Actually its quite the opposite Pro lifers are trying to force women to bear children in order to reverse the low birth rates Just ask Russia and Germany.
Great video!!!!!! I loved the answer. I talk to my friends about this, and their minds have really changed from accepting abortion, to giving life! Save the cute babies!!! lol :D
I dont know where this woman is getting this bullshit from. But as a pro choice supporter we never use this type of argument in our discussions. Clearly this is propaganda that is used to make prochoicers look like uneducated people.I would like to see this woman refute some of the real arguments that pro choicers say instead of making up this bullshit.
Nihlism is a poor substitute for morality, and is destructive not constructive.
Sorry-I have no faith in humanity to learn from the grotesque evils of Communism. You can read "The Black of Communism" and gain a mere smidgen of understanding of that evil, but it's far far easier to understand Utopia. That's why it will always appeal to know-nothings like those in any leftist march for Magical Solutions. They're actually part of the problem, easily exploited by demagogues like this Obama asshole.
@slowalker700 EXACTLY. If man can enslave ANY man, man can enslave ALL men. It likewise holds true that if man can deny ANY man of life he can deny ALL men of life. You are right, abortion plays on the same evils - a disregard of the value of life - as did slavery. Mans inhumanity against man knows no bounds when it can rationalize the methodical and clinical murder of the innocent unborn. In order for man to have Liberty he must give Liberty. In order for man to have Life he must preserve Life!
@texaswoodsmith You want to save all the unborn, but have you even considered where all these additional unwanted lives would go? You don't care whether babies have rights or not, but you're obsessed with other peoples unwanted fertilizations, that's twisted and sick. People have human rights for a reason. Until you find a place for all these additional dependants, until you can force unwilling parents to be loving, capable parents, you are really just speaking out of your asshole. Or typing, ha
So this is basically whats called a strawman argument. Its where the opposition misrepresents your position in general. This is hardly the time to get involved in issues of morality! I could say the same thing to anyone that opposes universal healthcare. We cant just stop paying for people because that would be immoral! The fact of the matter is overpopulation needs to be dealth with. In lieu of any other solution (which anti-abortionists cant give) abortion will win.
@vidfreak56 Dude! Jump out of the box! Stop waving the pom-poms. Leftys (Liberal-Democrats-Blues) "control" population through slaughter of the unborn. Rightys (Conservative-Republicans-Reds) "control" population through slaughter of war. Why don't we actually give peace a chance and let mother nature handle it. "...Abortion will win..." are you serious. This is just rationalization of the clinical and methodical slaughter of human beings. You guys are as bad as the War-mongers!
@texaswoodsmith LOLOLOLOL leaving all your ad hominem aside. Give peace a chance? Mother nature and peace dont belong in the same sentence. Serious? Me? As a heartattack. The question is am i wrong? Yes I do rationalize it because it is a solution to overpopulation. Got a better one? Then tell me your plan..otherwise dont expect change. Methodical slaughter of humans? As opposed to what? Letting people starve to death or die of treatable disease? LOLOLOL looks fair to me. Its Life after all?
@vidfreak56 The Earth is not overpopulated. And, it is not our business to handle it. Oh, and yes, I personally would rather starve to death then have a good sameritan pass me a "mercy-killing". All men are created equal and were endowed by their creator with the right to Life and Liberty. No man gave it to them. Therefore, no man can take it away. Anyway, I gotta head out for a bit. But, I will get back with ya brother.
@texaswoodsmith Yes it is overpopulated(proven by recessions and high prices). And if its not my business then neither is it yours (nice try). So youd personally starve to death? Youve never been starving ill bet. No man is created equal. LOLOL. NO one has liberty. EVERYTHING you can keep is granted to you by another man or woman. This is gonna take ages to debrainwash you. I wont hold my breath lol.
@vidfreak56 Recession/high prices are primarily a product of false money printed by Central banks devaluing currency. I agree that it is not my business to handle the problem of overpopulation, because I do not believe there to be such a problem. Yes, I would PREFER to starve to death than have someone toss me a "mercy-killing". I will take my chances on my own in these woods. And, yes all men are created equal. But, I will agree that liberty is a corporate commodity, it can be purchased.
@texaswoodsmith Recessions or prices are more than just a product of central banks. They also result from overpopulation. We wouldnt be in this mess if our population were under control, regardless of whether a central bank printed money. Banks also got greedy. Wheres their responsibility? LOL deflection. But its on you to provide solutions to "problems" not to just say it isnt there. So a retard is the same as a non-retard? LOL no equality exists. And youd steal life to live yes.
@vidfreak56 I don't have to provide a solution to any problem. The undenyable truth is that a fetus is a Human Being. It is alive. If you willingly and intentionally kill an innocent human being, it is murder as judged by the standards of most all nations and all people who have ever lived. And, when necessary, I will enter the battlefield to restore justice no differently than the men who did to free the black man from the bounds of slavery. I guess I'll see you there...
@texaswoodsmith A fetus is human but not a human being in the same sense as what you are when your born (ill leave you to define "human being"). Its alive yes, but not a person. An engine is not a car.
Oh I understand youll fight and murder people to get your sense of "justice". Thats still not gonna stop anyone from having abortions. So you wage your war and justify murder with murder. Ill try to stop abortion with intelligence and practical solutions. In the end Ill win too.
@vidfreak56 A fetus is not an infant, just as an infant is not a toddler, just as a toddler is not a teenager, just as a teenager is not an adult. However, we both agree that they are all Human Beings. Ergo, to intentionally and knowingly take the life of an innocent human being is murder. Brother, this is just the plain truth. They not any debate. The only justifiable reason to take human life is in self-defense.
@vidfreak56 Furthermore, I do not justify murder with murder. But, one day there will be a duly elected Governor who will invoke the 10th & outlaw the murder of the unborn in his state. He may even nullify the 4th Amendment violations of the Patriot Act & the TSA. He may nullify SB 510. At his point, it will invoke the wrath of the Federal Government, pressure will be applied, and men will be forced to make a choice: Submit or Resist. Once attacked men will defend themselves.
@texaswoodsmith And because youd steal life to live, there is no reason why anyone would listen to you when you speak of moral judgement. Hence you cant say abortion is immoral as you have no consistent standard of morality to offer back. You only seek to make the world your own, for you and all people like you. You dont want to be a part of nature, but rather just seperate yourself from it. Truthiness is good.
@vidfreak56 Likewise, why would folks listen to you? You believe taking animal life to support our own as "stealing" ergo killing. You believe that killing & murder to be one and the same. You believe that if a man is faced with taking life to protect his own hr is guilty of murder. You believe the men who stormed Normandy Beach to defend against Nazism were murderers. You believe that all are not created equal. You believe it better to kill human beings rather than be "overpopulated".
@vidfreak56 Animals take life to survive. It's nature. Are dogs & cats "wrong" for existing? Likewise, we prey upon them, as they prey upon others. Each looks after its own kind in its own way. You are free to do with your body as you see fit. Free will is yours, granted you by your creator. But, this free will must be metered with justice. No victim no crime. So is there a victim when an abortion is committed? Does not the abortionist doctor, who puts knife to flesh, take innocent human life?
@texaswoodsmith Yes animals take life to survive. They also take lives to defend territory. They also take the lives of their young in many cases. Humans do the same for different reasons. Hence you cannot pick and choose what you want to happen in real life and expect everyone to listen to you. Animals operate out of free will, so humans can aswell. But the question is what kind of justice should there be and who gets to say what it is. Victim? Animals victimize other animals.
@vidfreak56 If wolves and goats want to argue amongst themseves over their own forms of justice, so be it. I am human and concern myself with human justice. If there is a victim, there is a crime. We may have all the free will that we can possibly defend up to the point that it victimizes others. No victim, no crime.
@texaswoodsmith LOL wolves and goats have no justice. Thats a human convention. Again you cant prove naturally that humans deserve such treatment or are born w/ it because no animal is born w/ it. And a victim depends on your definition of the word. We are all victims to some degree or another to other peoples desires. Wether it be the desire to abort or to stay alive.
@texaswoodsmith "its nature" And you are now just choosing what you think we should do by looking at the elements of nature and cherry picking what you like and what you dont like.
"Does not the abortionist doctor, who puts knife to flesh, take innocent human life" Really? Does not the human who takes knife to flesh of an animal take an innocent animals life? LOL for survival or for convenience. Who cares. Its convenient to hide behind survival to kill. Same thing.
@texaswoodsmith And a fetus may be innocent in the scope of existence, but the problem w/ that is that we all are. I could use that as a good example to say that a starving person is just innocently looking for food and its not his/her fault they're hungry. The "innocence" can also be looked at from the POV of the fact that in the natural world its about survival and nothing is special because it needs, so nothing is "innocent". Not even fetuses.
@vidfreak56 A fetus "may" be innocent. I assure you, by ANY cultural definition of "guilty/non-innocent" that a fetus is, beyond debate, innocent. Likewise, you state "...but the problem is that we all are...". This is a bunch of eloquent double talk. Even if it were true, how would it be a "problem"? New life, young life is always innocent and special, and if for no other reason because we "pick and choose" to say so. Your points of view primarily seek to serve mans inhumanity against man.
@texaswoodsmith Right but your talking about a cultural definition not a naturally proven definition. Culturally this has been true because religion has usually ruled the day. This isnt true of all cultures however. Many cultures performed abortion for different reasons. Double talk? No sir. This is pure logic. You can use the argument that we should protect fetuses in the same way that I can use the argument of innocence to prove that everyone should get healthcare. Its not realistic.
@SuperMilitantAtheist Our Supreme Law states that all men are created equal brother...not "born" equal. The Constitution guarantees all the right to Life, Liberty, & Property. These rights are inalienable & endowed upon us by our Creator. They were not graciously afforded us by any man. Therefore, can be taken by no man. So, I would surmise; with regard to multitudes "...living in shit..." that I am doing a little more than you, who would agree to have them killed...or murdered, to be exact.
@SuperMilitantAtheist Maybe Allah said it, who knows? If he did, good for him. I agree with truth no matter what mouth it comes from. My reference is to Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Which was the foundation document of the Revolutionary War. It is part of the Supreme Law of the United States.
@SuburbiaSurvivor Be my guest, the message is greater than the man! I was proud to see your comments over the past few days as well. I felt we were helping one another and I thank you. If a man can not be counted on to defend Life, then how can he be counted on to defend Liberty. If rights to Life, Liberty, and Property are lost in the United States, they are lost to the world. We are the last hope. It is our duty to protect and defend that which was endowed upon us all by our Creator.
@SuperMilitantAtheist I did watch it & I get it. The message that I got from the music is that America is more about show than substance. Comercialized falsehood, media driven consumption, war corporatism, false money, instant gratification, & selfishness are more apparent than the good qualities that shaped our nation. I was raised blue collar on a farm in Texas & must agree that this is a serious threat. But, there are good men who know. There are men who will restore this nation. cont...
@SuperMilitantAtheist The reigns of this nation were wrestled from the hands of themost powerful Empire the world had ever knowm by a mere 3% of our population. The few stood against the many & prevailed. There is an awakening in the USA. Men are shedding their fear, arming themselves, storing food, & taking steps towards self-sufficiency. They are gathering together of like mind & challenging authority. We know we being lied to, we know we are financially enslaved. And, we know our duty. cont.
@SuperMilitantAtheist It is not only our right, but our duty to reinstate the reigns of government when such government becomes destructive to its own ends. Fear always becomes anger & anger is death. We may only shed fear through understanding. When men are consumed by confusion they must rely on principle. Principle that is firm, unchanging; principle that guides us. Our Life & our Liberty were not graciousy afforded to us by any man or any government. cont...
@SuperMilitantAtheist Our Life and our Liberty were granted to us all by our Creator. If the globalist elites, sociolists, fascists, republi-cratic politicians, United Nations forces, or ciminal banking cartels do not agree; then I have a rifle that says it is so. This nation is our land. And, when the time comes, my sons and I will stand against this Goliath, alone if necessary. A man who is committed, firmly grounded in principle, and whose cause is just - knows no fear. cont.
@SuperMilitantAtheist And, he who is without fear understands that Victory and Defeat are the mere end results of necessary action...that the outcome is not the point. The message is greater than the man and a man who will not defend Life is a man who can not be counted on to defend Liberty. Without Life we have no Liberty and without Liberty we are nothing.
@texaswoodsmith the point i was trying to make is that i was talking about the entire planet, not the US, then you go off about the US constitution, and then say those rights were made up by the god you believe in, different countries have different constitutions, so...did your go also make theirs? that are different from yours?
@SuperMilitantAtheist Yes brother, I believe that all men, on the entire face of the Earth are created equal and equally deserve Life & Liberty. Regardless of their respective Constitutions. I believe that God knew you as he knit you together in you mothers womb, he knew you by name, & he knew you before then. He then bound your immortal soul to flesh in the womb of a mother. We have the words of the Lord, but we also have his deed. Deeds are principles. By this deed, we know a few things: cont:
@SuperMilitantAtheist ...cont: We know that abortion is murder, because God gave life to man. We know that the Earth is not overpopulated becase God put every man here, when & where he wanted, by his will. We know that no man can be born Gay, but rather makes a choice to be so. We know that God bound mans soul to the flesh of a mother, so we know that God chose who our mother would be, thus he chose our race. Ergo, racism is defiance of Gods creation. His deeds are principles.
@SuperMilitantAtheist LOL, the why did you start it with this comment 2 weeks ago "...then how come were not all invisible like your god?..." Maybe you just wanted a conflict. After all, you are the "SuperMillitantAthiest".
@keilareadman You sound as if you are taking the side of those who would rationalize mans inhumanity against man. There is nothing more evil than the murder of an innocent baby. Ergo, to be considered "ignorant" by men who support & perpetuate such evil is an overwhelming affirmation that this cause is just. Men will end up on the battlefield over this issue, no differently than over slavery. During that time, men likewise rationalized the lie that they were not human...as they do to the unborn.
@texaswoodsmith I don't think as highly of my species as most people do. I would much rather abort my own fetus, than kill an already living puppy. The puppy matters more, because it is already born. Just because a fetus is made of human cells, doesn't make it important. Sperm cells and ovum cells are also human and living. Let's preserve them all because human's stages of life matter. Sorry, but I'm not all about making myself seem moral and righteous.
@keilareadman Sperm/ovum cells are only the building blocks of a human, containing the code. It is when they come together than a human is created. This human immediately begins to feed from external sources and grow. Anything that grows is alive. Anything that exists was created and we are all created equal. A live birth is merely something that happens within 9 months of creation. For sake of argument, you and I could be defined as simply a collection of cells, in a bag of water...just bigger.
@texaswoodsmith A fetus still isn't a fully created human. It can't live on it's own without the mother because the componants it needs are not developed yet. Once a fetus can live on it's own, it can be considered a fully created human. Most abortions happen before this point. Long before this point.
@keilareadman An infant can not live on its own either. They need to be fed, cared for, and loved (There are even studies that suggest an infant could die without its mothers touch) By your logic, infants are not fully created humans because they have not developed the components they would need to survive without their mothers. Therefore the less developed someone is, the less of a person he is. So then why not kill infants? What's wrong with that? They're not really human, anyway.
@SuburbiaSurvivor That's obviously not what I meant by, "on its own". You're just twisting things I say around. Infants are people because they are born and can live without BEING INSIDE ITS MOTHER. It's not a parasite anymore. It's capable of living in an environment outside another person. Everyone's definition of when a fetus, embryo, etc. becomes a person is different. This is mine. I don't think we should save the life of something that could ruin the lives of others. There's worse things
@keilareadman So what you're saying is that when a baby gets born, it magically becomes a person. Before, it was a clump of cells, quite possibly a deformed naked mole rat for all we care. But when it gets born, then it's a human. Your only defining argument for a human being being a person is that it is outside of its mothers womb.
And no, a human fetus is not a parasite. I'd be dissapointed if I had to even explain to you the differences between a baby and an invading species.
@SuburbiaSurvivor than abortion anyways. Like, war, the death penalty, dictatorships. Those things all end the lives of others. Abortion isn't hurting anyone significant.
@keilareadman Nothing can live on its own. We are all dependent upon something "outside" of ourselves for survival. Abortion, since the 1970's, has been responsible for more deaths worldwide than Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Tse Tung combined. Mans inhumanity against man knows no bounds when we can rationalize away the methodical and clinical destruction of an infant for the sake of convenience. Abortion always kills an innocent human being...that will always be significant.
@keilareadman Then why not kill all orphan babies? Or foster children who are under 1-2 years of age? By your logic they aren't significant yet.
One could argue that in the case of war and the death penalty. Only people who have lived and chosen evil are those who die. As for dictatorships killing innocent citizens, how is that okay?
@SuburbiaSurvivor Again, like, I said, babies who are born and CAN LIVE OUTSIDE OF A UTERUS are significant. When is the abortion of a child ever going to hurt you? Never, unless you, or someone close to you gets one. Just don't have an abortion and stay out of people's business. Abortion should be safe and legal. I don't feel bad for people when they die. I feel bad for the people they leave behind. A dead person feels nothing. Their loved ones feel tons. Same goes for abortions. I would only
@keilareadman Also, how is a baby born outside of a uterus more significant then a baby in utero? They're both babies. It's like saying that a person who lives in the forest is more significant then someone who lives in the city.
And the argument is not about who you feel bad for, or what humans are more significant, but whether a mother has the right to rob her child of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through abortion.
@SuburbiaSurvivor One is a baby, one is a fetus. Just like a zygote isn't and embryo and an adult isn't a child. A zygote isn't significant at all. It's just a ball of cells. Neither is an embryo. It can't even feel pain so you're literally hurting no one. Almost everything that is aborted is not even considered a fetus yet. You guys act like the thing is suffering. It's not. I think everyone deserves to be happy through legal means. I think abortion should stay as it is. Just my opinion.
@keilareadman The only difference between a zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, kid, and an adult human is that they are all human beings at different stages of development. A fetus is no less a human because it hasn't developed nerve endings then an infant is any less of a human because it has no sex drive. The point is not whether it's "significant", or if it can feel pain. It's that it is a human being that deserves the right to live and abortion is consistently robbing them of their right to live.
@SuburbiaSurvivor feel bad for the mother, and possibly the father, because they are the only ones affected. Sometimes they aren't affected at all. And the effects aren't nearly as harsh as if someone who was already born died. Which is why it isn't murder.
@keilareadman The only way for abortion to be anything but murder would be for the fetus to be anything but human. But it can't be non-human, otherwise it wouldn't be able to develop into a human adult.
Also, arguing the insignificance of a fetus is arbitrary. We could spend all day debating the significance of a homeless man in comparison to the CEO of a large company, however, none of it would justify the killing of either. It's not about significance, it's about human rights.
@SuburbiaSurvivor Sorry. I don't consider a grouping of human cells to be significant just because the cells are human. It is equal to a grouping of cow cells, or any other animal. If you're not born yet, you don't have human rights.
@keilareadman You do realize that a human zygote/embryo/fetus is completely unique in comparison to a grouping of human or animal cells, right? Because I'd hate to have to go through the hassle of explaining conception, DNA, and fetal development to you... Which I will, if I have to. But you seem like a smart person.
The only way for your last sentence to be true is if you aren't human until you are born.
@SuburbiaSurvivor I know all of that. It's what I'm taking in school. I also know that I want abortion to stay legal. I want myself to have the option, and I want my sister to have the option if she were to get pregnant now. We are not financially stable enough to take care of a child, but I wouldn't be able to give up my own. Neither could she. It's not going to affect you. I don't want to be afraid whenever I have sex that my life will be ruined forever.
@keilareadman I understand where you're coming from. Those who are Pro-Life aren't out to ruin your life. But abortion doesn't just affect you and your sister, it affects another human being. You say that child would ruin your life, however abortion irreparably ruins another human beings life too. If you couldn't give your child up for adoption don't have sex.
We're not trying to dictate how you should live your life. However, I believe it should be no one's choice to murder an innocent human.
@keilareadman The problem is that it's not like killing a chicken. Like I've explained before, the only way for a fetus to be a non-human being would be for it to be non-human or part of the mothers body. Neither are true.
Fetuses are not animals or masses of cells. It's a developing human being.
@keilareadman I think I completely understand what you mean. You want to have the option to clinically, methodically, and legally participate in the murder another human being for the sake of financial convienience. And, I should have no concern, because it does not affect me.
@keilareadman Any doctor or scientist will confirm that a baby in the womb (aka fetus) is a separate living human being with its own life. If it was created by man and woman, it is human. It is small and developing: Just like an infant developes into a child; which developes into a pubescent teenager; which finally developes into an adult. If you intentionally or willingly kill a human being, outside of self-defense, or the defense of others..it is murder. And, murder can never be justified.
@texaswoodsmith Murder can never be justified? You just contradicted yourself because in the previous sentence you imply that killing a person in self-defense isnt murder. Hence it can be justified if its in self-defense.
And murder is fine just as long as you dont physically do it. Its perfectly ok to let someone starve or use force to make someone starve just as long as u dont kill. And its fine to beat a child or let it live a horrible life sure. Just no killing. Thatd be wrong!
@vidfreak56 You must understand language to know that I most surely did not contradict myself. Murder and killing are not the same thing. Killing is taking life. Murder is intentionally killing without justification. There are justifiable reasons to kill a man. But, there is NEVER a justifiable reason to Murder him. A man who has crept into your childs window, with a knife, in the dead of night attacks you, and you take his life in self defense you have killed him, but you have not murdered him.
@texaswoodsmith Wrong. Murder is merely the act of killing w/o the other persons consent(IE the justification is the perogative of the killer and not the killee). In this case some will murder and some will kill (based on these two definitions). And your assuming that all reasons to kill are justifiable. This is pure delusion. A man who tries to kill your child will most likely be killed by you, yes, but only because you believe yourself to be justified. Purely subjective.
@vidfreak56 Wrong. Blacks Law Dictionary: Murder: The killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. The definition is quite long and futher defines the distinction. A man who takes life in lawful defense of his own is not a murderer.
@texaswoodsmith Ah so you get a collective definition to define murder. Thats great. In what way does that justify killing to any group other than the collective? Your using a legal term to define what it is being done. What in reality your saying when you murder is that you do so w/o anothers consent. Thats all. The legalality is just a loophole. But if you need a collective pat on the back to kill someone, then you tell yourself what you must, but you cant prove killing to be justifiable.
@vidfreak56 If by collective you mean practically every culture on Earth and the vast makority of individuals who have ever lived then so be it. Murder and killing are not the same. There are other definitions from folklore and religious texts that define the same distinction. But, this definition is not your goal is it? You really want to talk about or achieve something else, don't you..lmao.
@texaswoodsmith Vast majority? LOL prove that. And yes btw...THATS A COLLECTIVE. Legally murder and killing arent the same. But that doesnt mean anything. Killing is just sanctioned by the society you live in. That is to say you can kill with impunity (even from the family of the person killed). And you arent using this to somehow prove abortion wrong? LOL im talking about this to prove your are merely using definitions to achieve what you want. LMAO. Guilty? Yes.
@vidfreak56 Brother, your mind is messed up. By your logic, the men who stormed Normandy Beach to liberate the world from the Nazis are guilty of murder in that they had to kill to secure that objective. By your logic, men should face a murder trial for killing a man who kicks in a front door, guns blazing, intent on taking life. But, your foolishness has not discouraged me. I'm committed brother...lmfao!
@texaswoodsmith The men who killed nazis were guilty of murder. Sorry. That isnt a bad thing however (nor is it good). Why? Because humans murder. O wait. No humans kill and make up jusitifications for it by saying (I did it for them!). Its a nice gesture but hardly the reason we faught hitler. Thousands of africans die by brutal dictators and you dont see America stepping in. Thats cause they dont got oil.
@texaswoodsmith And murder trials are all about upholding the law not upholding what is moral. We put ppl in jail because they are dangerous to the rest of us, not because they are somehow "bad". They commit immoral acts, but hey so do all humans. Doesnt mean i want to let them run free. Freedom has to be made. Its not something you just get.
@texaswoodsmith It's also not murder in the case of abortion. You forgot that one. No woman who gets an abortion should face any jail time. And they don't. So I have nothing to worry about here because the government agrees with me.
Good point! Besides the world can not overpopulated because God created every human being...in his own image...a of his will. Abortion is defiance of Gods Creation and is murder.
That the destruction of sperm through contraception is seriously wrong as it destroys the biological potential to create an individual person. So technically you agree that persons should reframe from contraception catch a STI that could kill them, all just to protect a potential, biological zygote.
you only want to stick to the basic argument because went it is put into a real life situation, population control you carn't win. and even in a basic debate a human does not have any moral worth, only a person does. and a fetus is not a person. it only has the potential. but the potential is irelavant because if you argue it is seriously wrong to destroy a huma zygote inside a woman because you destroying its potentiality to be a person. you have to agree (contiue)
It is funny how you keep saying that my arguments are "just my opinion" (so are all of yours) or "sick"(that is your opinion, you arent arguing objectively) then you argue the immorality (not objective) of killing something and try to say I am not arguing objectively. Until you can objectively prove that it is wrong to kill a being your argument is totally based in morality. "And as far as eating animals." Again why are you more entitled to your life than an animal is to theirs?
@slowalker700 To compare me to racist whites is a bit of a stretch, and it is logically fallacious. Whites didn't see blacks as non sentient beings. Fetuses are factually non sentient, and thus do not possess the attributes that makes killing them wrong. Please answer my question objectively: why is it inherently wrong to kill a human? My indifference stems from scientific fact: that fetuses are non sentient, and also from my beliefs: a non sentient being does not have a right to life.
@Woopycushiun Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences. There is much evidence to conclude that a child in the womb is sentient. In that we are unable to ask him is not enough.
@texaswoodsmith sentience is impossible until around 7 months in at that point it is wrong to abort a fetus unless it threatens the life of the mother
@Woopycushiun Just curious, with regard to a 7 month old fetus who is threatening the life or health of the mother: Could emergency C-Section be an alternative to abortion?
@Woopycushiun There is literally no conclusive proof or way for us to truly know how long a fetus is sentient, before it becomes evident that he or she is such. We do know that fetus' respond to various stimuli well before 7 months. Therefore, for the sake of arguement (...as if being sentient or not made a developing fetus any less human...) it would be more wise and just to "ERR" on the side of caution and assume sentience from the moment there is life.
@texaswoodsmith pain reception requires a neocortex--which is not formed until early in the third trimester. This is scientifically proven. "It has also been suggested that the near term fetus may be endowed with some degree of cognitive capability (e.g., Hepper & Shahidullah, 1994)" from FETAL BRAIN &COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
@Woopycushiun Nevertheless, pain receptors, or lack thereof, are not enough to define a devoloping human as non-sentient. There is more to being sentient than feeling pain. Furthermore, we do not know whether they feel pain or not, even lacking an apparent neocortex. The brain has proven to compensate & perform operations even when its more efficient & fully developed centers are lacking or deficient. The fact is that we do not truly know. At best it is speculation, at worst rationalization.
@slowalker700 "So what makes your subjective opinions more valid than science" Why is it wrong to kill a human? It is NOT an objective argument, that it is wrong to kill. It is your belief that killing is wrong, and there are many different justifications for killing that are indefensible from your stance.
@slowalker700 You are not understanding my argument, my argument is that life is meaningless without sentience and consciousness. It isn't wrong to kill something that is not sentient. I never said life = consciousness in a biological sense like you are arguing, I am saying that life or the reason to live is in our consciousness and sentience. The fact that something is alive does not give it a right to live.
If I chop off my hand I am effectively killing organisms in the cells... is that murder? Why don't all living things have the right to life if living is the only thing that makes it wrong to kill? How can you justify eating because you are murdering all of those living plants and animals? A fetus IS living but it is not wrong to kill it because it does not have what makes life matter. It also is not murder because murder has to be unlawful.
@slowalker700 Whether something is living or not does not mean it has a right to live. You imply that the fetus being human gives more meaning to it's existence. Why? If the basis of your argument is that the fetus is alive then it must be wrong to kill all living things. To attach a significance to it being a human turns the debate in to a philosophical one because you are using your morals (it is wrong to kill humans no matter what, we have a right to live, etc.) to form your argument.
@slowalker700 Philosophical reasons prevent the slippery slope from happening, we don't see mass involuntary euthanasia in the present nor have we ever seen that as a result of abortion. Zygotes and the embryo are just cells, I see nothing wrong with killing cells because cells aren't sentient like we are. The fetus too is not sentient and therefor does not have a right to life.
@slowalker700 Note that the very definition of a cell is that a cell is the "smallest structural unit of living matter capable of functioning independently" If it is that they both are alive then it must be considered wrong to masturbate, or it must be considered wrong to wash your hands because numerous cells are being killed when you do either of those activities. What is the difference?
@slowalker700 I am saying that my standard does not measure what makes life valuable in a biological sense but a philosophical sense, in a biological sense it is wrong to kill diseases simply because they are alive. What are you talking about cells aren't alive? It is terribly ironic that you tell me to look in a biology textbook to see what life is yet you deny the fact that a cell is living. Using your logic though what is the objective difference in a cell dying and a person dying?
@slowalker700 There are no mentally handicapped that are non sentient like a fetus is, the only parallel is a person in a persistent vegetative state. There is a huge difference in not allowing a fetus to live outside the womb and murdering a person who is asleep. Read more on what I have stated, what makes it wrong to kill is the effect that person has had on the world. A person who is asleep is still a sentient being. Fetuses and vegetables are not sentient beings.
It is not life in a biological sense, but it is life in a philosophical sense. It is fine to abort a fetus because it does not have the right to life that a true conscious being has. Why don't we make masturbation illegal because those sperm could potentially create life? Why don't we make women get pregnant before their period to make sure that no potential human life has been wasted? The right to life does not extend to a group of cells it only applies to us sentient beings.
@slowalker700 Yes, the number of cells, the number of thoughts you have had, the effect you have had on the world, the emotions you have felt, the actual human experience and the things that make you matter. When you are in your third trimester you become what makes humans truly "human." Before then though you are merely a parasite.
@slowalker700 I have explained the difference between a sleeping person and a vegetable in the discussion with the channel owner. Honestly there is quite a significant difference between a sleeping person and a fetus. Wake up a sleeping person and see if they have a personhood. You can not wake a fetus or vegetable. Also it is not truly murder to kill a fetus, for murder must be "unlawful." There is plenty of justification for abortion, and abortion is not unlawful.
@slowalker700 No, I am saying life isn't what makes it wrong to kill, consciousness, self awareness, whether or not the being whose life is to be taken is affecting the world, and whether or not the person in question actually has a "person-hood" that is recoverable (or they have in the present), are what make it wrong to kill something. Deer are alive and I find it perfectly moral to kill them. Just like a human vegetable or a fetus is alive and I find it perfectly moral to kill them.
@slowalker700 That is a bad analogy, as having no legs does not affect a person's abilities to feel emotions and affect other's emotions. Also yes there are other organisms that are not self aware... you will find that most people do not find it morally wrong to kill them. Even from a Christian perspective all animals are put here for man to use, this includes killing them. God was sacrificed lambs in the bible, are all biblical figures thus immoral? Of course not.
@slowalker700 There is quite a difference, with a person who is asleep they can be awaken, they have also affected people. A fetus has not affected anyone at all, because it has never been conscious, it isn't self aware and it does not have an urge to continue living. A vegetable can not be woke up from their unconsciousness either, so it is okay to end their lives.
@Woopycushiun At what point should the right to life / legal protection begin since you think it is find to kill born babies? Is killing a 1 year old fine too?
@LiveActionFilms A 1 year old has the capacity to feel pain, and most fetuses past the third trimester are capable of feeling, the point where they are conscious/ can feel pain is when it becomes wrong
this video is stupid, you have to look at abortion from all angles, and overpopulation is one of them, giving birth to something and then its living in poverty is one of them, being retarded is one of them, this whole "oh its an innocent life, don't kill it" i'm sorry, do you eat meat?, are these people latin? i'm guessing their probably religious people, and if they are, maybe they should read how their god killed so many people
Let's see, unborn humans are incapable of feeling pain, incapable of rational thought, and they can not object to abortion. Born humans have instincts, they want to go on living, and that is what makes it fundamentally wrong to kill a born human. A fetus is totally incapable of wanting to live so they aren't human in the sense they don't have a "soul" like we do.
@Woopycushiun "they can not object to abortion" A wounded solider or child hurt in a car crash and in a coma can't object to being killed, so can we cut them up? That is the logic if your position. Unborn children when more developed can feel pain...that fact of science contradicts your statement. A newborn baby isn't self-aware, would it be cool with you to kill them?
@LiveActionFilms I posted a link showing that they dont feel. The difference with a soldier in a coma is that they can actually recover from it, and they have individual thoughts. They have had individual thoughts in the past too. A fetus has never thought, and thus have not affected anyone as a person in a coma has.
@LiveActionFilms No, all members of the species homosapien are human, but what makes it wrong to kill a human is whether or not the human has thought and a basic survival instinct. I did answer that when I said "born humans" Babies have a need to continue their life, that is why they cry, born humans can also feel pain.
@LiveActionFilms The fetus doesn't feel pain until the third trimester ,28 weeks I believe(but I think we can agree third trimester / partial birth abortions are wrong considering it is against both of our ethical standards) but before then the fetus neither thinks nor does it feel. You can detect a survival instinct when a fetus/ baby/ whatever can try to escape pain or tries to continue its survival i.e. cry for a mother's milk, cry because they need assistance and are in pain etc.
@Woopycushiun Gotcha. Kids born as young as 21 week and 5 days has been born as survived. Is it cool to kill them or are you dropping your limit from 28 week down? If they are born but can't feel pain and don't cry, is it cool to kill them after being born? That is your standard right?
@LiveActionFilms Woopycusiun is right. The unborn without thought can be killed without violating ethics pertaining to killing a born human or one who may even be able to feel pain.
It may be better to have them aborted before they can come out. They probably do not feel pain because their brain and nerves are not yet functioning. You also set them up for a life of failure and pain as the link shows that these premature babies are likely to be retarded, or have serious complications. It is like hitting an animal then leaving it to die slowly. The correct thing to do is to put it out of its misery.
@LiveActionFilms Not once did I say it was alright to kill a born baby... No it would not be ethical to stab a born baby. I would have found it okay that they aborted the baby before it was born because it would most likely die an early and painful death or live a life of severe disability.
@Woopycushiun So what gives someone the right to live? Being born or as you said earlier about having a "basic survival instinct". You can't logically have it both way. What is THE criteria you use to grant someone the right to not be killed?
@LiveActionFilms I never argued both ways, I have argued from the start a fetus becomes "human" (or has a soul) when they gain consciousness and can feel pain. That is why third trimester abortions are wrong. Their basic instincts, consciousness, and the ability to feel pain are the criteria for abortion. I never said that a born human should die explicitly; my whole argument was based upon aborting the fetus before it is born prematurely, thereby preventing a life of pain and suffering.
What an uneducated load of drivel, they don't even have an argument, just choose to dodge the question altogether. Pro-choice all the way; pro woman, pro rights and please, educate yourselves on the population crisis before bleating out that it doesn't exist or is somehow a myth or lie.
Haha! "Let's avoid a major factor in why it might not only be better for the woman making the choice to abort, but a better choice for the course of everyone else in the world too, seeing as it may be one less person (eventually) who cannot afford an education, food, or any of the $100,000 that it costs to raise a child! But who cares? We're 'pro-life' and want people to have as many pregnancies as they can to diminish resources even further, AND hold women hostage within their own bodies!"
The more educated a woman is, the fewer..if any children she would have, also majority of the world's abortion occur in underdeveloped countries where the procedure is illegal. Education is the solution here, not trying to ban a procedure that will NOT end the issue in the least.
People who think the world's abortion rate is helping to control the world's population don't really know their maths.... Current world population is around 6.92 billion, the average abortion rate for the world is 42 million. There is 130 million live births per year, the abortion rate + the death rate is 98 million, that is still 32 million left over over. The population would still climb even if the abortion rate where to increase.
@ TheVVanderingStar: If you really think we have enough or too many people, are you willing to have yourself vivisected and dismembered to alleviate what you say is a population problem? If you aren't willing to first have the abortion mills chop you up into little pieces, you are no one to be advocating that murderous brutality to anyone else-- especially a helpless innocent baby who didn't ask to be created. Pro-choice? Choose yourself.
More@MellowChaos: Legitimate repair surgery done out of the womb proves location (inside vs. out of womb) doesn't matter, since babies can be in and out and then back in the womb, to prove they are (1) alive, and (2) growing, and (3) human -- the WHOLE time whether in the womb or not. Location doesn't matter to be alive. To explain it backward to backward thinkers like you, murder is murder whether killing is done in or out of the womb. Murder is murder anywhere. Pro-choice? Choose yourself.
Crawford: "It's easy to abort yourself. Just walk into Planned Murderhood and pay them to cut you into little pieces."
MellowChaos: There's a problem. I'm not inside a womb. Look up the definition of "abortion."
Crawford: If you want to play word games: Stretch out your mother's womb when she has a hysterectomy, put yourself inside, and then have yourself vivisected and dismembered. >>Babies can have legitimate repair surgery done even if temporarily outside the womb, then put back.....
What's to stop us from killing born humans? They're out of the mother's jurisdiction. They have consciousness. People are more likely to be emotionally attached, so killing them would cause general unhappiness.
I think the general idea of bringing up overpopulation is not that abortion is an easy way to solve this problem, but that if fewer children end up being born, it's no big deal. We have enough.
the world is so overpopulated, at 7 billion, that millions don't have food, water, medical, shelter....aren't these "human rights"? women are raped and mistreated everywhere, they have no rights over their bodies as it is, why try to outlaw their last, desperate, often heartwrenching choice to prevent another unwanted child they can't feed or care for? and no one even considers the right of that child who is an unwanted burden before they even enter the world. who are you to judge?
@loathedandabhorred Abortion is the ultimate in judging, and in the most brutal form by the mother whose responsibility is to care for her baby. If the world is really overpopulated, are you willing to help out by jumping off a cliff? You won't do it because you know the world isn't so bad off, AND you want to live. Ditto for the baby, so trying to kill the baby makes you a hypocrite. If some billionaire decides you are petty nothing and unwanted, should he be able to kill poor poor you?
@randycrawford Denying a woman's rights over her sexual health, body and life is the ultimate in judging. It's no one's business if she doesn't want kids or CAN'T support another dependant. Yes, a mother's responsibility is to care for her child, and some women choose NOT to be mothers, not to have children. Why should a woman be forced to produce dependants she can't support? There are already too many people who can't support themselves, and choose not to have more children. Have some respect.
Birth control is alot easier/cheaper/safer than abortion. I don't know why people don't use it. If you have access to abortion, chances are you also have access to numerous birth control options. What exactly is stopping people from taking advantage of such options?
Maybe you haven't heard, or perhaps you've never experienced this, but birth control methods don't always work. Women get their tubes tied and men have vasectomies and people STILL get pregnant sometimes. Shit happens.
@fronthandspring101 I'm aware, thanks. Just because something is 99.9% effective instead of 100% doesn't mean we should just throw it out. We would have no at all medicine if we did that.
What you fail to realize is that I am saying is that in many cases people are in situations where they are looking at abortion as an option because THEY TRIED other forms of birth control and that failed.
I never said we should not use these things because they aren't 100% effective.
@fronthandspring101 What you fail to realize is that the pregnancy is NOT the responsiblity of the baby, who is innocent. No system of justice or civilization executes the innocent. The pregnancy and the baby are the responsibilty of the parents. YOU are a chance random event, ever since your dad's sperm hit your mother's egg, but that doesn't entitle them to kill you just because you were at any time inconvenient, a surprise, or unwanted. License to kill isn't legitimate, and can boomerang.
Actually its quite the opposite Pro lifers are trying to force women to bear children in order to reverse the low birth rates Just ask Russia and Germany.
animejerk05 2 weeks ago
Great video!!!!!! I loved the answer. I talk to my friends about this, and their minds have really changed from accepting abortion, to giving life! Save the cute babies!!! lol :D
Thatsamystery0 1 month ago
I dont know where this woman is getting this bullshit from. But as a pro choice supporter we never use this type of argument in our discussions. Clearly this is propaganda that is used to make prochoicers look like uneducated people.I would like to see this woman refute some of the real arguments that pro choicers say instead of making up this bullshit.
animejerk05 2 months ago
@animejerk05 Not every pro-choicer uses this argument but it is one of the most common used. Ask any pro-lifer. Seriously, all the time.
LiveActionFilms 2 months ago
Nihlism is a poor substitute for morality, and is destructive not constructive.
Sorry-I have no faith in humanity to learn from the grotesque evils of Communism. You can read "The Black of Communism" and gain a mere smidgen of understanding of that evil, but it's far far easier to understand Utopia. That's why it will always appeal to know-nothings like those in any leftist march for Magical Solutions. They're actually part of the problem, easily exploited by demagogues like this Obama asshole.
horsie111 2 months ago
@slowalker700 Yes, "...A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere..." Martin Luther King
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@slowalker700 EXACTLY. If man can enslave ANY man, man can enslave ALL men. It likewise holds true that if man can deny ANY man of life he can deny ALL men of life. You are right, abortion plays on the same evils - a disregard of the value of life - as did slavery. Mans inhumanity against man knows no bounds when it can rationalize the methodical and clinical murder of the innocent unborn. In order for man to have Liberty he must give Liberty. In order for man to have Life he must preserve Life!
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith You want to save all the unborn, but have you even considered where all these additional unwanted lives would go? You don't care whether babies have rights or not, but you're obsessed with other peoples unwanted fertilizations, that's twisted and sick. People have human rights for a reason. Until you find a place for all these additional dependants, until you can force unwilling parents to be loving, capable parents, you are really just speaking out of your asshole. Or typing, ha
loathedandabhorred 1 day ago
So this is basically whats called a strawman argument. Its where the opposition misrepresents your position in general. This is hardly the time to get involved in issues of morality! I could say the same thing to anyone that opposes universal healthcare. We cant just stop paying for people because that would be immoral! The fact of the matter is overpopulation needs to be dealth with. In lieu of any other solution (which anti-abortionists cant give) abortion will win.
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@vidfreak56 Dude! Jump out of the box! Stop waving the pom-poms. Leftys (Liberal-Democrats-Blues) "control" population through slaughter of the unborn. Rightys (Conservative-Republicans-Reds) "control" population through slaughter of war. Why don't we actually give peace a chance and let mother nature handle it. "...Abortion will win..." are you serious. This is just rationalization of the clinical and methodical slaughter of human beings. You guys are as bad as the War-mongers!
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago in playlist Liked
@texaswoodsmith LOLOLOLOL leaving all your ad hominem aside. Give peace a chance? Mother nature and peace dont belong in the same sentence. Serious? Me? As a heartattack. The question is am i wrong? Yes I do rationalize it because it is a solution to overpopulation. Got a better one? Then tell me your plan..otherwise dont expect change. Methodical slaughter of humans? As opposed to what? Letting people starve to death or die of treatable disease? LOLOLOL looks fair to me. Its Life after all?
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@vidfreak56 The Earth is not overpopulated. And, it is not our business to handle it. Oh, and yes, I personally would rather starve to death then have a good sameritan pass me a "mercy-killing". All men are created equal and were endowed by their creator with the right to Life and Liberty. No man gave it to them. Therefore, no man can take it away. Anyway, I gotta head out for a bit. But, I will get back with ya brother.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith Yes it is overpopulated(proven by recessions and high prices). And if its not my business then neither is it yours (nice try). So youd personally starve to death? Youve never been starving ill bet. No man is created equal. LOLOL. NO one has liberty. EVERYTHING you can keep is granted to you by another man or woman. This is gonna take ages to debrainwash you. I wont hold my breath lol.
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@vidfreak56 Recession/high prices are primarily a product of false money printed by Central banks devaluing currency. I agree that it is not my business to handle the problem of overpopulation, because I do not believe there to be such a problem. Yes, I would PREFER to starve to death than have someone toss me a "mercy-killing". I will take my chances on my own in these woods. And, yes all men are created equal. But, I will agree that liberty is a corporate commodity, it can be purchased.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith Recessions or prices are more than just a product of central banks. They also result from overpopulation. We wouldnt be in this mess if our population were under control, regardless of whether a central bank printed money. Banks also got greedy. Wheres their responsibility? LOL deflection. But its on you to provide solutions to "problems" not to just say it isnt there. So a retard is the same as a non-retard? LOL no equality exists. And youd steal life to live yes.
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@vidfreak56 I don't have to provide a solution to any problem. The undenyable truth is that a fetus is a Human Being. It is alive. If you willingly and intentionally kill an innocent human being, it is murder as judged by the standards of most all nations and all people who have ever lived. And, when necessary, I will enter the battlefield to restore justice no differently than the men who did to free the black man from the bounds of slavery. I guess I'll see you there...
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith A fetus is human but not a human being in the same sense as what you are when your born (ill leave you to define "human being"). Its alive yes, but not a person. An engine is not a car.
Oh I understand youll fight and murder people to get your sense of "justice". Thats still not gonna stop anyone from having abortions. So you wage your war and justify murder with murder. Ill try to stop abortion with intelligence and practical solutions. In the end Ill win too.
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@vidfreak56 A fetus is not an infant, just as an infant is not a toddler, just as a toddler is not a teenager, just as a teenager is not an adult. However, we both agree that they are all Human Beings. Ergo, to intentionally and knowingly take the life of an innocent human being is murder. Brother, this is just the plain truth. They not any debate. The only justifiable reason to take human life is in self-defense.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@vidfreak56 Furthermore, I do not justify murder with murder. But, one day there will be a duly elected Governor who will invoke the 10th & outlaw the murder of the unborn in his state. He may even nullify the 4th Amendment violations of the Patriot Act & the TSA. He may nullify SB 510. At his point, it will invoke the wrath of the Federal Government, pressure will be applied, and men will be forced to make a choice: Submit or Resist. Once attacked men will defend themselves.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith And because youd steal life to live, there is no reason why anyone would listen to you when you speak of moral judgement. Hence you cant say abortion is immoral as you have no consistent standard of morality to offer back. You only seek to make the world your own, for you and all people like you. You dont want to be a part of nature, but rather just seperate yourself from it. Truthiness is good.
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@vidfreak56 Likewise, why would folks listen to you? You believe taking animal life to support our own as "stealing" ergo killing. You believe that killing & murder to be one and the same. You believe that if a man is faced with taking life to protect his own hr is guilty of murder. You believe the men who stormed Normandy Beach to defend against Nazism were murderers. You believe that all are not created equal. You believe it better to kill human beings rather than be "overpopulated".
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith "no man gave it to them"
By that logic no man gave an animal life, but that doesnt stop a man from taking an animals life away. See how simple it is to be wrong?
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@vidfreak56 Animals take life to survive. It's nature. Are dogs & cats "wrong" for existing? Likewise, we prey upon them, as they prey upon others. Each looks after its own kind in its own way. You are free to do with your body as you see fit. Free will is yours, granted you by your creator. But, this free will must be metered with justice. No victim no crime. So is there a victim when an abortion is committed? Does not the abortionist doctor, who puts knife to flesh, take innocent human life?
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith Yes animals take life to survive. They also take lives to defend territory. They also take the lives of their young in many cases. Humans do the same for different reasons. Hence you cannot pick and choose what you want to happen in real life and expect everyone to listen to you. Animals operate out of free will, so humans can aswell. But the question is what kind of justice should there be and who gets to say what it is. Victim? Animals victimize other animals.
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@vidfreak56 If wolves and goats want to argue amongst themseves over their own forms of justice, so be it. I am human and concern myself with human justice. If there is a victim, there is a crime. We may have all the free will that we can possibly defend up to the point that it victimizes others. No victim, no crime.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith LOL wolves and goats have no justice. Thats a human convention. Again you cant prove naturally that humans deserve such treatment or are born w/ it because no animal is born w/ it. And a victim depends on your definition of the word. We are all victims to some degree or another to other peoples desires. Wether it be the desire to abort or to stay alive.
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith "its nature" And you are now just choosing what you think we should do by looking at the elements of nature and cherry picking what you like and what you dont like.
"Does not the abortionist doctor, who puts knife to flesh, take innocent human life" Really? Does not the human who takes knife to flesh of an animal take an innocent animals life? LOL for survival or for convenience. Who cares. Its convenient to hide behind survival to kill. Same thing.
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith And a fetus may be innocent in the scope of existence, but the problem w/ that is that we all are. I could use that as a good example to say that a starving person is just innocently looking for food and its not his/her fault they're hungry. The "innocence" can also be looked at from the POV of the fact that in the natural world its about survival and nothing is special because it needs, so nothing is "innocent". Not even fetuses.
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@vidfreak56 A fetus "may" be innocent. I assure you, by ANY cultural definition of "guilty/non-innocent" that a fetus is, beyond debate, innocent. Likewise, you state "...but the problem is that we all are...". This is a bunch of eloquent double talk. Even if it were true, how would it be a "problem"? New life, young life is always innocent and special, and if for no other reason because we "pick and choose" to say so. Your points of view primarily seek to serve mans inhumanity against man.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith Right but your talking about a cultural definition not a naturally proven definition. Culturally this has been true because religion has usually ruled the day. This isnt true of all cultures however. Many cultures performed abortion for different reasons. Double talk? No sir. This is pure logic. You can use the argument that we should protect fetuses in the same way that I can use the argument of innocence to prove that everyone should get healthcare. Its not realistic.
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith "we "pick and choose" to say so."
We do? You and your pro-life group says so. At least get that part right.
vidfreak56 2 months ago
on october 31st the planet will have 7 billion people, what are you pro-lifers doing to save all the already born that are living in shit?
SuperMilitantAtheist 3 months ago
@SuperMilitantAtheist Our Supreme Law states that all men are created equal brother...not "born" equal. The Constitution guarantees all the right to Life, Liberty, & Property. These rights are inalienable & endowed upon us by our Creator. They were not graciously afforded us by any man. Therefore, can be taken by no man. So, I would surmise; with regard to multitudes "...living in shit..." that I am doing a little more than you, who would agree to have them killed...or murdered, to be exact.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@texaswoodsmith "These rights are inalienable & endowed upon us by our Creator."
really, allah said this?
SuperMilitantAtheist 2 months ago
@SuperMilitantAtheist Maybe Allah said it, who knows? If he did, good for him. I agree with truth no matter what mouth it comes from. My reference is to Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Which was the foundation document of the Revolutionary War. It is part of the Supreme Law of the United States.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith Brilliant arguments, my friend. I can see you have this debate well in hand but I did want to throw in my two cents.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago 2
@SuburbiaSurvivor Be my guest, the message is greater than the man! I was proud to see your comments over the past few days as well. I felt we were helping one another and I thank you. If a man can not be counted on to defend Life, then how can he be counted on to defend Liberty. If rights to Life, Liberty, and Property are lost in the United States, they are lost to the world. We are the last hope. It is our duty to protect and defend that which was endowed upon us all by our Creator.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith Most definitely! Defending the rights of the helpless is a noble cause to be sure.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith maybe you should read what i said again, and maybe watch the video rammstein - amerika
SuperMilitantAtheist 2 months ago
@SuperMilitantAtheist I did watch it & I get it. The message that I got from the music is that America is more about show than substance. Comercialized falsehood, media driven consumption, war corporatism, false money, instant gratification, & selfishness are more apparent than the good qualities that shaped our nation. I was raised blue collar on a farm in Texas & must agree that this is a serious threat. But, there are good men who know. There are men who will restore this nation. cont...
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@SuperMilitantAtheist The reigns of this nation were wrestled from the hands of themost powerful Empire the world had ever knowm by a mere 3% of our population. The few stood against the many & prevailed. There is an awakening in the USA. Men are shedding their fear, arming themselves, storing food, & taking steps towards self-sufficiency. They are gathering together of like mind & challenging authority. We know we being lied to, we know we are financially enslaved. And, we know our duty. cont.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@SuperMilitantAtheist It is not only our right, but our duty to reinstate the reigns of government when such government becomes destructive to its own ends. Fear always becomes anger & anger is death. We may only shed fear through understanding. When men are consumed by confusion they must rely on principle. Principle that is firm, unchanging; principle that guides us. Our Life & our Liberty were not graciousy afforded to us by any man or any government. cont...
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@SuperMilitantAtheist Our Life and our Liberty were granted to us all by our Creator. If the globalist elites, sociolists, fascists, republi-cratic politicians, United Nations forces, or ciminal banking cartels do not agree; then I have a rifle that says it is so. This nation is our land. And, when the time comes, my sons and I will stand against this Goliath, alone if necessary. A man who is committed, firmly grounded in principle, and whose cause is just - knows no fear. cont.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@SuperMilitantAtheist And, he who is without fear understands that Victory and Defeat are the mere end results of necessary action...that the outcome is not the point. The message is greater than the man and a man who will not defend Life is a man who can not be counted on to defend Liberty. Without Life we have no Liberty and without Liberty we are nothing.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
Comment removed
SuperMilitantAtheist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@texaswoodsmith the point i was trying to make is that i was talking about the entire planet, not the US, then you go off about the US constitution, and then say those rights were made up by the god you believe in, different countries have different constitutions, so...did your go also make theirs? that are different from yours?
SuperMilitantAtheist 2 months ago
@SuperMilitantAtheist Yes brother, I believe that all men, on the entire face of the Earth are created equal and equally deserve Life & Liberty. Regardless of their respective Constitutions. I believe that God knew you as he knit you together in you mothers womb, he knew you by name, & he knew you before then. He then bound your immortal soul to flesh in the womb of a mother. We have the words of the Lord, but we also have his deed. Deeds are principles. By this deed, we know a few things: cont:
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@SuperMilitantAtheist ...cont: We know that abortion is murder, because God gave life to man. We know that the Earth is not overpopulated becase God put every man here, when & where he wanted, by his will. We know that no man can be born Gay, but rather makes a choice to be so. We know that God bound mans soul to the flesh of a mother, so we know that God chose who our mother would be, thus he chose our race. Ergo, racism is defiance of Gods creation. His deeds are principles.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith and this is why theirs no point in talking to religious people
SuperMilitantAtheist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperMilitantAtheist LOL, the why did you start it with this comment 2 weeks ago "...then how come were not all invisible like your god?..." Maybe you just wanted a conflict. After all, you are the "SuperMillitantAthiest".
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@SuperMilitantAtheist Well then talk to a spiritual person. They're quite different.
JessesanMan 3 weeks ago
You guys just sound like religious people trying to make valid arguments that God is real. You can't do it. Ignorant pieces of shit.
keilareadman 3 months ago
@keilareadman You sound as if you are taking the side of those who would rationalize mans inhumanity against man. There is nothing more evil than the murder of an innocent baby. Ergo, to be considered "ignorant" by men who support & perpetuate such evil is an overwhelming affirmation that this cause is just. Men will end up on the battlefield over this issue, no differently than over slavery. During that time, men likewise rationalized the lie that they were not human...as they do to the unborn.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith I don't think as highly of my species as most people do. I would much rather abort my own fetus, than kill an already living puppy. The puppy matters more, because it is already born. Just because a fetus is made of human cells, doesn't make it important. Sperm cells and ovum cells are also human and living. Let's preserve them all because human's stages of life matter. Sorry, but I'm not all about making myself seem moral and righteous.
keilareadman 2 months ago
@keilareadman Sperm/ovum cells are only the building blocks of a human, containing the code. It is when they come together than a human is created. This human immediately begins to feed from external sources and grow. Anything that grows is alive. Anything that exists was created and we are all created equal. A live birth is merely something that happens within 9 months of creation. For sake of argument, you and I could be defined as simply a collection of cells, in a bag of water...just bigger.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith A fetus still isn't a fully created human. It can't live on it's own without the mother because the componants it needs are not developed yet. Once a fetus can live on it's own, it can be considered a fully created human. Most abortions happen before this point. Long before this point.
keilareadman 2 months ago
@keilareadman An infant can not live on its own either. They need to be fed, cared for, and loved (There are even studies that suggest an infant could die without its mothers touch) By your logic, infants are not fully created humans because they have not developed the components they would need to survive without their mothers. Therefore the less developed someone is, the less of a person he is. So then why not kill infants? What's wrong with that? They're not really human, anyway.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor That's obviously not what I meant by, "on its own". You're just twisting things I say around. Infants are people because they are born and can live without BEING INSIDE ITS MOTHER. It's not a parasite anymore. It's capable of living in an environment outside another person. Everyone's definition of when a fetus, embryo, etc. becomes a person is different. This is mine. I don't think we should save the life of something that could ruin the lives of others. There's worse things
keilareadman 2 months ago
@keilareadman So what you're saying is that when a baby gets born, it magically becomes a person. Before, it was a clump of cells, quite possibly a deformed naked mole rat for all we care. But when it gets born, then it's a human. Your only defining argument for a human being being a person is that it is outside of its mothers womb.
And no, a human fetus is not a parasite. I'd be dissapointed if I had to even explain to you the differences between a baby and an invading species.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor than abortion anyways. Like, war, the death penalty, dictatorships. Those things all end the lives of others. Abortion isn't hurting anyone significant.
keilareadman 2 months ago
@keilareadman Nothing can live on its own. We are all dependent upon something "outside" of ourselves for survival. Abortion, since the 1970's, has been responsible for more deaths worldwide than Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Tse Tung combined. Mans inhumanity against man knows no bounds when we can rationalize away the methodical and clinical destruction of an infant for the sake of convenience. Abortion always kills an innocent human being...that will always be significant.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@keilareadman Then why not kill all orphan babies? Or foster children who are under 1-2 years of age? By your logic they aren't significant yet.
One could argue that in the case of war and the death penalty. Only people who have lived and chosen evil are those who die. As for dictatorships killing innocent citizens, how is that okay?
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Again, like, I said, babies who are born and CAN LIVE OUTSIDE OF A UTERUS are significant. When is the abortion of a child ever going to hurt you? Never, unless you, or someone close to you gets one. Just don't have an abortion and stay out of people's business. Abortion should be safe and legal. I don't feel bad for people when they die. I feel bad for the people they leave behind. A dead person feels nothing. Their loved ones feel tons. Same goes for abortions. I would only
keilareadman 2 months ago
@keilareadman Also, how is a baby born outside of a uterus more significant then a baby in utero? They're both babies. It's like saying that a person who lives in the forest is more significant then someone who lives in the city.
And the argument is not about who you feel bad for, or what humans are more significant, but whether a mother has the right to rob her child of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through abortion.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor One is a baby, one is a fetus. Just like a zygote isn't and embryo and an adult isn't a child. A zygote isn't significant at all. It's just a ball of cells. Neither is an embryo. It can't even feel pain so you're literally hurting no one. Almost everything that is aborted is not even considered a fetus yet. You guys act like the thing is suffering. It's not. I think everyone deserves to be happy through legal means. I think abortion should stay as it is. Just my opinion.
keilareadman 2 months ago
@keilareadman The only difference between a zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, kid, and an adult human is that they are all human beings at different stages of development. A fetus is no less a human because it hasn't developed nerve endings then an infant is any less of a human because it has no sex drive. The point is not whether it's "significant", or if it can feel pain. It's that it is a human being that deserves the right to live and abortion is consistently robbing them of their right to live.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor feel bad for the mother, and possibly the father, because they are the only ones affected. Sometimes they aren't affected at all. And the effects aren't nearly as harsh as if someone who was already born died. Which is why it isn't murder.
keilareadman 2 months ago
@keilareadman The only way for abortion to be anything but murder would be for the fetus to be anything but human. But it can't be non-human, otherwise it wouldn't be able to develop into a human adult.
Also, arguing the insignificance of a fetus is arbitrary. We could spend all day debating the significance of a homeless man in comparison to the CEO of a large company, however, none of it would justify the killing of either. It's not about significance, it's about human rights.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor Sorry. I don't consider a grouping of human cells to be significant just because the cells are human. It is equal to a grouping of cow cells, or any other animal. If you're not born yet, you don't have human rights.
keilareadman 2 months ago
@keilareadman You do realize that a human zygote/embryo/fetus is completely unique in comparison to a grouping of human or animal cells, right? Because I'd hate to have to go through the hassle of explaining conception, DNA, and fetal development to you... Which I will, if I have to. But you seem like a smart person.
The only way for your last sentence to be true is if you aren't human until you are born.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor I know all of that. It's what I'm taking in school. I also know that I want abortion to stay legal. I want myself to have the option, and I want my sister to have the option if she were to get pregnant now. We are not financially stable enough to take care of a child, but I wouldn't be able to give up my own. Neither could she. It's not going to affect you. I don't want to be afraid whenever I have sex that my life will be ruined forever.
keilareadman 2 months ago
@keilareadman I understand where you're coming from. Those who are Pro-Life aren't out to ruin your life. But abortion doesn't just affect you and your sister, it affects another human being. You say that child would ruin your life, however abortion irreparably ruins another human beings life too. If you couldn't give your child up for adoption don't have sex.
We're not trying to dictate how you should live your life. However, I believe it should be no one's choice to murder an innocent human.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@SuburbiaSurvivor And I believe that abortion isn't murder. It's just like killing a chicken.
keilareadman 2 months ago
@keilareadman The problem is that it's not like killing a chicken. Like I've explained before, the only way for a fetus to be a non-human being would be for it to be non-human or part of the mothers body. Neither are true.
Fetuses are not animals or masses of cells. It's a developing human being.
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
@keilareadman I think I completely understand what you mean. You want to have the option to clinically, methodically, and legally participate in the murder another human being for the sake of financial convienience. And, I should have no concern, because it does not affect me.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith Exactly. Thanks for understanding. Also, it's not murder. Nice try though.
keilareadman 2 months ago
@keilareadman Any doctor or scientist will confirm that a baby in the womb (aka fetus) is a separate living human being with its own life. If it was created by man and woman, it is human. It is small and developing: Just like an infant developes into a child; which developes into a pubescent teenager; which finally developes into an adult. If you intentionally or willingly kill a human being, outside of self-defense, or the defense of others..it is murder. And, murder can never be justified.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith Murder can never be justified? You just contradicted yourself because in the previous sentence you imply that killing a person in self-defense isnt murder. Hence it can be justified if its in self-defense.
And murder is fine just as long as you dont physically do it. Its perfectly ok to let someone starve or use force to make someone starve just as long as u dont kill. And its fine to beat a child or let it live a horrible life sure. Just no killing. Thatd be wrong!
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@vidfreak56 You must understand language to know that I most surely did not contradict myself. Murder and killing are not the same thing. Killing is taking life. Murder is intentionally killing without justification. There are justifiable reasons to kill a man. But, there is NEVER a justifiable reason to Murder him. A man who has crept into your childs window, with a knife, in the dead of night attacks you, and you take his life in self defense you have killed him, but you have not murdered him.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith Wrong. Murder is merely the act of killing w/o the other persons consent(IE the justification is the perogative of the killer and not the killee). In this case some will murder and some will kill (based on these two definitions). And your assuming that all reasons to kill are justifiable. This is pure delusion. A man who tries to kill your child will most likely be killed by you, yes, but only because you believe yourself to be justified. Purely subjective.
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@vidfreak56 Wrong. Blacks Law Dictionary: Murder: The killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. The definition is quite long and futher defines the distinction. A man who takes life in lawful defense of his own is not a murderer.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith Ah so you get a collective definition to define murder. Thats great. In what way does that justify killing to any group other than the collective? Your using a legal term to define what it is being done. What in reality your saying when you murder is that you do so w/o anothers consent. Thats all. The legalality is just a loophole. But if you need a collective pat on the back to kill someone, then you tell yourself what you must, but you cant prove killing to be justifiable.
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@vidfreak56 If by collective you mean practically every culture on Earth and the vast makority of individuals who have ever lived then so be it. Murder and killing are not the same. There are other definitions from folklore and religious texts that define the same distinction. But, this definition is not your goal is it? You really want to talk about or achieve something else, don't you..lmao.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith Vast majority? LOL prove that. And yes btw...THATS A COLLECTIVE. Legally murder and killing arent the same. But that doesnt mean anything. Killing is just sanctioned by the society you live in. That is to say you can kill with impunity (even from the family of the person killed). And you arent using this to somehow prove abortion wrong? LOL im talking about this to prove your are merely using definitions to achieve what you want. LMAO. Guilty? Yes.
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@vidfreak56 Brother, your mind is messed up. By your logic, the men who stormed Normandy Beach to liberate the world from the Nazis are guilty of murder in that they had to kill to secure that objective. By your logic, men should face a murder trial for killing a man who kicks in a front door, guns blazing, intent on taking life. But, your foolishness has not discouraged me. I'm committed brother...lmfao!
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith The men who killed nazis were guilty of murder. Sorry. That isnt a bad thing however (nor is it good). Why? Because humans murder. O wait. No humans kill and make up jusitifications for it by saying (I did it for them!). Its a nice gesture but hardly the reason we faught hitler. Thousands of africans die by brutal dictators and you dont see America stepping in. Thats cause they dont got oil.
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith And murder trials are all about upholding the law not upholding what is moral. We put ppl in jail because they are dangerous to the rest of us, not because they are somehow "bad". They commit immoral acts, but hey so do all humans. Doesnt mean i want to let them run free. Freedom has to be made. Its not something you just get.
vidfreak56 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith It's also not murder in the case of abortion. You forgot that one. No woman who gets an abortion should face any jail time. And they don't. So I have nothing to worry about here because the government agrees with me.
keilareadman 2 months ago
China is overpopulated
LadyInDrag 3 months ago
Good point! Besides the world can not overpopulated because God created every human being...in his own image...a of his will. Abortion is defiance of Gods Creation and is murder.
texaswoodsmith 4 months ago 2
@texaswoodsmith then how come were not all invisible like your god?
SuperMilitantAtheist 3 months ago
@SuperMilitantAtheist He's not invisible brother. You just choose not to see him. But, that's cool, because he gave you that choice...
texaswoodsmith 3 months ago
That the destruction of sperm through contraception is seriously wrong as it destroys the biological potential to create an individual person. So technically you agree that persons should reframe from contraception catch a STI that could kill them, all just to protect a potential, biological zygote.
offeyy101 4 months ago
you only want to stick to the basic argument because went it is put into a real life situation, population control you carn't win. and even in a basic debate a human does not have any moral worth, only a person does. and a fetus is not a person. it only has the potential. but the potential is irelavant because if you argue it is seriously wrong to destroy a huma zygote inside a woman because you destroying its potentiality to be a person. you have to agree (contiue)
offeyy101 4 months ago
@Woopycushiun prove killing is wrong, ok so if someone killed ur mom, brother, sister, or someone else close to you
jo3jo3221 4 months ago
Haha.. overpopulation demands people stop their ruttin'. But that's not going to happen now, is it. Nooooo...
dmmchn 4 months ago
@slowalker700 Are you also against abortions where the mother's life is in danger or where the mother was raped?
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
It is funny how you keep saying that my arguments are "just my opinion" (so are all of yours) or "sick"(that is your opinion, you arent arguing objectively) then you argue the immorality (not objective) of killing something and try to say I am not arguing objectively. Until you can objectively prove that it is wrong to kill a being your argument is totally based in morality. "And as far as eating animals." Again why are you more entitled to your life than an animal is to theirs?
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
Comment removed
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@slowalker700 To compare me to racist whites is a bit of a stretch, and it is logically fallacious. Whites didn't see blacks as non sentient beings. Fetuses are factually non sentient, and thus do not possess the attributes that makes killing them wrong. Please answer my question objectively: why is it inherently wrong to kill a human? My indifference stems from scientific fact: that fetuses are non sentient, and also from my beliefs: a non sentient being does not have a right to life.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@Woopycushiun Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences. There is much evidence to conclude that a child in the womb is sentient. In that we are unable to ask him is not enough.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith sentience is impossible until around 7 months in at that point it is wrong to abort a fetus unless it threatens the life of the mother
Woopycushiun 2 months ago
@Woopycushiun Just curious, with regard to a 7 month old fetus who is threatening the life or health of the mother: Could emergency C-Section be an alternative to abortion?
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@Woopycushiun There is literally no conclusive proof or way for us to truly know how long a fetus is sentient, before it becomes evident that he or she is such. We do know that fetus' respond to various stimuli well before 7 months. Therefore, for the sake of arguement (...as if being sentient or not made a developing fetus any less human...) it would be more wise and just to "ERR" on the side of caution and assume sentience from the moment there is life.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@texaswoodsmith pain reception requires a neocortex--which is not formed until early in the third trimester. This is scientifically proven. "It has also been suggested that the near term fetus may be endowed with some degree of cognitive capability (e.g., Hepper & Shahidullah, 1994)" from FETAL BRAIN &COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.
Brain Research Laboratory,
Woopycushiun 2 months ago
@Woopycushiun Nevertheless, pain receptors, or lack thereof, are not enough to define a devoloping human as non-sentient. There is more to being sentient than feeling pain. Furthermore, we do not know whether they feel pain or not, even lacking an apparent neocortex. The brain has proven to compensate & perform operations even when its more efficient & fully developed centers are lacking or deficient. The fact is that we do not truly know. At best it is speculation, at worst rationalization.
texaswoodsmith 2 months ago
@slowalker700 "So what makes your subjective opinions more valid than science" Why is it wrong to kill a human? It is NOT an objective argument, that it is wrong to kill. It is your belief that killing is wrong, and there are many different justifications for killing that are indefensible from your stance.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@slowalker700 You are not understanding my argument, my argument is that life is meaningless without sentience and consciousness. It isn't wrong to kill something that is not sentient. I never said life = consciousness in a biological sense like you are arguing, I am saying that life or the reason to live is in our consciousness and sentience. The fact that something is alive does not give it a right to live.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
If I chop off my hand I am effectively killing organisms in the cells... is that murder? Why don't all living things have the right to life if living is the only thing that makes it wrong to kill? How can you justify eating because you are murdering all of those living plants and animals? A fetus IS living but it is not wrong to kill it because it does not have what makes life matter. It also is not murder because murder has to be unlawful.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@slowalker700 Whether something is living or not does not mean it has a right to live. You imply that the fetus being human gives more meaning to it's existence. Why? If the basis of your argument is that the fetus is alive then it must be wrong to kill all living things. To attach a significance to it being a human turns the debate in to a philosophical one because you are using your morals (it is wrong to kill humans no matter what, we have a right to live, etc.) to form your argument.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@slowalker700 Philosophical reasons prevent the slippery slope from happening, we don't see mass involuntary euthanasia in the present nor have we ever seen that as a result of abortion. Zygotes and the embryo are just cells, I see nothing wrong with killing cells because cells aren't sentient like we are. The fetus too is not sentient and therefor does not have a right to life.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
Comment removed
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@slowalker700 Note that the very definition of a cell is that a cell is the "smallest structural unit of living matter capable of functioning independently" If it is that they both are alive then it must be considered wrong to masturbate, or it must be considered wrong to wash your hands because numerous cells are being killed when you do either of those activities. What is the difference?
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@slowalker700 I am saying that my standard does not measure what makes life valuable in a biological sense but a philosophical sense, in a biological sense it is wrong to kill diseases simply because they are alive. What are you talking about cells aren't alive? It is terribly ironic that you tell me to look in a biology textbook to see what life is yet you deny the fact that a cell is living. Using your logic though what is the objective difference in a cell dying and a person dying?
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@slowalker700 There are no mentally handicapped that are non sentient like a fetus is, the only parallel is a person in a persistent vegetative state. There is a huge difference in not allowing a fetus to live outside the womb and murdering a person who is asleep. Read more on what I have stated, what makes it wrong to kill is the effect that person has had on the world. A person who is asleep is still a sentient being. Fetuses and vegetables are not sentient beings.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
It is not life in a biological sense, but it is life in a philosophical sense. It is fine to abort a fetus because it does not have the right to life that a true conscious being has. Why don't we make masturbation illegal because those sperm could potentially create life? Why don't we make women get pregnant before their period to make sure that no potential human life has been wasted? The right to life does not extend to a group of cells it only applies to us sentient beings.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@slowalker700 Yes, the number of cells, the number of thoughts you have had, the effect you have had on the world, the emotions you have felt, the actual human experience and the things that make you matter. When you are in your third trimester you become what makes humans truly "human." Before then though you are merely a parasite.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@slowalker700 I have explained the difference between a sleeping person and a vegetable in the discussion with the channel owner. Honestly there is quite a significant difference between a sleeping person and a fetus. Wake up a sleeping person and see if they have a personhood. You can not wake a fetus or vegetable. Also it is not truly murder to kill a fetus, for murder must be "unlawful." There is plenty of justification for abortion, and abortion is not unlawful.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
Comment removed
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@slowalker700 No, I am saying life isn't what makes it wrong to kill, consciousness, self awareness, whether or not the being whose life is to be taken is affecting the world, and whether or not the person in question actually has a "person-hood" that is recoverable (or they have in the present), are what make it wrong to kill something. Deer are alive and I find it perfectly moral to kill them. Just like a human vegetable or a fetus is alive and I find it perfectly moral to kill them.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@slowalker700 That is a bad analogy, as having no legs does not affect a person's abilities to feel emotions and affect other's emotions. Also yes there are other organisms that are not self aware... you will find that most people do not find it morally wrong to kill them. Even from a Christian perspective all animals are put here for man to use, this includes killing them. God was sacrificed lambs in the bible, are all biblical figures thus immoral? Of course not.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@slowalker700 There is quite a difference, with a person who is asleep they can be awaken, they have also affected people. A fetus has not affected anyone at all, because it has never been conscious, it isn't self aware and it does not have an urge to continue living. A vegetable can not be woke up from their unconsciousness either, so it is okay to end their lives.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@Woopycushiun At what point should the right to life / legal protection begin since you think it is find to kill born babies? Is killing a 1 year old fine too?
LiveActionFilms 5 months ago
@LiveActionFilms A 1 year old has the capacity to feel pain, and most fetuses past the third trimester are capable of feeling, the point where they are conscious/ can feel pain is when it becomes wrong
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
"Overpopulation Demands Abortion", genocide and suicide.
kynismos 5 months ago
abortionjustified.ytmnd.com/
SuperMilitantAtheist 5 months ago
this video is stupid, you have to look at abortion from all angles, and overpopulation is one of them, giving birth to something and then its living in poverty is one of them, being retarded is one of them, this whole "oh its an innocent life, don't kill it" i'm sorry, do you eat meat?, are these people latin? i'm guessing their probably religious people, and if they are, maybe they should read how their god killed so many people
SuperMilitantAtheist 5 months ago
abortion kills an innocent human being
brianmenendez 5 months ago
@brianmenendez oops
brianmenendez 5 months ago
Let's see, unborn humans are incapable of feeling pain, incapable of rational thought, and they can not object to abortion. Born humans have instincts, they want to go on living, and that is what makes it fundamentally wrong to kill a born human. A fetus is totally incapable of wanting to live so they aren't human in the sense they don't have a "soul" like we do.
Woopycushiun 6 months ago
@Woopycushiun "they can not object to abortion" A wounded solider or child hurt in a car crash and in a coma can't object to being killed, so can we cut them up? That is the logic if your position. Unborn children when more developed can feel pain...that fact of science contradicts your statement. A newborn baby isn't self-aware, would it be cool with you to kill them?
LiveActionFilms 6 months ago
@LiveActionFilms I posted a link showing that they dont feel. The difference with a soldier in a coma is that they can actually recover from it, and they have individual thoughts. They have had individual thoughts in the past too. A fetus has never thought, and thus have not affected anyone as a person in a coma has.
Woopycushiun 6 months ago
@Woopycushiun So whether you are a human is based on whether one has impacted others in the past? Is that your criteria?
Also you didn't answer this... A newborn baby isn't self-aware, would it be cool with you to kill them?
LiveActionFilms 6 months ago
@LiveActionFilms No, all members of the species homosapien are human, but what makes it wrong to kill a human is whether or not the human has thought and a basic survival instinct. I did answer that when I said "born humans" Babies have a need to continue their life, that is why they cry, born humans can also feel pain.
Woopycushiun 6 months ago
@Woopycushiun Are you saying that babies magically start feeling pain the moment they are born? Is that the science that you believe?
How do you detect if a person has a basic survival instinct?
LiveActionFilms 5 months ago
@LiveActionFilms The fetus doesn't feel pain until the third trimester ,28 weeks I believe(but I think we can agree third trimester / partial birth abortions are wrong considering it is against both of our ethical standards) but before then the fetus neither thinks nor does it feel. You can detect a survival instinct when a fetus/ baby/ whatever can try to escape pain or tries to continue its survival i.e. cry for a mother's milk, cry because they need assistance and are in pain etc.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@Woopycushiun Gotcha. Kids born as young as 21 week and 5 days has been born as survived. Is it cool to kill them or are you dropping your limit from 28 week down? If they are born but can't feel pain and don't cry, is it cool to kill them after being born? That is your standard right?
LiveActionFilms 5 months ago
@LiveActionFilms Woopycusiun is right. The unborn without thought can be killed without violating ethics pertaining to killing a born human or one who may even be able to feel pain.
dmarvelousss 5 months ago
@LiveActionFilms marchofdimes. com/baby/premature_indepth.html
It may be better to have them aborted before they can come out. They probably do not feel pain because their brain and nerves are not yet functioning. You also set them up for a life of failure and pain as the link shows that these premature babies are likely to be retarded, or have serious complications. It is like hitting an animal then leaving it to die slowly. The correct thing to do is to put it out of its misery.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@Woopycushiun So if a baby comes out and is 22 weeks old and is just wiggling around there, it should be legal to stab that baby to death? Yes or no?
LiveActionFilms 5 months ago
@LiveActionFilms Not once did I say it was alright to kill a born baby... No it would not be ethical to stab a born baby. I would have found it okay that they aborted the baby before it was born because it would most likely die an early and painful death or live a life of severe disability.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@Woopycushiun So what gives someone the right to live? Being born or as you said earlier about having a "basic survival instinct". You can't logically have it both way. What is THE criteria you use to grant someone the right to not be killed?
LiveActionFilms 5 months ago
@LiveActionFilms I never argued both ways, I have argued from the start a fetus becomes "human" (or has a soul) when they gain consciousness and can feel pain. That is why third trimester abortions are wrong. Their basic instincts, consciousness, and the ability to feel pain are the criteria for abortion. I never said that a born human should die explicitly; my whole argument was based upon aborting the fetus before it is born prematurely, thereby preventing a life of pain and suffering.
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
@Woopycushiun "I have argued from the start a fetus becomes "human" (or has a soul) when they gain consciousness and can feel pain."
So if they are born but don't have consciousness then it is fine to kill that born baby?
LiveActionFilms 5 months ago
@LiveActionFilms yes
Woopycushiun 5 months ago
What an uneducated load of drivel, they don't even have an argument, just choose to dodge the question altogether. Pro-choice all the way; pro woman, pro rights and please, educate yourselves on the population crisis before bleating out that it doesn't exist or is somehow a myth or lie.
loathedanabhorred 6 months ago
Haha! "Let's avoid a major factor in why it might not only be better for the woman making the choice to abort, but a better choice for the course of everyone else in the world too, seeing as it may be one less person (eventually) who cannot afford an education, food, or any of the $100,000 that it costs to raise a child! But who cares? We're 'pro-life' and want people to have as many pregnancies as they can to diminish resources even further, AND hold women hostage within their own bodies!"
cheryl5667 7 months ago 2
cont:
The more educated a woman is, the fewer..if any children she would have, also majority of the world's abortion occur in underdeveloped countries where the procedure is illegal. Education is the solution here, not trying to ban a procedure that will NOT end the issue in the least.
chibicat13 8 months ago
People who think the world's abortion rate is helping to control the world's population don't really know their maths.... Current world population is around 6.92 billion, the average abortion rate for the world is 42 million. There is 130 million live births per year, the abortion rate + the death rate is 98 million, that is still 32 million left over over. The population would still climb even if the abortion rate where to increase.
chibicat13 8 months ago
@ TheVVanderingStar: If you really think we have enough or too many people, are you willing to have yourself vivisected and dismembered to alleviate what you say is a population problem? If you aren't willing to first have the abortion mills chop you up into little pieces, you are no one to be advocating that murderous brutality to anyone else-- especially a helpless innocent baby who didn't ask to be created. Pro-choice? Choose yourself.
randycrawford 8 months ago
More@MellowChaos: Legitimate repair surgery done out of the womb proves location (inside vs. out of womb) doesn't matter, since babies can be in and out and then back in the womb, to prove they are (1) alive, and (2) growing, and (3) human -- the WHOLE time whether in the womb or not. Location doesn't matter to be alive. To explain it backward to backward thinkers like you, murder is murder whether killing is done in or out of the womb. Murder is murder anywhere. Pro-choice? Choose yourself.
randycrawford 8 months ago
Crawford: "It's easy to abort yourself. Just walk into Planned Murderhood and pay them to cut you into little pieces."
MellowChaos: There's a problem. I'm not inside a womb. Look up the definition of "abortion."
Crawford: If you want to play word games: Stretch out your mother's womb when she has a hysterectomy, put yourself inside, and then have yourself vivisected and dismembered. >>Babies can have legitimate repair surgery done even if temporarily outside the womb, then put back.....
randycrawford 8 months ago
Comment removed
MellowChaos 8 months ago
If we have enough people already, why haven't you started by vivisecting and dismembering yourself? Too much of a hypocrite?
randycrawford 8 months ago
What's to stop us from killing born humans? They're out of the mother's jurisdiction. They have consciousness. People are more likely to be emotionally attached, so killing them would cause general unhappiness.
I think the general idea of bringing up overpopulation is not that abortion is an easy way to solve this problem, but that if fewer children end up being born, it's no big deal. We have enough.
TheVVanderingStar 9 months ago
the world is so overpopulated, at 7 billion, that millions don't have food, water, medical, shelter....aren't these "human rights"? women are raped and mistreated everywhere, they have no rights over their bodies as it is, why try to outlaw their last, desperate, often heartwrenching choice to prevent another unwanted child they can't feed or care for? and no one even considers the right of that child who is an unwanted burden before they even enter the world. who are you to judge?
loathedandabhorred 10 months ago
@loathedandabhorred Abortion is the ultimate in judging, and in the most brutal form by the mother whose responsibility is to care for her baby. If the world is really overpopulated, are you willing to help out by jumping off a cliff? You won't do it because you know the world isn't so bad off, AND you want to live. Ditto for the baby, so trying to kill the baby makes you a hypocrite. If some billionaire decides you are petty nothing and unwanted, should he be able to kill poor poor you?
randycrawford 9 months ago
@randycrawford Denying a woman's rights over her sexual health, body and life is the ultimate in judging. It's no one's business if she doesn't want kids or CAN'T support another dependant. Yes, a mother's responsibility is to care for her child, and some women choose NOT to be mothers, not to have children. Why should a woman be forced to produce dependants she can't support? There are already too many people who can't support themselves, and choose not to have more children. Have some respect.
loathedanabhorred 6 months ago
NO ONE gets an abortion because they're concerned about overpopulation.
gracehi88 10 months ago
Birth control is alot easier/cheaper/safer than abortion. I don't know why people don't use it. If you have access to abortion, chances are you also have access to numerous birth control options. What exactly is stopping people from taking advantage of such options?
CamillaCalamity 11 months ago
@CamillaCalamity
Maybe you haven't heard, or perhaps you've never experienced this, but birth control methods don't always work. Women get their tubes tied and men have vasectomies and people STILL get pregnant sometimes. Shit happens.
fronthandspring101 10 months ago
@fronthandspring101 I'm aware, thanks. Just because something is 99.9% effective instead of 100% doesn't mean we should just throw it out. We would have no at all medicine if we did that.
CamillaCalamity 10 months ago
@CamillaCalamity
When did I say we should throw those things out?
fronthandspring101 10 months ago
@CamillaCalamity
What you fail to realize is that I am saying is that in many cases people are in situations where they are looking at abortion as an option because THEY TRIED other forms of birth control and that failed.
I never said we should not use these things because they aren't 100% effective.
fronthandspring101 10 months ago
@fronthandspring101 What you fail to realize is that the pregnancy is NOT the responsiblity of the baby, who is innocent. No system of justice or civilization executes the innocent. The pregnancy and the baby are the responsibilty of the parents. YOU are a chance random event, ever since your dad's sperm hit your mother's egg, but that doesn't entitle them to kill you just because you were at any time inconvenient, a surprise, or unwanted. License to kill isn't legitimate, and can boomerang.
randycrawford 9 months ago