDRENOABORTION Been there. Evicted a little over a year ago, with three children to support. Guess what? None of you gave a shit. None of you would have put yourselves or acted to your own detriment in order to support me. Would you have taken food out of your own children's mouths or risked your own life so that I, a clearly living person, might be given a chance to live anywhere from a few more days to a few dozen more years? Why do you thinks others should be forced to do that?
aislynnmidnight 4 months ago
@aislynnmidnight
I spent years volunteering my time to feed the hungry and homeless; the parish I am at now has a program that houses homeless families. After the federal government, the Catholic Church is the number one provider of social services. Yes we do care.
Finally, it is not my responsibility to feed your kids- it is yours.
ENDRENOABORTION 4 months ago
Life is meaningless, people are everything. Prove to me a fetus is a thinking, feeling, self-aware person, and not just an empty, developing human shell, and I'll call abortion murder, plain and simple. Until then, I aborted at 14 and don't regret it one bit. Please, do what every other so-called pro'life'r out there does and play god w/ my personal history and tell me why I did it, how I feel, and where I will be in the next ten years..
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat If a persons worth is only derived from their ability to think, feel and be self-aware you are right to assert your right to not only kill an unborn fetus, but anyone you find lacking in these characteristics. Which could be all of us, because there is no clear cut line where you can say that someone is, eg. self aware. The sad thing about a worldview that asserts people are everything, is that it always ends up in people are worth nothing. You proved that by killing a child.
OmvendtVideo 1 year ago
@OmvendtVideo It is also based on independence. Can born children be adopted? Are the handicapped or elderly, or comatose inside of someone else- are people forced to care for them, even if it leads to their own detriment, job/education loss, even their own death? I have enver once found an actual person lacking in personhood- blacks, jews, criminals, children, ect.. the only humans who lack this are the braindead or fetuses. Born infants are reactive, conscious from birth onward, are people.
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat Do you realize that the distinctions you make are completely arbitrary, and only a matter of your personal opinion? You base other's worth on your definition of personhood, self-awareness or independence. How is that different from basing it on skin color, gender or age?
OmvendtVideo 1 year ago
@OmvendtVideo How much do you know about brain function, neurology? Psychology? The way the brain functions and develops is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Kindly explain how a fetus has the same personhood ability a born person does, when it's brain is in stasis or non even developed enough for it to feel pain or pleasure, let alone store information and develop opinions, react consciously..?
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat You missed my point. Let me rephrase. By what autority do you assert that brain development is the determining factor for the worth of a person as opposed to for example skin color, gender or age?
OmvendtVideo 1 year ago
@OmvendtVideo It isn't, like I said- but it is one of them. Another factor is whether or not that person is inside of another person and putting them at risk. It is a combination of factors that, NOWHERE, NO-WHEN else in human life, natural or unnatural, do we face at the same time. Skin color and gender have nothing to do w/ it- please don't try to compare me to a racist or sexist asshole.. And age is pointless once born- someone else can WILLINGLY assume care.
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat You are asserting things. not making arguments, or giving reasons why you believe them to be so. That renders your assertions invalid, as you are in fact only stating your personal opinion. I'm surprised at your moral outrage at the prospect of racism or sexism or ageism. Would it help if i told you black people are vastly overrepresented on abortion statistics. So are girls, especially in asian countries. Not to mention they are all a certain age.
OmvendtVideo 1 year ago
@OmvendtVideo ....Lol this is funny. Prove me wrong then, that after birth, somewhere down the line, humans go back inside other humans.. or that a fetus can be adopted/removed from the womb immediately, and not AFTER birth.. or that a fetus CAN think and feel- PLEASE. I'd LOVE to hear such things.. God.. no wonder abortion is legal, lol.
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat Yes, you would love to hear such rediculous things, bacause that would be easier to argue against than the things that I'm actually saying. If you want to build a strawman and knock him down, feel free to do so. If you want to come back after you're done and talk more about this, let me know.
OmvendtVideo 1 year ago
@OmvendtVideo Lol, kindly explain your position sensibly, then.. What are you actually saying? Things aren't so very clear when they are swiss cheese.
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat I'm saying that every distinction that your'e trying to make between a human and a non-human is completely arbitrary, and you have offered me no reason not to dismiss them as merely your opinion. I have not argued with the existence of such distinctions, I have argued with your arbitrary application of them as factors determining human worth.
OmvendtVideo 1 year ago
@OmvendtVideo I never said a fetus wasn't human, first off- I said it was not a person. Do you not understand the difference between those two terms? Would you like links and scientific facts supporting what i have said about the human brain and personhood? Legal doctrine..? Would you like me to explain what slavery or rape is, and what lethal force is, and the difference between killing for survival, and murder?
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat Perhaps you would kindly offer me your definition of personhood. Then offer me a reason why I should use that definition of personhood, and lastly offer me a reason why whatever you think personhood is should be a factor in determining the worth of a human life.
OmvendtVideo 1 year ago
@OmvendtVideo Wiki it, dictionary it.. YT does not allow copy/paste- more than half the time it makes the comment disappear as spam.. but here goes The term personhood refers to the state or condition of being an individual person, the essential meaning and constituent properties of what it is to be a person.
While in common parlance "person" and "human" are effectively synonyms, specific fields such as philosophy, law, and others, use the term with specialised context-specific meanings.
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@OmvendtVideo The treason is b/c it is a medical fact that a fetus cannot think or feel, and that a woman obviously can. Making a person suffer needlessly for a non-person's sake is barbaric.. and that opinion is supported by a great many people who do not hide behind religion or half-truths or chauvinism or anti-sex propaganda.. In example- I'd choose you over a fetus if the choice came down to it. It's an overused hypothetic question, BUT- if you had to choose between a frozen embryo, or -c
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
-c or a 5yo child, and both were facing immediate death, which would you save? The child who has memories and people who love and need it, or the embryo that is not even aware it is alive, let alone capable of suffering?
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@OmvendtVideo We all place differing values on differing human lives.. You do too, whether you realize it or not, whether you are strong enough to admit it or not. Glaringly obvious examples are the embryo or the 5yo, the missionary or the serial killer, the rapist or the victim, the doctor or the drug addict.. abortion is no different- which is worse, aborting a hollow human shell w/ the POTENTIAL to think/feel/suffer or forcing a thinking/feeling woman into trauma for a POTENTIAL person?
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat The analagy may be overused, but it's stil every bit as irellevant. If given the unlikely choice between saving two people I would have to chose one regardless of personhood. If given a choice between saving my wife or saving you, i might for selfish reasons chose my wife, but that doesn't mean you're not a person. While more people would be hurt to see a 5yo die, that doesn't mean the 5yo is more worthy of life, unless we in fact derive worth only from other's estimation of us.
OmvendtVideo 1 year ago
@OmvendtVideo True, dat.. but what would hurt you more? The loss of your wife, or me? =) What hurts the world more- the loss of a fetus, or the loss of a woman? The world can kiss my ass either way- I focus solely on the woman.. seeing as how she can think and feel and opinionate, and the fetus can't.. if a fetus was a person, I'd totally be prolife.. but it's a shell, pure and simple.. do you remember life en utero? And does the end justify the means, as hitler claimed? Forced birth, IE.
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat Herein, my friend, lies our disagreemant then. I see every human, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, as equally worthy of life. Their worth is not proportional to their fluctuating mental or emotional capability. It is derived from their creator. They are created in his image. He has defined them as valuable. Take God away, and you need something else to base human worth on. You picked mental ability. Someone else could pick race. Both equally wicked.
OmvendtVideo 1 year ago
@OmvendtVideo Too bad that law and science do not support or need god to function properly.. god is as much of an opinion as a favorite color. Race has nothing to do w/ whether or not your existence puts someone else's life at risk- it is action and placement.. a fetus is neither guilty nor innocent, but that does not change the fact that sometimes pregnancy puts the woman at risk, and her life is more valuable than the fetus for glaringly obvious reasons. God is not real anyway, lol..
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat Law and sciecnce both wroks only from christian presuppositions, like the existence of absolute morals, and an orderly, logical, consistent set of natural laws. Currently they both try to pretend that they stand on their own, and neither presuppose of prove the existence of God. Having received spiritual wisdom, I am no longer impressed with the pretence of worldly wisdom.
OmvendtVideo 1 year ago
@OmvendtVideo I'm not xtain, and I still know science, math, I still have values and morals- and they aren't based off of fear of what might happen when I die. I think it is quite pitiful that you can only be a 'good person' if you fear eternal suffering in the afterlife.. I used to believe in god until I realized it was a lie made out of fear, guilt, and shame. I actually have more respect for people and got where I am today by throwing away and rejecting god..
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat Don't worry, I never mistook you for a Christian. You say you have morals, but by what standard do you judge that? Every man will proclaim his own goodness, the proverb says. By what standard do you make that claim? Are you moral by conforming to God's eternal law, or by conforming to your personal moral preferences? And if you chose the latter, has not every evil person you can think of in world history considered themselves good by their own standard?
OmvendtVideo 1 year ago
@OmvendtVideo Actually, most predaitive, evil people know they are evil and in the wrong.. and do not care. I know when i am in the wrong, and try to treat others the way i want to be treated at all times, even sometimes when I don't want to treat them kindly, b/c they are being a psychopathic bitch or an asshole or whathaveyou. I'm curious.. do you think slavery is moral? Or killing rape victims who are afraid to report a rape? Please tell me, if you want to play this by god's hand.
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat I've spent enough time chasing red herrings that I usually don't bother with it. I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but the slavery routine is kind of old. Watch my two part video "Ten questions every Christian has answered a million times" for what I have to say on that. The rape victim thing I haven't heard before though. So just out of curiosity as to what scripture you will mangle to pull that one off, I'll bite. you may proceed with reeling me in.
OmvendtVideo 1 year ago
@OmvendtVideo I'm just curious as to whether or not you believe the OT laws still apply or not, and whther or not you think the NT laws are valid, and agree w/ everything Jesus says- like HIS support of slavery.. and his support of OT laws.. or the fact that the very existence of jesus, if he DOES invalidate OT law, undoes the very existence of god b/c god is perfect, cannot make mistakes, and his word and law are perfect- and thus never 'needed' changing from the get-go.. b/c you cannot -c
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
-c perfect perfection, or find an 'equally perfect' set of rule,s or just go, 'nope, dont care no more' ect.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. Oh wait,. that's rape-marriage, lol. Or would you prefer the KJV verseS? Let me provide those and carry on.. -c
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (King James Version) 28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Now, you'd think that's just crazy sex-marriage, lol rite? Nope- next verse, lol, puts it into context -c
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (King James Version) 23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
-cried not-.. Kill em' then is good, but not now, lol?
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat I'm disappointed. I actually thought you would have some original material. Sorry, mate this is way off topic, and I have been in this exact same debate dozens of times already. I have a life, and I simply don't have the time to go into an eternal loop of you ripping something off some atheist website, ignoring my answer, and then repeating the whole procedure. Google it or something. You'll find to your great surprise that it's been answered before.
OmvendtVideo 1 year ago
@OmvendtVideo Sory, but i have yet to meet a single religious person who will explain this to me- i just get personal insults or people like you who blow me off. so, pity- when all else fails, run away.. Well, w/e your reasoning may be, god is not law, nor will it ever be, god is evil, is outdated and is slowly being removed from the pages of time by science, freedom, and education- and abortion will remain legal so long as freedom reigns supreme. So, hate not, waste not. See you.
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat this video its a typical male answer kill everybody cause the phuking idiot has no real answer
thoostorm4 1 year ago
like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like like
Firework219 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TRUTH- It seems that most of these responses are just selfish and nothing else. Some are just to stir the "pot up".
I truly believe that once we start placing value on peoples lives, whether viewed valuable or unimportant, we are in trouble.
Soon we will be in telling the sick, sorry you aren't worth saving or taking care of because you are only going to die anyways-
We all need to value life from conception to natural death or it may be YOUR LIFE THAT IS ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK!!
angelshoulders 1 year ago
Oh and your point about life starting at conception is stupid, the egg is alive before conception and so is the sperm. Is a womans period abortion, or a man masturbating?Of course not! At what point something is alive is meaningless, or else women commit murder every month and men, ahem, more often then that. Whats important is when it becomes conscious, a human being instead of just the potential to one day become one. Most embryologists will tell you this occurs around late 2nd trimester.
thebrassdubliner 1 year ago
@thebrassdubliner
dont be stupid.. ok?
Firework219 1 year ago
@Firework219 "dont be stupid.. ok?"
Wow you really destroyed my argument there didnt you? I'm blinded by your embryological expertise! Who's being stupid here? Do you have anything to add to this debate, anything at all? You think I'm being stupid? EXPLAIN WHY
thebrassdubliner 1 year ago
@thebrassdubliner
what is the difference between killing a life with less cells than when it has more?
Firework219 1 year ago
@Firework219 First off, fair play for responding when challenged man, seriously (most dont). OK its not about cell numbers, or even about complexity. All complex life on Earth is made up of living cells in varying forms and amounts and we already treat different forms of life differently. No-body is accused of murder for picking flowers. You may think Im being silly but Im not, my point is that Humans have marked themselves out as unique and our lives uniquely important from all other life....>
thebrassdubliner 1 year ago
<.....and we are right to do so. So for me the abortion debate is not about living/nonliving, as I said the nature of living cells pre-conception renders the argument meaningless, but is about when a developing phetus becomes HUMAN not just a collection of living cells with the potential to someday become one. I hope that clarifies things for you mate, if not, ask away!
thebrassdubliner 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thebrassdubliner
this is what the dictionary says...
Definition of Fetus: "an unborn offspring of a mammal"
Definition of Unborn: "not yet born"
Definition of Born: "existing as a result of birth"
Definition of Birth: "the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother"
to me, the dictionary says that a fetus is the same thing as a baby, which means it is still a life.
Firework219 1 year ago
@thebrassdubliner says: its about when a developing phetus becomes human.
~~~~~~~~~~ A fetus is of the "human" species from day one. Do you mean when it becomes a human BEING? It becomes a human being at birth, and it gets rights w/ that title.
Sueezee1 1 year ago
"Nothing really changes to the feotus when its born" Correct! sooo....whats your point!? Im pro choice and Id never argue on some huge difference occuring at birth, but then Im not arguing for abortion up to 9months am I, no-one is. Whats important is not some big change at 9months but the ENORMOUS change that takes place over those nine months, from single celled organism to conscious being.
thebrassdubliner 1 year ago
I limit it to capacity for sentience. Which occurs early in the third trimester.
yellowkrux 2 years ago
yel:limit it to capacity for sentience
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I say your reporductive decisions will end when your'e 18, then I shall take over.
Sueezee1 2 years ago
Meh couldn't be much worse than how it is now.
yellowkrux 2 years ago
yell: couldn't be much worse than how it is now
LOl, good one!
Sueezee1 2 years ago
Fetuses and babies are both equally alive. They are both equally human.
I'm pro choice.
CeleryOfDissent 2 years ago
Fetuses and babies are the same?
Fetuses don't breathe, fetuses don't wear diapers, fetuses don't pee, fetuses don't eat, fetuses don't drink.
I am not trying to convert you. If you don't believe in abortion don't have one (which you can't since you are male).
IronOxideCorset 2 years ago
iron: fetuses & babies are the same well, hell yes they are! babies scream, say dada, play patty cake, wear diapers, have temper tantrums, walk, crawl, plan, think, emote, eat applesause, love bert & ernie, laugh, pick up toys, throw them, kiss, hug, Yep, that the same as a fetus you people are kooks, and it dosent matter if you call a fetus a Ford F 150...abortion wold still be legal. So, make a god damned valid point if you can
Sueezee1 2 years ago
???
IronOxideCorset 2 years ago
iron: ???? What cant you understand? YOU said fetuses and babies were the same. I just proved you wrong by defintion. It that why you didnt reply ..instead, acting ignorant of what I said?
Sueezee1 2 years ago
Without trying to sound snarky please read a person's post along with their punctuation more closely before rushing to a statement. Read my OP again and tell me if I am pro choice or pro life.
IronOxideCorset 2 years ago
heard the news? the Senate has just rejected tighter limits on federal funds for abortion in health care bill yes...We just keep winning!!!
Sueezee1 2 years ago
@IronOxideCorset but they will eat and wear diapers fi they werent killed
ilovetheview47 1 year ago
There is a big difference between having something attached to you and sucking off of you and something that can survive outside without being connected. Once a baby is born and the umbilical cord cut, the baby is can now breathe on it's own and is no longer connected to the mother's body.
christo930 2 years ago
Looks like someone had a lobotomy ;). seriously though i would recoment you get a uterus, get raped and pregnant then give birth (and be forced). then maybe you'll understand. Seriously though... a Fetus does not become sentiant untill the week before birth. unlike the women who is an actual thinking citizen. Im glad you're not prochoice because it would only mean we'd have more eneducated loonies belittling our efforts.
Midnightsilver13 2 years ago
Incoherent ramblings.
beansprout85 2 years ago
this man is stupid, once you are born you have legal rights to protect you and if someone kills you it's murder...unborn has no rights and protection and if abortionist kill a fetus it's abortion and it's perfectly legal.
born is keyword here!
unborn is the property of the woman because it's inside her body and if that woman decided to get abortion, well it's within her legal rights to do so.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
Silly one, human beings can't be property, you lost that debate over 150 years ago.
Futhermore again you use circular logic. No duh, they don't have legal protections but that's the current state not a reason to keep abortion legal.
Why is birth such a big deal. It's common legal sense that you can't own a human being but what law says everything inside an item of your property is also your property.
When a man is inside a woman his penis doesn't suddenly become her property.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
retarded, one you can't own born humans outside your body which is your property and that embryo is your property as well.
i don't care about my circle logic because it' the truth and you can't stop any woman from having abortion...go ahead and try it.
because the embryo is INSIDE another human, and until born and free of the women is a legally independent body...go ask a lawyer, if you don't believe me...stop asking the same questions that refute your pro-life fascist argument.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
"i don't care about my circle logic"
LOL!!! Well at least you were honest.
But think about how childish you are. Shouting slogans and not even attempting to debate me with a comperhensive argument.
Last time I checked laws against owning human beings didn't have the pre-condition of haveing been born. That's why bio-tech corporations can't claim frozen embryos as assets or copyright a specfic human being. Its illegal and the courts have specifically said who can't own unborn human beings.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
a circle logic is only bad when it's the truth and it's against your fake, non-legal and illogical argument.
maybe because the embryos doesn't biologically belongs to them...but the woman who carried her biological embryo and that formed from her biological eggs ...inside her body is her property....go ask a lawyer and obgyn.
what else do you got?
because my body is not a bio-tech corporation.
LOL.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
"a circle logic is only bad when it's the truth and it's against your fake, non-legal and illogical argument"
Is anyone paying attention to this?!
First off its CIRCULAR LOGIC, a logical fallacy. If my argument is illogical why can't you refute it?
"maybe its becuase the embryos doesn't biologically belongs to them...but the woman who carried her biological embryo and that formed from her biological eggs...inside her body is her property...go ask a lawyer and obgyn."
Are you high?!
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
that is not circular logic...again do you have anything else?
it's woman's civil right to her body to have a legal abortion...and you can't stop her.
and you know that.
go protest at an abortion clinic and watch yourself be ignored by women you have no power over.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
Yes "its legal so it should stay legal" and embryos don't have any rights becuase their embryos" is circular logic. Circular logic has nothing to do with what your arguing for or against, its a matter of illogical cuasation.
Even if your conclusion is right you can still use circular logic, i.e. My house can fit more people becuase it can fit more people. It may be able to fit more people but the reason given is the conclusion its trying to prove. If someone can't find a reason one they lose.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
hmmm.
LOL.
is that all you got? abortion is legal, can only be overturn by the supreme court and you can't stop any woman from having one...you have no power over any woman.
ahahahahahahaha!
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
LOL!!!
AGAIN! YOU DID IT AGAIN!!!
You still haven't made any argument for abortion without useing circular logic. All you can say is "its legal, so its legal". You're hilarious.
Listen there are arguments for abortion they're weak but they do exist. OMG do you want me to post them for you? Are you that ignorant? Why am I asking you are the person who didn't think abortion existed in the 1800's?!
What an idiot.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
i guess telling the truth makes you an idiot.
feel free to try to stop a woman from getting a legal abortion.
there's the word again 'legal".
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
How dumb are you? Yes, useing the fact that abortion is legal as an argument for why abortion should be legal is a strong indication of you being an idiot.
Do you think everything that has been legal/is legal should always legal? If not then stop useing this argument.
I suppose "Its in her body" is a slightly better argument, but this still doesn't make sense. You can't own a human being regardless of the location or age.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
how dumb are you? that you can't find a better argument against legal abortion besides "YOU DON'T LIKE IT", a woman's abortion that is not in YOUR legal care is really none of your business and so feel free to watch yourself be ignored at an abortion rally.
I WOULDN'T CALL SOMEONE ELSE "DUMB" WHEN YOU CAN'T SPELL "USING" CORRECTLY.
you have nothing.
bye.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
What are you talking about!? There's plenty of things I don't like and I'm morally opposed to that I still think should be legal as the government has no place in it. For example: Hardcore Porn, Fake Child Porn, Prostition, Concensual Incest, Alcohol and Narcotics Abuse, Hate Speech, ect... But all of these are victemless crimes and a free society can't outlaw them.
Abortion at its heart is simply another round of bigots picking a group to dehumanize and persecute so you can feel superoir.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
whatever makes you sleep at night, kid.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
Consistant logic and values do help me sleep at night. How do you sleep at night , how can you live with yourself? Are you so detached from reality you don't even realize your princibles of freedom and equality directly conflict with your pro-infanticide position, or do you not even support equality and freedom?
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
you do know that infanticide is the killing of BORN babies...maybe you should google a word before you type.
i sleep very good and live just fine, thank you!
for the millionth time, you should ask a lawyer for legal abortion because, again, how i can i deny one's rights...when they never had them in the first place?
again, how can you deny a woman's civil rights to her body and want to force her to stay pregnant against her will?
i guess you really don't support equality and freedom!
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
Everyone has a right to do whatever the hell they want to do to their bodies, unless it puts harms or endangers other people. People have the right to shoot herion, though the government illegally imprisons them for it, but people DON'T have the right to shoot herion and then drive on the freeway.
The real debate is not what can people do with their bodies but rather "Are all human beings created equal deserving of legal personhood and protection under the law."
You argue no, I argue yes.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
no, the real debate is already over...you get legal personhood when you're born, so your legal personhood doesn't conflict the civil rights of your mom and her body, since you're inside her body.
don't believe me, ask a lawyer!
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
"don't believe me, ask a lawyer!"
I do believe you. Are you so idiotic that you thought I believed children in the womb were granted legal personhood?!
No shit they aren't legal persons otherwise abortion would be illegal. My argument is why they SHOULD be legal persons. I used scientific and legal evidence to back up my stance. So far you haven't even attempted to defend why they shouldn't be legal persons, only moronically chanting that they aren't, and pretending that's an argument.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
nice, you're trying to switch the topic, again!
1. you bitched that all human are a person and have legal personhood.
2. you bitched about how a embryo is not property of a woman.
3. you bitched how the constitution/the declaration of independence protected embryos...when it doesn't.
i told you many times BORN is key and you choose ignore that fact, because civil rights of the woman would conflict with the fetus'...if it had any.
is this all you got?
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
WHY IS BIRTH THE KEY? What fundemental changes happen to this lump of parasitic tissue during an 8-inch trip down the vagina that makes it into one of the most cherished things in the world, deserving of the strictest protection?
The only difference is that we can see the child. If wombs were tansparant abortion wouldn't be an issue. Its this bigoted culture obsesed with appearance that cuased this, same as racsim. Humanity NOT our how we feel about someone gives then thier right to life.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
human:The only difference is that we can see the child. Thats IT, man! how do you give rights to somehting that you CANT see, & who dosent exist in the realm of everything that denotes our humanbeingness? Just because you have an alter in your house, with photos of Fetal scans, burning candles, a CD playing "having my baby", dosent mean shit.
hum:If wombs were tansparant abortion wouldn't be an issue. LIAR. One has to be BORN to have rights. NOT frickin VISIBLE!
Sueezee1 2 years ago
Are you serious? Becuase you can't see them someone isn't a legal person. The only thing is thats its easier to ignore, thats why you loons hate it when confronted with pictures of what you actually support.
"One has to be BORN to have rights."
Once again WHY? I've made the argument that all human beings are created equal, and backed this up with overwhelming legal evidence, and showed that children in the womb are human beings and backed this up with overwhelming scientific evidence.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
again, i told you that the declaration of Independence is not a legal document and have no power to it...ask a lawyer!
and living in reality, would of showed you that we're not created equal...not even close.
everyone know they're human but until born...they don't trump the woman and her civil rights to her body.
the unborn has no rights to live, while inside the woman until born.
is this all you got?
go adopt a child or saved children in africa.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
"and living in reality, would of showed you that we're not created equal...not even close"
Finally! I've lured out your vile nature for the world to see. No, not everyone is intelligent (obvious from your posts) nor strong, but we should all be treated equal under the law. This is a basic princible of western government and one which has been eroded by the sick instition of abortion.
The end result of this erosion is that it produces a society of freedom-hating, pro-death, morons.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
lol.
you finally realized you can't fight abortion of a legally because a woman's civil right to her body, and now you call me bigoted for me telling you why abortion is legal and why it will still legal... this all you got?
you sound desperate.
"humanrights4everyone" how would forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will is not violating her right to her body?
nevermind, that is what you support FORCE.
you can't stop abortion, because it's not your call...it's a woman's choice.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
I support "FORCE", to stop the muder of an innocent child. If she can find a way to not be pregnant without killing an innocent child, she has every right to.
Its the loons like you who defy logic and claim we're not all equal or that there is no intrinsic worth to human life, that not all human beings are people. By your logic when artificial wombs are created that can end pregnancies without killing children are developed its still okay to kill the kids.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
dumbass, then you support FORCING A WOMAN TO STAY PREGNANT AGAINST HER WILL AND TAKING AWAY HER CIVIL RIGHTS TO HER OWN BODY, DUH!
think about what your position in reality.
maybe you should change your name to "againstrightsofwomen"
and what happen if she did use birth control or a condom and it failed? her rights to her body is gone? now she has to become an incubator to a unwanted embryo inside her against her will?..that you are not going help raise at once born.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
Futhermore, its not the woman's body that she's choosing to have someone destroy but that of her childs. Its the childs limbs that are torn off, its the child's skull that is bashed in, its the child's brains that are sucked out and its the child's skin that is horrifically burned in a saline solution. Where's their choice, where's their right to their bodies.
And what of conjoined twins. Often one is dependent on the other. Does the independent one have the right to kill the dependent one?
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
what rights?
again, you keep ignoring the legal facts that keep giving you.
the unborn has no legal to live, while inside the woman because legal rights would conflict, duh!
and why would something inside, who is nearly brainless have rights over you and your body, anyways?
yes, and it's a parents decisions based on how one is dependent one the other.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
You think an adult twin has the right to kill his or her twin becuase of a biological technicality. So what if they are dependent. Unlike with a fetus this dependence is permenate and far more debilitating.
Yes, sometimes a parasitic twin is killed at infancy becuase of the grave risk it carries, but we aren't talking about pregnancies or conjoined twins that pose a grave threat to the mother's/independent twin's life.
Is that all you got? :)
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
that is what is what you are talking.
even in conjoined twins...so body has to be the parasite.
if not a threat, they STILL would be separated anyway.
so you question no matter how you frame it's still bullshit.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
Holy shit, you really are sick, but consistent in a very evil way.
To all the "pro-choicers" looking at this, pay attention. This is the logical conclusion of your arguments. To kill fully grown born adults who have friends, family, a social life, all because he depends on some of his conjoined twin's organs to live through no choice of his own.
Do you really want to end up as a fat,white, lesbian, bitter, child-hating, 9/11 truther, who trolls around the internet?
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
holy shit, you are a fascist.
because you want women to stay pregnant against their will because your half-ass opinions about human rights,when it doesn't apply to the unborn.
believe if one twin danger the life of the other...that twin would had been dead before adulthood and you know it.
is that the best you got?
I'm not fat, white, or a lesbian.
i don't hate children and I'm not bitter.
I'm not a troll because i support the legal when you only support your non-legal opinions, you troll.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
As for the first 3, thanks to the internet, I can't say for certain but through a very complicated mathematical formula I have ascertained that their is a 95.4% chance of you being all three and a 99.8% of being at least one of them.
The other to are quite evident. "No I'm not bitter or hateful I kill the children out of love", lol. I wouldn't expect anything else from a 9/11 truther (I half expected you to deny that too).
Do research, there are dependent, adult, conjoined twins.
Anymore?
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
anymore for what? that had nothing to do with abortion.
abortion is legal and part of a woman's civil right to her body and it's her choice to have one...there's nothing you can to stop it or prevent it...ask a lawyer.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
What about the adult independent twin's right to his/her own body? The dependent one is living off his/her body. Only a facist anti-choicer would oppose the choice of simply killing the dependent twin.
P.S. Why do you keep saying "ask a lawyer". No shit abortion is legal, that's why I'm arguing that it should be illegal. Are you really this dense or are you simply tring to irratate me? If you are it isn't working, I find it quite amusing actually.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
since they are adults...it would be up to them and how one's dependent is on the other....i would have done while they were babies.
i keep saying that because you keep ignoring legal facts.
i guess i should say take a philosophy class and because your morality is not mine.
i don't care what you think...telling you the legal truth abortion is fun....you can't prevent any woman's abortion or even try to stop it.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
Does this really make sense to you. Have you drifted so far into madness that this grouping of words has a reasonable meaning to you. It would be up to them to decide which one to kill?!?
First off dependence isn't something that would be decided it would be scientific fact. Secondly the question was would the dependent one have the right to kill the dependent one. Thirdly it can be reasonably assumed the dependent one wouldn't give consent to have their skull bashed in and brains sucked out.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
ok that's like an opinion, but lets not forget you still deny reality and the law to support your pro-life fascist movement.
yes, it does the location and how much of dependency one twin would have on another and science can does prove it.
in your scenario one twin does, but in reality the parents and doctors would decide.
it doesn't matter because couldn't talk.
wow, you went abortion to this. very sad.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
You have yet to answer the question. Would you support the legal right of the dependent twin to kill his or her dependent twin.
P.S. What exactly is my opinion.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
re-read my comments... i already said i support it.
you went on a wild tangent about killing twins because you have nothing really against abortion.
i know it's your opinion that is why i said it.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
heard the news? the Senate has just rejected tighter limits on federal funds for abortion in health care bill yes...We just keep winning!!!
Sueezee1 2 years ago
hum: Becuase you can't see them someone isn't a legal person hahahah..Stop trying to fast talk me ME hum, you KNOW fucking better! Its because its not born.. save you word games for dumb polifers
hum:"One has to be BORN to have rights" Once again WHY? You know why... Christ, you love to type, dont you!!
'
hum:I've made the argument that all human beings are created equal, You know all your arguments suck. Its the reason they cant abortion illegal.
Sueezee1 2 years ago
"hum:'One has to be BORN to have rights' Once again WHY?"
Can you go back to quoting me as "human: ... ". That was great, it made it seem like I was debating some evil demon or something.
Anyways, "You know why". Really? Come on, come up with something better. Prehaps your referencing a greater emotional attachment to born children then to unborn. That's simply becuase we can see them, add to our bigoted culture and you get legal abortion. Come up with a rational unbigoted reason.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
BIRTH, being free and independent from another body and having your own civil rights and own legal protection...only dumbasses like yourself don't UNDERSTAND/IGNORE real legal facts.
god, how many times did i write that?
and you didn't give any legal facts, just your non-legal opinions.
the legality against abortion been destroyed and all you people got is your non-legal opinions...get over it and adopt a child.
I'm not disgusted with pictures of fetuses from 80's...I'm a horror fan!
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
Infants are still dependent on their mothers, and naturally would still derive their nutrition from her. You keep on repeating yourself without saying WHY you get civil rights at birth and not before. Are you trying to becuase up untill birth the child is a parasite, undeserving of legal personhood?
Becuase if you are, but are to dumb to even formulate the simplest of pro-abortion argument then, I'd be glad to refute.
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
hum:WHY IS BIRTH THE KEY hahahha. good god, you actually want that repeated?????? Oh yes,....it so you can type a long, uneducated response. You love that typing, dont ya buddy! lOL
Sueezee1 2 years ago
Do I want the "You know..." repeated? No, I'd prefer a logical reason, so far you or that 9/11 truther "FREEAMERICANOW69" havn't been able to even attempt at providing such a reason.
Lets see what the two of you have presented:
"You Know"
"BECUASE"
Wow, I'm convinced! LOL
HumanRights4Everyone 2 years ago
Why wasn't Palin upset with Bush about Roe v. Wade when Bush for six years had a majority in both chambers of Congress &a
conservative Supreme Court that put him in office? Bush had the numbers to push for a reverse of Roe. Like all Republicans, Palin is
simply a hypocrite. They now blame Obama for the damn mess that Bush left behind & kept quiet while Bush ruined that country's
financial and moral standing in the world.
60DemocratsHappyDay 2 years ago
I'll leave it to you Americans to tend to your own political affairs. Any flaws you may be able to point to in politicians who don't agree with your stance on this issue will not change the fact that abortion is the termination of a human life, and therefore morally wrong.
OmvendtVideo 2 years ago
Mind your own Uterus. :)
60DemocratsHappyDay 2 years ago
I think it would be easier to take pro-choicers seriously if their arguments were at least remotely related to the subject being discussed. I, as most pro-life people, do not take particular pleasure in telling people what to do with their bodies. If you want to pierce your navel, or have your appendix removed, I won't stand in front of the clinic holding up signs. So drop the straw man. I object to abortion because it is the termination of an innocent human life.
OmvendtVideo 2 years ago
I wonder if the people shoving dead baby signs in the face of some 17 yr old girl at a clinic, ever wonder what type of life they are sentencing this child to when they change her mind? Doubt it.
60DemocratsHappyDay 2 years ago
Well it is at least life, as opposed to death. Even people who are born in difficult circumstances more often than not wants to live rather than die, when given the choice. In this regard you are the one who's anti-choice.
Do you consider yourself some type of deity, since you presume to have the right to determine which lives are worth living and not?
OmvendtVideo 2 years ago