I really get a kick out of how many guys debate the scientific merits while the ladies would really just like to keep the Federal government out of their privates.
There's a funny notion running around that women hop down to the corner Abort-A-Mart because it's less trouble than having a kid. Therefore, all abortions should be illegal, because a fetus is more importance than some inconvenience, right? But that's the sort of nonsense that's thrown around to tug at your heartstrings -- so you won't think about logical arguments or the rights of a living woman facing a crisis of one sort or another.
The human has to be born. Otherwise we wouldn't be human. All other animals, including Horses, are fully developed within the womb. Horses can walk minutes after being born. But not us. We have to be born in order for our brains achieve full development. Our Brain sizes are too big. Hence the gentleman challenging is correct. This man like all other Pro-lifers do not understand that it is virtually impossible to observe biology outside of the context of an Environment. So his "E" is incorrect.
@michel5891 Wrong. When a corpse is found, say in a forest, and it's to mutilated to tell what species it is, how do scientists tell? DNA. Humans have human DNA. A fetus has a human DNA code independent of the mother's. Father of Modern Genetics, Dr. Jérôme Lejeune, agrees that human life begins at conception. And our brains don't achieve full development until adult hood. So I guess children aren't really human, either.
@amanda2324 Right... right... right.... and yeah, you're right. We're human because of our DNA that makes us human and it's totally unique making us a unique individual human being. Life is defined scientifically by exerting characteristics that we say are just normal, consuming energy, growing, and such. A fetus exhibits these. And to give you a number, you reach peak development at 40 just in case you were curious.
@Josiah1701 ...we don't reach peak development until age 40? That's intriguing. But thank you for speaking up with such facts, I find them interesting.
@amanda2324 You're welcome. You're the only other person that seems to be debating on the same side as me so I enjoy offering any extra information for you when I can.
@michel5891 Wrong. When a corpse is found, say in a forest, and it's to mutilated to tell what species it is, how do scientists tell? DNA. Humans have human DNA. A fetus has a human DNA code independent of the mother's. Father of Modern Genetics, Dr. Jérôme Lejeune, agrees that human life begins at conception. And our brains don't achieve full development until adult hood. So I guess children aren't really human, either.
@michel5891 All of your arguments are logical fallacies in case you were wondering. What he's saying is that just because the fetus is in a womb doesn't make in inhuman. His point is simple. I change locations a lot during the day. Never do I lose humanity. Why is the womb the only place you lose your humanity? Let's just say for the sake of argument, I'm able to get back into my mom's womb at this age, would I lose humanity?
@michel5891 You say we have to be born to be human. But just because we have to be born to achieve full development doesn't mean that's when it happens. It actually happens much, much later. So what you're saying is that you have to be fully developed to be human. That means I'm not human. But it's still illegal to kill me and no one would look at me and say I'm not human. Is there a certain brain development that you're human and who established it?
In this man's definition of Intelligence, he is not equivocating Intelligence to Awareness. Something that we have that other animals don't. No no. Rather he is talking about gpa and IQ tests Intelligence. Mixing of logical spheres. So the other guy is quite right. There is no brain function, no cognitive function within a fetus, therefore it is not alive. And YES our Brain is what makes us aware and what makes us Human. Also for a human brain to achieve the potential of fully becoming developed
@michel5891 Define life. You're attacking him on definitions yet you yourself only provide the ones that help you. So what is your definition of life?
Organisms is different and does distinguish us from other animals. Nonetheless we are still animals. We are considered more Intelligent than other organisms because of our Self-Awareness. Our Self-awareness in contrast to other organisms is profound. We can think in multiple layers. We are aware that we are aware while being aware that she is aware that he is aware that I am aware that we are all aware that we are aware and we are aware that we are aware of being aware of awareness and so on.
@michel5891 It may be fancy to add all those "awares" but they make no point. You're simply stating that awareness makes us human. Reading your other arguments you also attempt to relate everything you're saying to biology. Biology will take a scientific definition meaning that it's not whether we're aware, but whether scientifically we're human. We can sit and play tennis with philosophy all day, but to take a totally practical/legal approach, scientifically you're wrong.
He then goes off on a tangent about Intelligence, negating the fundamental point of AWARENESS. Intelligence does not measure the function of the brain. Rather the function of the brain gives the capacity to exercise intelligence. Intelligence being the possession of the mental capacity to make proper decision within a particular environment or under specific CONDITIONS. Intelligence (in the lay meaning of the word) does not make us Human. However, Sentient Intelligence in contrast to other
This man's argument is fallacious. SLED. Size is a dumb argument for any person to make. Pro-life or Pro-choice. But when he gets to level of development "L", he mixes logical spheres of definition. Apples and fuckin' ju ju beans! Notice that he throws in "INTELLIGENCE" with "Awareness". 2 different cognitive functions. One which more than less depends on the other. In order for Intelligence to be observed or manifested, the Brain must be self aware!
Can you and I both agree, that if you were to get shot in the head right now, where your brain suffered traumatic atrophy, that you will in no doubt die. All bodily functions will cease and you will die?
If your answer is yes, I then posit another question for you. If someone is in a vegetative state - that is, there is no synaptic activity in the brain, no brainwave function, no cognition at all - the person is brain DEAD, is he or she still alive or dead?
If you were in a building where millions of embryonic cells ("potential life" as you call it) were all stored in a cryonic freezer - you, your mother, some strangers, and your 3 kids, were all present in that building; and a fire broke out. A fire so severe that you were placed in a position where you had the choice of saving your 3 kids or saving the millions of human embryos; Which would you save????
@PALOMITA694 So just to get this straight, the fetus decided to hitch a ride with a woman and start sucking up her energy that her body produces more of to sustain the life because pregnancy is a natural process unlike a parasite?
@Josiah1701 Why should a woman be enslaved in natures way of reproducing humans beings. If we are going to respect natures ways than a baby born with a cleft lip wont be able to have surgery to fix the lip because it was natures intention for him to be born that way. Or many other natures laws that can be fixed wont be able get done.
@PALOMITA694 Have you realized how irrelevant your analogies are? I'm saying we have to let nature happen to SAVE A LIFE. Fixing a cleft lip isn't killing anyone. If the fetus has absolutely no right to live and is deserving of capital punishment for this terrible crime it was forced to commit without its own concent (which you seem to be worried about) then it's fine. But the fetus didn't do anything.
@Josiah1701 So you think a raped woman did everything wrong and deserves to be drained out of her energy and be pregnant against her will so that another human being can live? Is victimizing a woman twice is perfectly right and moral?
@PALOMITA694 Thanks for the words you conveniently stuck in my mouth (please excuse my sarcasm). I didn't say the woman deserved. Actually, I believe if you read what I wrote I said I sympathize. But that doesn't mean that we can kill an innocent human being.
@Josiah1701 So we cannot interrupt the development of a fetus but is morally ok to victimize a woman twice? In abortion, I forgot to tell you, we are not killing any baby we are just simply interrupting the development of a fetus.
@PALOMITA694 Ah I see. You forget to acknowledge that scientists agree that from the time a zygote is formed it is the beginning of each of us as a unique individual (human being, person, whatever). And if you're gonna argue like that: Northern Russia is better known as New Jersey. Did I prove that? No I simply said it. I just provided another source and you didn't. If you want a couple names "Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Peraud" there you go.
@PALOMITA694 I'm sure it enjoys sitting in a pool of liquid. And free loader seems to be a weird to determine something the body works hard to keep alive.
@Josiah1701 Even if a zygote is a potential life the point is that it still is not a person. And then again, even if it were a person what right should it have on other persons body to dispose of it for its own survival. Whether natural law, legal law or moral law, nobody can dispose of other persons body.
@PALOMITA694 I'm not seeing where potential life comes from because those scientists agree it is a life and a person. And thanks for proving my point. Nobody can dispose of another person's body. See the logical fallacy you made? I guess we're left with the lesser of two evils. Obviously murder would be the greater of two evils so inconveniencing a woman is the only option. If you have anything further to say I probably won't reply because I'm going to bed.
@PALOMITA694 Btw, if we're arguing if it should be legal according to probe.org "this would account for less than .06 percent of the abortions performed in the U.S." So the other 99.3% of babies have absolutely no justification to be killed. No one take 0.6% of people into account when making a law. And I still don't believe rape is a good argument, but I wanted to let you know that you're standing on a very short leg.
@Josiah1701 Even if there was only one case of a raped woman who does not desires to be a mother that is enough to prove a point and are you not the ones who say that legal does not make it right?
@PALOMITA694 How can you assert that a woman who has an abortion will "never regret it"?? Research the after-effects and post-abortive issues before making such blatently ignorant statements.
It's ironic (and maybe even a little funny) that the person making the speech about what should take place in the uterus... can never actually have a uterus. It's like living in Illinois and voting for the governor of California.
@amanda2324 My point? I can get in a war, or be killed by one. I could be murdered, or commit murder. I could be raped, or commit rape. These are all things that I can participate in because I have the hands to do so. If I argue for war, I either do so as an academic exercise (someone else in another country's war for example) or as a practical exercise (there are better ways to spend my taxes and not draft my children). But I will never, ever have a uterus -- and neither will he.
@MrLabrant So what? If I never, ever commit murder, or experience it, then it is the same as saying a man will never, ever have a uterus. And actually, that is untrue, because it is scientifically possible to change the biological sex of a person. Furthermore, it was MEN who made abortion legal in the first place - should it not be legal since they are not women, or do you only support men holding a position on this issue when they support the Pro-Choice side?
@MrLabrant Also, then, what about people who do not have arms - are they allowed to say how horrible strangling a person is, even though they are incapable of doing that? Are people without legs incapable of saying how horrible it is to kick another person? Is a person who is paralyzed from the neck down incapable of protesting murder, rape, and other such crimes, since they are incapable of committing these things themselves?
@amanda2324 People who don't have arms are allowed to say they don't want to be strangled. Legs, kicked, etc. But I can never miscarry, and at this point cannot be miscarried. I can neither have an abortion nor be aborted. So your argument is interesting, but wide of the mark.
@amanda2324 P.S. - My arguments against the logical fallacies of "SLED" are listed below, and that's what I'd focus on if it were a woman making the argument. But for someone who will never be physically capable of having an abortion to debate whether someone else ought to be allowed is beyond his jurisdiction, and unconscionable.
@MrLabrant I saw the arguments, but I find them invalid and unsound, and I have no interest in striking up another debate. Especially when there's a character limit on posts... and my free time is currently a bit limited.
@MrLabrant That's the worst argument I've heard. Arguments don't have gender. Facts don't have gender. Philosophy doesn't have gender. Science doesn't have gender. He can prove those things without being the right gender in your opinion because females use the same arguments. Why does it matter?
@Josiah1701 Actually, facts very much do have gender, which is the critical bit here. The fact of a pregnant human, necessary to the discussion and quite tangible, is in fact specifically female and specifically requires a uterus to be relevant to the abortion debate. Gender is very much a scientific fact. That's why it matters, sir. You and I can discuss it in the abstract without gender, but for females, it's impact is real and painful.
@MrLabrant The problem is not the amount of pain the woman experiences but the humanity of the fetus. What you're saying is that this means that we have to know the pain. Well I guess even though women who are pro-life use the same arguments I do, since I don't know their pain I can't talk. That makes tons of sense. All I'm doing is saying the fetus is a living, unique human being, and it doesn't matter if it hurts, you can't take an innocent human's life.
@Josiah1701 Again the straw man suggestion that a woman would choose an abortion to avoid pain. Abortion is neither painless nor convenient, and it disrespects someone to second guess their motives. Would you kill someone in self-defense? If carrying a child to term kills the mother, does she not also have that same right? You're right, it doesn't matter if it hurts. I doubt that's a regular consideration at all.
@MrLabrant See I'm just saying that it doesn't matter if the facts say the women has the baby. The facts also say that the fetus is a living, unique human being. Just proving it scientifically it's a human being with the right to life because it has not committed a crime.
@Josiah1701 Because it has not committed a crime? So if it commits a crime, it loses its right to life? The Bible says "For ALL have sinned..." and "The heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked." Scientifically, you are your own creature the moment you disconnect from mom (i.e. birth). But Biblically, you don't even exist (let alone being alive) until you sin or do something wicked.
@Josiah1701 Am I clouding the argument with a bunch of facts? "The facts" don't say that the fetus is a living unique human being. The Bible doesn't say it, and neither does science. The Evangelicals say it, but since when is that the yardstick of sanity?
@MrLabrant I'm sorry but last time I checked, science would define anything growing, consuming energy, and becoming more complex as human. I agree the Bible says nothing about abortion which is why I find it curious that people say people are Pro-Life because the Bible says so. The simple fact is that it has human DNA, its DNA is completely and absolutely unique making it a unique individual, and it is alive. It possesses all of the basic rights of a human being.
@Josiah1701 The last time you checked with whom? Anyone with a college degree in anything even remotely scientific? "Life" is a continuous, cyclic series of self-controlled, self-energized chemical reactions. A fetus is still entirely reliant on one specific person (the mother and no one else), and is not self-energized. That's what science has to say on the subject. Sperm have unique DNA and can survive outside the body, but no one argues that each one has a right to life. Why?
@MrLabrant To answer your last question, it's not a human. It carries human DNA but is a specialized cell meant for fertilization. A Fetus is specialized as a human. And if you define as getting your food from outside sources, then none of us are alive. You're arguing that without the woman the fetus would not live. Without food we wouldn't live The fetus uses that energy for itself. Its cells do carry out the process of transforming the energy.
@MrLabrant For right now, I'm just going to ask you the same question you didn't see or simply ignored. Jesus never sinned, yet the Bible says he was fully man. Can you please explain that?
@MrLabrant Sorry, but the facts seem to say that fetus is a unique human being. The simple argument is whether or not the fetus is a living human and therefore having the basic human rights. If you can prove it isn't a living human, then you're right. But saying that you're not human until you've sinned is wrong because it's not the sin that makes you human. It's the sin nature that makes Paul say that, but he doesn't specifically define humanity as starting when you've sinned.
@Josiah1701 Uh, Romans says "For all have sinned" and makes no mention of sin nature. So either it has sinned, or it's not alive. So either he's wrong (all have not sinned) or a fetus doesn't qualify (not included in the word "all"). In fact, I'll send you $100 if you can provide a single verse in the Bible (NIV or KJV either one) that says "sin nature" or "sinful nature".
@MrLabrant Now about you're Biblical argument. First of all, you're taking the verse out of context. All Paul is saying is that God doesn't discriminate between Jews and Gentiles. It's not laying a foundation for what humans are. Second, if you're arguing sin in God's eyes, when we accept Jesus and are covered by his blood God sees us as righteous.
@MrLabrant I'm going to create a video response because of the amount of typing and the lack of characters youtube allows me to use. I might have it up tonight, but I have a lot of homework so that's doubtful, and I can't do it tomorrow, so I'll try to have it up by Saturday. It'll simply be a video response to this video because it's simpler that way. You can check it out, and create your own video response if you want.
Some interesting logical fallacies here, but by letting "SLED" set the boundaries of the argument, it's a lost battle before it starts. Fetuses are different in terms of self-awareness, consciousness, and singular dependence upon a sole human being, hence a similar debate over euthanasia. The Bible records human consciousness as beginning with the first breath. Self-awareness may not come until long after birth. And a fetus depends on a single person, making it a unique relationship.
What about the rights of the woman? Is not only the fetus or embryo life that involves pregnancy. What about the womans effects of the pregnancy the inconvineinces the pain of carrying the fetus the pain of giving birth. Hey face it. It is the womans body that get more hurt on this pregnancy ordeal. She has a right to say NO I do not want to bear this fetus take it out and dispose of it. See it from the womans point of view too not just the embryos rights.
@PALOMITA694 The woman's rights are absolutely important. I agree that we should not focus only on the foetus. No mother should be permitted to destroy her child because it is inconvenient for her - whether the child is born or pre-born.
@MrAbolitionist Try to understand what abortion is and what a homocide is. Abortion is the interruption of the development of the fetus. Homicide is a planned murder. You probably are going to say "well I see no difference" right? Interruption of development you dont have a complete born person yet. In the homocide the victim is a person. A fetus cannot have the same rights of a person because a fetus is not a fully developed born person yet.
@PALOMITA694 Homicide is defined as the killing of a human being. you're using of evasive language, doesn't change the fact that abortion kills a human being, sometimes by dismemberment.
@MrAbolitionist Homicide: the act or an instance of unlawfully killing another human being. Unlawful kiilling of another human being, is abortion unlawful? To my knowlege abortion is not unlawful. Abortion is legal.
@PALOMITA694 it's still homicide, "Interrupting", isn't really an accurate term, we're not talking about a flight to Ireland, we're talking dismembering a human child.
@PALOMITA694 what part of homicide do you not understand? do you question that the unborn are human? do you question that abortion kills them? if you question neither, then you have every reason to acknowledge that it's homicide against an innocent human being.
@MrAbolitionist Yes the unborn is human. Now tell me what does that have to do with the right of a woman to abort it? Whether it is homicide or the iterruption of her preganancy she still has the right to do it, because the fetus is inside her body and it is her body that is being affected by the pregancy.
@PALOMITA694 : You know, flipping the caps lock on doesn't make it true. Adolf Hitler was brilliant in areas of warfare and manipulation, but many of his views were morally incorrect. We are usually ruled by men who are brilliant in some areas, but have some faulty views in other areas.
@polaroidsky You people just need to learn to live and share the world with others, even if you disapprove of their life styles. We cannot all have the same views in life. Being able to choose what is right for your life is call freedom.
@PALOMITA694 : It's not about you though, that's the thing. It's about the child. Should one be able to choose to kill their child whom they gave birth to?
@polaroidsky I am amazed on how some people just ignore the significant difference between being born and being unborn. You may say is a baby inside a mother and it is but being inside a body makes a whole lot of difference when it comes down to be counted as a person and having rights as one.
@PALOMITA694 : The issue isn't over if the baby is born or not, but weather or not it is a human being. Could you explain how your position changes your value?
@PALOMITA694 : One who is sentenced to jail is restricted of rights because of their actions. A child in a womb should not be restricted of any right to live, for they have committed no crime. I am not speaking of a criminal, I am speaking of the innocent. A baby is as innocent as it gets, so how does it's position change it's value? Is it more valuable on the left side or the right side of the crib?
@PALOMITA694 : Was it just? I mean, do you believe that the execution of innocent people is just? And that would be pretty ironic to murder someone because he or she was born a sinner when, in fact, it's a sin to murder.
@PALOMITA694 : That is very true. Remember that we are not talking about how things are right now, but how things should be. An average of 16,000 people are murdered each year in the U.S. alone (not including abortions). We look at this as a horrible thing, and wish that the violence would stop. However, it is still going on. Should we just give up and no longer place restrictions on murder? No, of course not. So the fact that abortion is currently going on does not make it okay.
@Josiah1701 What I am saying is that nobody has the right to use other people's body or body parts to live. I cannot tell you to donate one of your kidneys so your mother can live longer. I cannot tell your mother that she has to lend you her body so you can live in it for nine months. Is was up to her if she decided to be pregnant with you so you could live. No women should be enslave in pregnancy.
@PALOMITA694 Your analogy is incorrect. Pregnancy is a natural process, whereas donating a kidney is an unnatural process. Forcing someone to donate a kidney requires outside FORCE, where as pregnancy just happens naturally as a result of the process of sex. Therefore, the comparisons are incompatible. You can not force a woman to carry out a pregnancy anymore than you can force people live with ten fingers, or ten toes, or brown hair, or blue eyes. It's natural, thus it cannot be forced.
@amanda2324 You mean that you want to obey and respect the laws of nature So when it comes to a baby born with a cleft lip there's nothing to do to fix it cause nature intended him to be like that When a baby's born blind you cannot look into medical help to try and help him get a good sight because on both of these situation they will require outside FORCE Please explain your statement ~You can not force a woman to carry out a pregnancy anymore than you can force people live with ten fingers~
@PALOMITA694 You are twisting my words. No one forces a woman to carry out a pregnancy, it naturally happens. No one forces a baby to be born blind or with some sort of disability or deformity, it just happens. Being able to fix those problems is a medical advancement and a SERVICE PROVIDED BY a doctor or otherwise trained professional. Again, your analogy is incorrect. You're comparing a child with a deformity, which is abnormal, with the perfectly normal -process- of pregnancy.
@amanda2324 No woman should be enslaved in natures way of reproducing human life the same applies with people who somehow are born with NATURAL defects (without human intervension). If we have medical science to fight agaist nature for our convience why not use it?
@PALOMITA694 Your comparison is a logical fallacy. One is a natural, a NORMAL process that is required, while the other is an ABNORMAL defect. No one FORCES either to happen. And we don't make it illegal to fix a defect, because we are helping them to become normal by natural standards. Pregnancy is natural, so abortion is unnatural. Pregnancy cannot be forced, therefore, you're still using invalid arguments.
@Josiah1701 Just like you cant call an egg a chicken you cant call a fetus a child. The woman has the right to abort a fetus out of her body because she chooses not to have it in it anymore. Just like landlords can evict anybody out of their property. Even if the landlord allowed the renters to come in the house.
@PALOMITA694 Except when a landlord evicts someone they aren't killing. Obviously the fetus is alive otherwise it wouldn't be growing, feeding, or reproducing it's own cells. It can be proven it's human by more than the philosophical reasons above. It has human DNA. If it wasn't it's own person it wouldn't carry the properties that allow it to separate from the woman and function by itself.
@PALOMITA694 In other words, you're killing an innocent human being which is an illegal action. Your rights end when they infringe on another's. The woman doesn't actually have the right to kill the fetus, it's just not her right. Only because it infringes on the rights of another. That's why I'm pro-choice for women on everything that doesn't infringe on other people's rights. Abortion doesn't fall under that category.
@Josiah1701 You have the right to get rid of anything that is harming your body Be it cancer, HIV. TB, diseases, parasites etc.The fetus takes up the womans blood, calcium, iron, some women even lose part of their sight due to pregnancy Why shouldnt women have the right to defend their bodies against a foreign body? People who smoke know they can get cancer, people who drink know they can get cirrhosis, but they have a right to get rid of the disease harming their body Why cant women do it too?
@PALOMITA694 There's a big difference between all the examples you give and the one we're talking about. The fetus is a unique human individual. The fetus cannot be given capital punishment for something it didn't even do. The woman chose to have it in there and the man chose to put it in there, why does the fetus take the heat. It doesn't matter how convenient it is for the woman, what you're talking about is giving the fetus capital punishment for something it didn't do.
@PALOMITA694 I started reading, and basically your saying we're all sinners therefore we all have to die. That's true. However, all doctors deserve to die, and they cannot justifiably kill another human being because they deserve the same sentence. I deserve to die but don't have the right to kill me.
@theboybiggles As you can see this is a debate that goes in a circular motion you can protect the rights of one being without violating the rights of the other being.
@theboybiggles says: No mother should be permitted to destroy her child because it is inconvenient for her
~~~~~~~~~~ But she should have the child that will be a damned inconvenience to her? try loving the kids more than you hate abortion. Oh, you cant? I didnt think so...
@PALOMITA694 You know the woman does have rights, but instead of responsibility or even morality in many cases some still want to throw away even the most valuable thing, which is a basic freedom, the right to live., who is any woman(or man for that matter) to choose who lives and who dies?
Did any of you know the Nazis also eliminated human life in the name of convenience, I see quite a few similarities, the Jews were given no choice either and the government approved.
@infamousbigg No, there is no similarities between government and a womans body. Nazis were into eliminating a particular race, or religion to control and force their own crazy political and religious beliefs. A woman only wants to have the freedom to choose when to be a mother.
The womens point of view is the point of discussion that is the most telling in the life debate . So many women want to keep the child that we call by different names (embyo ,fetus ). Many of them are not assured by us males we are pro female and pro life, in short they feel cut off by their families and friends. "Its easy.Just go get it done! " they say. Over 66 percent of Abortions are coerced. Whos Pro female for that woman 15 years later when her regret surfaces?
@supercoolcats01 When a woman wants to have a baby she will go through hell and back to have it But if a woman easily gives up her offspring she sure does not want it in the first place Some people judge women and think that a woman cant make a decision If a woman really wants to have an abortion she will never regret having one. Women can think and make decisions for themselves dont you go thinking they all have chicken brains.
@PALOMITA694 Dude, here's what's real. The foetus is a living being as proved by this video. I can't stab my brother just cause he's being inconvenient for me. A woman killing a baby because it's inconvenient is murder.
@PALOMITA694 A woman's rights, as do everyone else's, extend until they infringe on the rights of another. What you fail to see is that it's not the woman's right because it infringes on the rights of another, and that's where we draw the line on someone's rights.
why do people remain shackled to chains of logic, reason, science? living in the box of logic and relying on science alone doesn't mean you're right, you're just limiting your purpose of existence- living a life that the loving and forgiving Creator has given each person. Anti-God comments are nothing new, and will not destroy true faith in Jesus Christ.
I just finished watching a 3-part video of this man presenting his argument against abortion at my high school. Finally I found someone that can give a Pro-life argument that doesn't involve scripture :)
It's not that a Fetus' development is lower, it's that it DOESN'T HAVE a consciousness, morality etc. It's not that it has less of it, it simply has none of it.
The fact that a sperm cell can find it way through the fallopian tube doesn't give it rights. Todpoles can find their way in water, they don't have human individual rights do they? Degree of dependancy is not an argument for abortion.
Sam, At what specific point in your life did you develop your consciousness and morality? If there is no development at all, then it doesn't exist. Surely you are not claiming an embryo does not exist. If it doesn't then why would there be a need to kill and remove it through abortion?
I developed my morality as a process throughout my time as a living, breathing human being. As for consciousness, I had it ever since I was born.
I didn't say the embryo doesn't exist, but what I am saying is there is no attribute of the embryo which gives it inaliable individual rights.
Let's stop pretending that any of this has to do with science shall we? we all know that this anti-abortion craze began, and still is a matter of upholding Biblical text, and limiting people's happiness
So as an infant who hadn't developed his morality through the process of living and breathing as a human being, it would have been okay to kill you?
What attributes give you inalienable individual rights? FYI The founding fathers believe those unalienable rights were granted to every individual by their Creator, not any arbitrary attributes like consciousness or morality.
Science proves the human embryo is a living human being. Actually the pro-life movement was first championed by the national media and doctors, not the religious. I, nor Scott Klussendorf, have made one argument based on Scripture. As far as limiting people happiness, what if I considered it fun to beat the tar out of you? Should my "happiness" not be limited in that case?
You can certainly try to "beat the tar out of me", I've got 2 handguns registered in my name, plus plenty of people who know me and would make you regret it.
A woman who is poor would be forced to bear a child who would grow up in extreeme poverty, no education, and probably end up a drug dealer or a gangster if it were up to you
If the woman knows that the birth would bring a child into conditions which are bad for it, she should be able to prevent the birth as an act of mercy
Sam, I was not trying to threaten you in any way but your response shows that you feel it is your right to limit other people's happiness if it interfere's with your right, and rightly so. There is a hierarchy of rights. Your right not to be assaulted is greater than someone else's right to happiness if they feel assaulting you would make them happy. Don't you agree that the right to life should be the highest of all rights? Without life you have no way to exercise any other rights.
Three months after the mother learns of her pregnancy is enough time to decide this issue. If she can't decide, then she has to live with her inability to
by forcing mothers to have children they don't want, you will create a greater ammount of poor miserable people, this is exactly the effect that Theresa had in India when she taught the natives to not use contraception, etc
By creating more misory, your leaders know that they will have many more believers. People who are happy with their lives have less need for religion, religion hates real happiness, because it can't compete with it
Do you know that religious groups in late 19th century opposed anesthesia?
They argued that it was God's will that people suffer during surgery. Such a claim is perfectly incomprehensible, but their real motive is: To prevent science from releaving people's pain, which would shift people's hope away from prayer, and more toward secular and scientific thinking. Such thinking leads to greater progress, better industry, better life, and less blind faith
How do you know you had consciousness at your birth? Do you remember being born and suddenly attaining it? Can you prove humans don't have consciousness before birth?
Yes, it's a scientific fact, well established by child psychologists. Babies are aware, a fetus isn't. Look it up
I bring up religion, because I don't think it's a coincidence that practically every anti-abortionist (with very few exceptions) are religious people. I know the Bible says abortion is murder, but it also says that children of people who don't believe in Christ have to be slaughtered, among many other things priests like to avoid talking about during mass.
@catfish77x If you are unconscious are you self aware? However, are you still you? Would it be alright if I decided it would be alright to kill you if you blanked out while hitting your head on something? Of course not! So why would this instance be any different?
@tebownater Because a person is physically capable of valuing their life at that instant. If I took your life it would be murder because you are at the developmental point at which you can value your own existence. Now if I accidently scraped you with a key, I just killed some skin cells, I didn't murder them. They are human and alive, but are not conscious or capable of being self aware. If I am knocked out, my brain is still physically developed.
I agree and don't think it is a coincidence that most pro-lifers are Christians either. In think many Christians are pro-lifers because that is what the Bible teachers. That man is created in the image of God and therefore humans are valuable not because of their function, morality, consciousness, etc but simply because of their human nature and that human life should not be destroyed without just cause.
Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all old and young, girls and women and little children. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
That was a commandment given to a specific group of people at a specific time and a specific place. It is not a commandment for all Christians to go out and kill all non-Christians. That kind of interpretation would hardly be consistent with the rest of Scripture. Do you see the difference?
Or is it more likely that people are simply making this stuff up, and changing it with the times, to suit their own needs? If you were a skeptic which would you go with?
Hmm... A being who's existance cannot be confirmed in any consistent manner, but who will punish you AFTER you die if you don't follow his "teachings", and who's teachings seem to change constantly
Yes, it was a commandment given by God, but that doesn't make it murder. He is God after all. If He gave you life, He can take it away.
The Scripture has not been changed with time but it is true that people sometimes interpret the Scripture to suit their own desires and, yes, that is wrong. That is why study of the Bible is so important.
How are God's teachings changing all the time? The only change I really see was from the old covenant to the new covenant because of and after Christ's death for our sins and resurrection.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think people should be punished for doing wrong?
In my small workplace I have Christians from at least five different denominations, each claiming that their particular brand of Biblical interpretation is the correct one.
Mormonism didn't exist several centuries ago, and now mormons are convinced that their beliefs are right, while other Christians got it wrong, and how different they are!
Catholics used to sell indulgences, there are many other examples
I don't quite follow your logic here. It is true that there are many different denominations that have risen out of relatively minor theological differences but that doesn't mean God's word or teachings have changed. Understanding and interpretation of scripture changes but the Bible itself doesn't. That is why it is important to study it for ones self and see what it is really saying. Have you ever studied the Bible yourself?
Umm, are you saying that the people who wrote the Bible were more in touch with God than the people who re-wrote it?
You do know that these denominations have each re-written the text to suit their own needs don't you?
I don't know which denomination you belong to, but most likely it doesn't preach the exact Bible as it was originally written. But even if it does, why would you logically assume that people who re-write it are liars, but the people who originally wrote it weren't?
I've read the Bible, that was a while ago but I am well familiar with it. I have a pretty good idea of what it says.
It's like a disco ball. It has something for everyone. If you like violence against non-believers, there's text in it to support your desires. If you like easy escapist fantasies about eternal life, there's stuff in there. If you want peace and love on earth, there's stuff in there. If you like communism, there's stuff in there for you too
A group of desert people two thousand years write a book. This book has a bunch of moral commandments and teachings in it, designed to attract worshipers.
The writers claim that it wasn't their own word, but rather the word of an all powerful being with superior knowledge. These people didn't even know how electricity worked, but they knew the being which created all of existance
Logical conclusion: They just wanted to scare people into going along with their cult
I really get a kick out of how many guys debate the scientific merits while the ladies would really just like to keep the Federal government out of their privates.
MrLabrant 6 days ago
There's a funny notion running around that women hop down to the corner Abort-A-Mart because it's less trouble than having a kid. Therefore, all abortions should be illegal, because a fetus is more importance than some inconvenience, right? But that's the sort of nonsense that's thrown around to tug at your heartstrings -- so you won't think about logical arguments or the rights of a living woman facing a crisis of one sort or another.
MrLabrant 1 week ago
Strawman arguments.....
datinsky69 1 week ago
The human has to be born. Otherwise we wouldn't be human. All other animals, including Horses, are fully developed within the womb. Horses can walk minutes after being born. But not us. We have to be born in order for our brains achieve full development. Our Brain sizes are too big. Hence the gentleman challenging is correct. This man like all other Pro-lifers do not understand that it is virtually impossible to observe biology outside of the context of an Environment. So his "E" is incorrect.
michel5891 1 week ago
@michel5891 Wrong. When a corpse is found, say in a forest, and it's to mutilated to tell what species it is, how do scientists tell? DNA. Humans have human DNA. A fetus has a human DNA code independent of the mother's. Father of Modern Genetics, Dr. Jérôme Lejeune, agrees that human life begins at conception. And our brains don't achieve full development until adult hood. So I guess children aren't really human, either.
amanda2324 1 week ago
@amanda2324 Right... right... right.... and yeah, you're right. We're human because of our DNA that makes us human and it's totally unique making us a unique individual human being. Life is defined scientifically by exerting characteristics that we say are just normal, consuming energy, growing, and such. A fetus exhibits these. And to give you a number, you reach peak development at 40 just in case you were curious.
Josiah1701 6 days ago
@Josiah1701 ...we don't reach peak development until age 40? That's intriguing. But thank you for speaking up with such facts, I find them interesting.
amanda2324 6 days ago
@amanda2324 You're welcome. You're the only other person that seems to be debating on the same side as me so I enjoy offering any extra information for you when I can.
Josiah1701 4 days ago
@Josiah1701 I've been trying to limit my Youtube debating thanks to the new character limits on posts.
amanda2324 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@michel5891 Wrong. When a corpse is found, say in a forest, and it's to mutilated to tell what species it is, how do scientists tell? DNA. Humans have human DNA. A fetus has a human DNA code independent of the mother's. Father of Modern Genetics, Dr. Jérôme Lejeune, agrees that human life begins at conception. And our brains don't achieve full development until adult hood. So I guess children aren't really human, either.
amanda2324 1 week ago
@michel5891 All of your arguments are logical fallacies in case you were wondering. What he's saying is that just because the fetus is in a womb doesn't make in inhuman. His point is simple. I change locations a lot during the day. Never do I lose humanity. Why is the womb the only place you lose your humanity? Let's just say for the sake of argument, I'm able to get back into my mom's womb at this age, would I lose humanity?
Josiah1701 6 days ago
Comment removed
Josiah1701 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@michel5891 You say we have to be born to be human. But just because we have to be born to achieve full development doesn't mean that's when it happens. It actually happens much, much later. So what you're saying is that you have to be fully developed to be human. That means I'm not human. But it's still illegal to kill me and no one would look at me and say I'm not human. Is there a certain brain development that you're human and who established it?
Josiah1701 6 days ago
In this man's definition of Intelligence, he is not equivocating Intelligence to Awareness. Something that we have that other animals don't. No no. Rather he is talking about gpa and IQ tests Intelligence. Mixing of logical spheres. So the other guy is quite right. There is no brain function, no cognitive function within a fetus, therefore it is not alive. And YES our Brain is what makes us aware and what makes us Human. Also for a human brain to achieve the potential of fully becoming developed
michel5891 1 week ago
@michel5891 Define life. You're attacking him on definitions yet you yourself only provide the ones that help you. So what is your definition of life?
Josiah1701 1 week ago
Organisms is different and does distinguish us from other animals. Nonetheless we are still animals. We are considered more Intelligent than other organisms because of our Self-Awareness. Our Self-awareness in contrast to other organisms is profound. We can think in multiple layers. We are aware that we are aware while being aware that she is aware that he is aware that I am aware that we are all aware that we are aware and we are aware that we are aware of being aware of awareness and so on.
michel5891 1 week ago
@michel5891 It may be fancy to add all those "awares" but they make no point. You're simply stating that awareness makes us human. Reading your other arguments you also attempt to relate everything you're saying to biology. Biology will take a scientific definition meaning that it's not whether we're aware, but whether scientifically we're human. We can sit and play tennis with philosophy all day, but to take a totally practical/legal approach, scientifically you're wrong.
Josiah1701 6 days ago
He then goes off on a tangent about Intelligence, negating the fundamental point of AWARENESS. Intelligence does not measure the function of the brain. Rather the function of the brain gives the capacity to exercise intelligence. Intelligence being the possession of the mental capacity to make proper decision within a particular environment or under specific CONDITIONS. Intelligence (in the lay meaning of the word) does not make us Human. However, Sentient Intelligence in contrast to other
michel5891 1 week ago
This man's argument is fallacious. SLED. Size is a dumb argument for any person to make. Pro-life or Pro-choice. But when he gets to level of development "L", he mixes logical spheres of definition. Apples and fuckin' ju ju beans! Notice that he throws in "INTELLIGENCE" with "Awareness". 2 different cognitive functions. One which more than less depends on the other. In order for Intelligence to be observed or manifested, the Brain must be self aware!
michel5891 1 week ago
Can you and I both agree, that if you were to get shot in the head right now, where your brain suffered traumatic atrophy, that you will in no doubt die. All bodily functions will cease and you will die?
If your answer is yes, I then posit another question for you. If someone is in a vegetative state - that is, there is no synaptic activity in the brain, no brainwave function, no cognition at all - the person is brain DEAD, is he or she still alive or dead?
michel5891 1 week ago
If you were in a building where millions of embryonic cells ("potential life" as you call it) were all stored in a cryonic freezer - you, your mother, some strangers, and your 3 kids, were all present in that building; and a fire broke out. A fire so severe that you were placed in a position where you had the choice of saving your 3 kids or saving the millions of human embryos; Which would you save????
michel5891 1 week ago
Comment removed
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@PALOMITA694 So just to get this straight, the fetus decided to hitch a ride with a woman and start sucking up her energy that her body produces more of to sustain the life because pregnancy is a natural process unlike a parasite?
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@Josiah1701 Why should a woman be enslaved in natures way of reproducing humans beings. If we are going to respect natures ways than a baby born with a cleft lip wont be able to have surgery to fix the lip because it was natures intention for him to be born that way. Or many other natures laws that can be fixed wont be able get done.
PALOMITA694 2 months ago
@PALOMITA694 Have you realized how irrelevant your analogies are? I'm saying we have to let nature happen to SAVE A LIFE. Fixing a cleft lip isn't killing anyone. If the fetus has absolutely no right to live and is deserving of capital punishment for this terrible crime it was forced to commit without its own concent (which you seem to be worried about) then it's fine. But the fetus didn't do anything.
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@Josiah1701 So you think a raped woman did everything wrong and deserves to be drained out of her energy and be pregnant against her will so that another human being can live? Is victimizing a woman twice is perfectly right and moral?
PALOMITA694 2 months ago
@PALOMITA694 Thanks for the words you conveniently stuck in my mouth (please excuse my sarcasm). I didn't say the woman deserved. Actually, I believe if you read what I wrote I said I sympathize. But that doesn't mean that we can kill an innocent human being.
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@Josiah1701 So we cannot interrupt the development of a fetus but is morally ok to victimize a woman twice? In abortion, I forgot to tell you, we are not killing any baby we are just simply interrupting the development of a fetus.
PALOMITA694 2 months ago
@PALOMITA694 Ah I see. You forget to acknowledge that scientists agree that from the time a zygote is formed it is the beginning of each of us as a unique individual (human being, person, whatever). And if you're gonna argue like that: Northern Russia is better known as New Jersey. Did I prove that? No I simply said it. I just provided another source and you didn't. If you want a couple names "Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Peraud" there you go.
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@Josiah1701 I agree with science but not with the fact that a zygote be a free loader in a womans body against her will.
PALOMITA694 2 months ago
@PALOMITA694 I'm sure it enjoys sitting in a pool of liquid. And free loader seems to be a weird to determine something the body works hard to keep alive.
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@PALOMITA694 Please excuse my sarcasm. I do it naturally without thinking.
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@Josiah1701 Even if a zygote is a potential life the point is that it still is not a person. And then again, even if it were a person what right should it have on other persons body to dispose of it for its own survival. Whether natural law, legal law or moral law, nobody can dispose of other persons body.
PALOMITA694 2 months ago
@PALOMITA694 I'm not seeing where potential life comes from because those scientists agree it is a life and a person. And thanks for proving my point. Nobody can dispose of another person's body. See the logical fallacy you made? I guess we're left with the lesser of two evils. Obviously murder would be the greater of two evils so inconveniencing a woman is the only option. If you have anything further to say I probably won't reply because I'm going to bed.
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@Josiah1701 Good Night!
PRO-CHOICE IS THE BEST CHOICE!
PALOMITA694 2 months ago 2
@PALOMITA694 Btw, if we're arguing if it should be legal according to probe.org "this would account for less than .06 percent of the abortions performed in the U.S." So the other 99.3% of babies have absolutely no justification to be killed. No one take 0.6% of people into account when making a law. And I still don't believe rape is a good argument, but I wanted to let you know that you're standing on a very short leg.
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@Josiah1701 Even if there was only one case of a raped woman who does not desires to be a mother that is enough to prove a point and are you not the ones who say that legal does not make it right?
PALOMITA694 2 months ago
@PALOMITA694 How can you assert that a woman who has an abortion will "never regret it"?? Research the after-effects and post-abortive issues before making such blatently ignorant statements.
BeaconofLight1970 4 months ago
Would it be okay for me to kill my brother because he punches me once in a while? He is causing me pain, does that mean I go and shoot him?
HouseOnARock 8 months ago 2
It's ironic (and maybe even a little funny) that the person making the speech about what should take place in the uterus... can never actually have a uterus. It's like living in Illinois and voting for the governor of California.
MrLabrant 9 months ago
@MrLabrant It's also like never having been in war, but still believing that war is a terrible thing...
Or like never having had a family member or friend be murdered, but still believing that murder is a terrible thing...
Or like never having been raped, but still believing that rape is wrong...
...your point?
amanda2324 5 months ago
@amanda2324 My point? I can get in a war, or be killed by one. I could be murdered, or commit murder. I could be raped, or commit rape. These are all things that I can participate in because I have the hands to do so. If I argue for war, I either do so as an academic exercise (someone else in another country's war for example) or as a practical exercise (there are better ways to spend my taxes and not draft my children). But I will never, ever have a uterus -- and neither will he.
MrLabrant 5 months ago
@MrLabrant So what? If I never, ever commit murder, or experience it, then it is the same as saying a man will never, ever have a uterus. And actually, that is untrue, because it is scientifically possible to change the biological sex of a person. Furthermore, it was MEN who made abortion legal in the first place - should it not be legal since they are not women, or do you only support men holding a position on this issue when they support the Pro-Choice side?
amanda2324 5 months ago
@MrLabrant Also, then, what about people who do not have arms - are they allowed to say how horrible strangling a person is, even though they are incapable of doing that? Are people without legs incapable of saying how horrible it is to kick another person? Is a person who is paralyzed from the neck down incapable of protesting murder, rape, and other such crimes, since they are incapable of committing these things themselves?
amanda2324 5 months ago
@amanda2324 People who don't have arms are allowed to say they don't want to be strangled. Legs, kicked, etc. But I can never miscarry, and at this point cannot be miscarried. I can neither have an abortion nor be aborted. So your argument is interesting, but wide of the mark.
MrLabrant 1 week ago
@MrLabrant ...your post makes no sense whatsoever.
amanda2324 1 week ago
@MrLabrant Um... Female pro-life people use the same arguments. Arguments don't have gender, people do.
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@amanda2324 P.S. - My arguments against the logical fallacies of "SLED" are listed below, and that's what I'd focus on if it were a woman making the argument. But for someone who will never be physically capable of having an abortion to debate whether someone else ought to be allowed is beyond his jurisdiction, and unconscionable.
MrLabrant 5 months ago
@MrLabrant I saw the arguments, but I find them invalid and unsound, and I have no interest in striking up another debate. Especially when there's a character limit on posts... and my free time is currently a bit limited.
amanda2324 5 months ago
@MrLabrant That's the worst argument I've heard. Arguments don't have gender. Facts don't have gender. Philosophy doesn't have gender. Science doesn't have gender. He can prove those things without being the right gender in your opinion because females use the same arguments. Why does it matter?
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@Josiah1701 Actually, facts very much do have gender, which is the critical bit here. The fact of a pregnant human, necessary to the discussion and quite tangible, is in fact specifically female and specifically requires a uterus to be relevant to the abortion debate. Gender is very much a scientific fact. That's why it matters, sir. You and I can discuss it in the abstract without gender, but for females, it's impact is real and painful.
MrLabrant 1 week ago
Comment removed
Josiah1701 6 days ago
@MrLabrant The problem is not the amount of pain the woman experiences but the humanity of the fetus. What you're saying is that this means that we have to know the pain. Well I guess even though women who are pro-life use the same arguments I do, since I don't know their pain I can't talk. That makes tons of sense. All I'm doing is saying the fetus is a living, unique human being, and it doesn't matter if it hurts, you can't take an innocent human's life.
Josiah1701 6 days ago
@Josiah1701 Again the straw man suggestion that a woman would choose an abortion to avoid pain. Abortion is neither painless nor convenient, and it disrespects someone to second guess their motives. Would you kill someone in self-defense? If carrying a child to term kills the mother, does she not also have that same right? You're right, it doesn't matter if it hurts. I doubt that's a regular consideration at all.
MrLabrant 6 days ago
@MrLabrant See I'm just saying that it doesn't matter if the facts say the women has the baby. The facts also say that the fetus is a living, unique human being. Just proving it scientifically it's a human being with the right to life because it has not committed a crime.
Josiah1701 6 days ago
@Josiah1701 Because it has not committed a crime? So if it commits a crime, it loses its right to life? The Bible says "For ALL have sinned..." and "The heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked." Scientifically, you are your own creature the moment you disconnect from mom (i.e. birth). But Biblically, you don't even exist (let alone being alive) until you sin or do something wicked.
MrLabrant 6 days ago
@Josiah1701 Am I clouding the argument with a bunch of facts? "The facts" don't say that the fetus is a living unique human being. The Bible doesn't say it, and neither does science. The Evangelicals say it, but since when is that the yardstick of sanity?
MrLabrant 6 days ago
@MrLabrant I'm sorry but last time I checked, science would define anything growing, consuming energy, and becoming more complex as human. I agree the Bible says nothing about abortion which is why I find it curious that people say people are Pro-Life because the Bible says so. The simple fact is that it has human DNA, its DNA is completely and absolutely unique making it a unique individual, and it is alive. It possesses all of the basic rights of a human being.
Josiah1701 5 days ago
@Josiah1701 The last time you checked with whom? Anyone with a college degree in anything even remotely scientific? "Life" is a continuous, cyclic series of self-controlled, self-energized chemical reactions. A fetus is still entirely reliant on one specific person (the mother and no one else), and is not self-energized. That's what science has to say on the subject. Sperm have unique DNA and can survive outside the body, but no one argues that each one has a right to life. Why?
MrLabrant 5 days ago
@MrLabrant To answer your last question, it's not a human. It carries human DNA but is a specialized cell meant for fertilization. A Fetus is specialized as a human. And if you define as getting your food from outside sources, then none of us are alive. You're arguing that without the woman the fetus would not live. Without food we wouldn't live The fetus uses that energy for itself. Its cells do carry out the process of transforming the energy.
Josiah1701 4 days ago
@MrLabrant Oh, also you asked according to whom. Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Peraud. If the fetus wasn't alive, the human race would have been extinct.
Josiah1701 4 days ago
@MrLabrant For right now, I'm just going to ask you the same question you didn't see or simply ignored. Jesus never sinned, yet the Bible says he was fully man. Can you please explain that?
Josiah1701 1 day ago
Comment removed
Josiah1701 5 days ago
@MrLabrant Sorry, but the facts seem to say that fetus is a unique human being. The simple argument is whether or not the fetus is a living human and therefore having the basic human rights. If you can prove it isn't a living human, then you're right. But saying that you're not human until you've sinned is wrong because it's not the sin that makes you human. It's the sin nature that makes Paul say that, but he doesn't specifically define humanity as starting when you've sinned.
Josiah1701 5 days ago
@Josiah1701 Uh, Romans says "For all have sinned" and makes no mention of sin nature. So either it has sinned, or it's not alive. So either he's wrong (all have not sinned) or a fetus doesn't qualify (not included in the word "all"). In fact, I'll send you $100 if you can provide a single verse in the Bible (NIV or KJV either one) that says "sin nature" or "sinful nature".
MrLabrant 5 days ago
@MrLabrant Now about you're Biblical argument. First of all, you're taking the verse out of context. All Paul is saying is that God doesn't discriminate between Jews and Gentiles. It's not laying a foundation for what humans are. Second, if you're arguing sin in God's eyes, when we accept Jesus and are covered by his blood God sees us as righteous.
Josiah1701 4 days ago
@MrLabrant I'm going to create a video response because of the amount of typing and the lack of characters youtube allows me to use. I might have it up tonight, but I have a lot of homework so that's doubtful, and I can't do it tomorrow, so I'll try to have it up by Saturday. It'll simply be a video response to this video because it's simpler that way. You can check it out, and create your own video response if you want.
Josiah1701 4 days ago
Comment removed
Josiah1701 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrLabrant Jesus never sinned, but the Bible says He was fully man. Can you please explain that?
Josiah1701 5 days ago
Some interesting logical fallacies here, but by letting "SLED" set the boundaries of the argument, it's a lost battle before it starts. Fetuses are different in terms of self-awareness, consciousness, and singular dependence upon a sole human being, hence a similar debate over euthanasia. The Bible records human consciousness as beginning with the first breath. Self-awareness may not come until long after birth. And a fetus depends on a single person, making it a unique relationship.
MrLabrant 9 months ago
What about the rights of the woman? Is not only the fetus or embryo life that involves pregnancy. What about the womans effects of the pregnancy the inconvineinces the pain of carrying the fetus the pain of giving birth. Hey face it. It is the womans body that get more hurt on this pregnancy ordeal. She has a right to say NO I do not want to bear this fetus take it out and dispose of it. See it from the womans point of view too not just the embryos rights.
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694 The woman's rights are absolutely important. I agree that we should not focus only on the foetus. No mother should be permitted to destroy her child because it is inconvenient for her - whether the child is born or pre-born.
theboybiggles 1 year ago 4
@theboybiggles No law should be permitted to oppress a woman even if it is for another individual's convenience
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694 No law should be permitted to oppress an individual even if it is for another woman's convenience.
theboybiggles 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694 how is prohibiting homicide, oppression?
MrAbolitionist 1 year ago
@MrAbolitionist Try to understand what abortion is and what a homocide is. Abortion is the interruption of the development of the fetus. Homicide is a planned murder. You probably are going to say "well I see no difference" right? Interruption of development you dont have a complete born person yet. In the homocide the victim is a person. A fetus cannot have the same rights of a person because a fetus is not a fully developed born person yet.
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694 Homicide is defined as the killing of a human being. you're using of evasive language, doesn't change the fact that abortion kills a human being, sometimes by dismemberment.
MrAbolitionist 1 year ago
@MrAbolitionist Homicide: the act or an instance of unlawfully killing another human being. Unlawful kiilling of another human being, is abortion unlawful? To my knowlege abortion is not unlawful. Abortion is legal.
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694 homicide refers to a human being killing another human being
MrAbolitionist 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694 look up the term on NOLO (a legal dictionary) it can be both criminal and non criminal.
MrAbolitionist 1 year ago
@MrAbolitionist Abortion is not an accidental homicide either. Abortion is just the interruption of a fetus development.
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694 it's still homicide, "Interrupting", isn't really an accurate term, we're not talking about a flight to Ireland, we're talking dismembering a human child.
MrAbolitionist 1 year ago
@MrAbolitionist Plain English: Aboriton is legal and it should always be. Whether it has different meaning to you and me.
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694 what part of homicide do you not understand? do you question that the unborn are human? do you question that abortion kills them? if you question neither, then you have every reason to acknowledge that it's homicide against an innocent human being.
MrAbolitionist 1 year ago
@MrAbolitionist Yes the unborn is human. Now tell me what does that have to do with the right of a woman to abort it? Whether it is homicide or the iterruption of her preganancy she still has the right to do it, because the fetus is inside her body and it is her body that is being affected by the pregancy.
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694
your arguments are pathetically unintellectual. Read books.
zzzak123 1 year ago
@zzzak123 WELL, NO WONDER ABORTION IS LEGAL AND NOT ILLEGAL.
AMERICA IS RUN BY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE THAT IS WHY IT IS PRO-CHOICE.
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694 : You know, flipping the caps lock on doesn't make it true. Adolf Hitler was brilliant in areas of warfare and manipulation, but many of his views were morally incorrect. We are usually ruled by men who are brilliant in some areas, but have some faulty views in other areas.
polaroidsky 1 year ago
@polaroidsky You people just need to learn to live and share the world with others, even if you disapprove of their life styles. We cannot all have the same views in life. Being able to choose what is right for your life is call freedom.
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694 : It's not about you though, that's the thing. It's about the child. Should one be able to choose to kill their child whom they gave birth to?
polaroidsky 1 year ago
@polaroidsky I am amazed on how some people just ignore the significant difference between being born and being unborn. You may say is a baby inside a mother and it is but being inside a body makes a whole lot of difference when it comes down to be counted as a person and having rights as one.
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694 : The issue isn't over if the baby is born or not, but weather or not it is a human being. Could you explain how your position changes your value?
polaroidsky 1 year ago
@polaroidsky What man has more rights the one who is in jail or the one who is free?
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694 : One who is sentenced to jail is restricted of rights because of their actions. A child in a womb should not be restricted of any right to live, for they have committed no crime. I am not speaking of a criminal, I am speaking of the innocent. A baby is as innocent as it gets, so how does it's position change it's value? Is it more valuable on the left side or the right side of the crib?
polaroidsky 1 year ago
@polaroidsky Remember they have even executed innocent people in jail. Some people believe that we are born sinners.
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694 : Was it just? I mean, do you believe that the execution of innocent people is just? And that would be pretty ironic to murder someone because he or she was born a sinner when, in fact, it's a sin to murder.
polaroidsky 1 year ago
@polaroidsky Whoever says life is fair is a liar. Innocent or sinners, we all have to die. Some die old, some die young.
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694 : That is very true. Remember that we are not talking about how things are right now, but how things should be. An average of 16,000 people are murdered each year in the U.S. alone (not including abortions). We look at this as a horrible thing, and wish that the violence would stop. However, it is still going on. Should we just give up and no longer place restrictions on murder? No, of course not. So the fact that abortion is currently going on does not make it okay.
polaroidsky 11 months ago
Comment removed
Josiah1701 6 months ago
@Josiah1701 What I am saying is that nobody has the right to use other people's body or body parts to live. I cannot tell you to donate one of your kidneys so your mother can live longer. I cannot tell your mother that she has to lend you her body so you can live in it for nine months. Is was up to her if she decided to be pregnant with you so you could live. No women should be enslave in pregnancy.
PALOMITA694 6 months ago
@PALOMITA694 Your analogy is incorrect. Pregnancy is a natural process, whereas donating a kidney is an unnatural process. Forcing someone to donate a kidney requires outside FORCE, where as pregnancy just happens naturally as a result of the process of sex. Therefore, the comparisons are incompatible. You can not force a woman to carry out a pregnancy anymore than you can force people live with ten fingers, or ten toes, or brown hair, or blue eyes. It's natural, thus it cannot be forced.
amanda2324 5 months ago
@amanda2324 You mean that you want to obey and respect the laws of nature So when it comes to a baby born with a cleft lip there's nothing to do to fix it cause nature intended him to be like that When a baby's born blind you cannot look into medical help to try and help him get a good sight because on both of these situation they will require outside FORCE Please explain your statement ~You can not force a woman to carry out a pregnancy anymore than you can force people live with ten fingers~
PALOMITA694 5 months ago
@PALOMITA694 You are twisting my words. No one forces a woman to carry out a pregnancy, it naturally happens. No one forces a baby to be born blind or with some sort of disability or deformity, it just happens. Being able to fix those problems is a medical advancement and a SERVICE PROVIDED BY a doctor or otherwise trained professional. Again, your analogy is incorrect. You're comparing a child with a deformity, which is abnormal, with the perfectly normal -process- of pregnancy.
amanda2324 5 months ago
@amanda2324 No woman should be enslaved in natures way of reproducing human life the same applies with people who somehow are born with NATURAL defects (without human intervension). If we have medical science to fight agaist nature for our convience why not use it?
PALOMITA694 5 months ago
@PALOMITA694 Your comparison is a logical fallacy. One is a natural, a NORMAL process that is required, while the other is an ABNORMAL defect. No one FORCES either to happen. And we don't make it illegal to fix a defect, because we are helping them to become normal by natural standards. Pregnancy is natural, so abortion is unnatural. Pregnancy cannot be forced, therefore, you're still using invalid arguments.
amanda2324 5 months ago
@PALOMITA694 The fetus didn't choose to be inside the woman's body.
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@Josiah1701 Just like you cant call an egg a chicken you cant call a fetus a child. The woman has the right to abort a fetus out of her body because she chooses not to have it in it anymore. Just like landlords can evict anybody out of their property. Even if the landlord allowed the renters to come in the house.
PALOMITA694 2 months ago
@PALOMITA694 Except when a landlord evicts someone they aren't killing. Obviously the fetus is alive otherwise it wouldn't be growing, feeding, or reproducing it's own cells. It can be proven it's human by more than the philosophical reasons above. It has human DNA. If it wasn't it's own person it wouldn't carry the properties that allow it to separate from the woman and function by itself.
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@PALOMITA694 In other words, you're killing an innocent human being which is an illegal action. Your rights end when they infringe on another's. The woman doesn't actually have the right to kill the fetus, it's just not her right. Only because it infringes on the rights of another. That's why I'm pro-choice for women on everything that doesn't infringe on other people's rights. Abortion doesn't fall under that category.
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@Josiah1701 You have the right to get rid of anything that is harming your body Be it cancer, HIV. TB, diseases, parasites etc.The fetus takes up the womans blood, calcium, iron, some women even lose part of their sight due to pregnancy Why shouldnt women have the right to defend their bodies against a foreign body? People who smoke know they can get cancer, people who drink know they can get cirrhosis, but they have a right to get rid of the disease harming their body Why cant women do it too?
PALOMITA694 2 months ago
@PALOMITA694 There's a big difference between all the examples you give and the one we're talking about. The fetus is a unique human individual. The fetus cannot be given capital punishment for something it didn't even do. The woman chose to have it in there and the man chose to put it in there, why does the fetus take the heat. It doesn't matter how convenient it is for the woman, what you're talking about is giving the fetus capital punishment for something it didn't do.
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@PALOMITA694 I started reading, and basically your saying we're all sinners therefore we all have to die. That's true. However, all doctors deserve to die, and they cannot justifiably kill another human being because they deserve the same sentence. I deserve to die but don't have the right to kill me.
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@PALOMITA694 Since when does where you are have any bearing on who you are?
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@Josiah1701 A fetus is a person the moment it becomes viable. Before that it does not have any rights as a person.
PALOMITA694 2 months ago
@PALOMITA694 Um... What's with the legal talk? Just because something's legal doesn't make it right.
Josiah1701 2 months ago
@PALOMITA694 How does the woman have the right to infringe on the rights of another human?
Josiah1701 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theboybiggles As you can see this is a debate that goes in a circular motion you can protect the rights of one being without violating the rights of the other being.
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theboybiggles says: No mother should be permitted to destroy her child because it is inconvenient for her
~~~~~~~~~~ But she should have the child that will be a damned inconvenience to her? try loving the kids more than you hate abortion. Oh, you cant? I didnt think so...
Sueezee1 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694 You know the woman does have rights, but instead of responsibility or even morality in many cases some still want to throw away even the most valuable thing, which is a basic freedom, the right to live., who is any woman(or man for that matter) to choose who lives and who dies?
Did any of you know the Nazis also eliminated human life in the name of convenience, I see quite a few similarities, the Jews were given no choice either and the government approved.
infamousbigg 1 year ago
@infamousbigg No, there is no similarities between government and a womans body. Nazis were into eliminating a particular race, or religion to control and force their own crazy political and religious beliefs. A woman only wants to have the freedom to choose when to be a mother.
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694
The womens point of view is the point of discussion that is the most telling in the life debate . So many women want to keep the child that we call by different names (embyo ,fetus ). Many of them are not assured by us males we are pro female and pro life, in short they feel cut off by their families and friends. "Its easy.Just go get it done! " they say. Over 66 percent of Abortions are coerced. Whos Pro female for that woman 15 years later when her regret surfaces?
Gordon
supercoolcats01 11 months ago
@supercoolcats01 When a woman wants to have a baby she will go through hell and back to have it But if a woman easily gives up her offspring she sure does not want it in the first place Some people judge women and think that a woman cant make a decision If a woman really wants to have an abortion she will never regret having one. Women can think and make decisions for themselves dont you go thinking they all have chicken brains.
PALOMITA694 11 months ago
@PALOMITA694 Dude, here's what's real. The foetus is a living being as proved by this video. I can't stab my brother just cause he's being inconvenient for me. A woman killing a baby because it's inconvenient is murder.
Josiah1701 6 months ago
@PALOMITA694 A woman's rights, as do everyone else's, extend until they infringe on the rights of another. What you fail to see is that it's not the woman's right because it infringes on the rights of another, and that's where we draw the line on someone's rights.
Josiah1701 2 months ago
He talks about a fetus, but not a blastocyst or embryo. So his argument wouldn't work against stem cell research.
PhiloTheSceptic 1 year ago
wow.
misakichii 1 year ago
why do people remain shackled to chains of logic, reason, science? living in the box of logic and relying on science alone doesn't mean you're right, you're just limiting your purpose of existence- living a life that the loving and forgiving Creator has given each person. Anti-God comments are nothing new, and will not destroy true faith in Jesus Christ.
dayoftheVictor 1 year ago
I just finished watching a 3-part video of this man presenting his argument against abortion at my high school. Finally I found someone that can give a Pro-life argument that doesn't involve scripture :)
jbeazeer 1 year ago
sroHex, you don't have a "developed brain" and I don't sense any potential for you to ever have one...
lucenut 2 years ago
sroHex you are a sad human being. But I still don't think it's OK to kill you.
lucenut 2 years ago
Rights aren't a bell-curve.
It's not that a Fetus' development is lower, it's that it DOESN'T HAVE a consciousness, morality etc. It's not that it has less of it, it simply has none of it.
The fact that a sperm cell can find it way through the fallopian tube doesn't give it rights. Todpoles can find their way in water, they don't have human individual rights do they? Degree of dependancy is not an argument for abortion.
Argument refuted
Sam26100 2 years ago
Sam, At what specific point in your life did you develop your consciousness and morality? If there is no development at all, then it doesn't exist. Surely you are not claiming an embryo does not exist. If it doesn't then why would there be a need to kill and remove it through abortion?
catfish77x 1 year ago
I developed my morality as a process throughout my time as a living, breathing human being. As for consciousness, I had it ever since I was born.
I didn't say the embryo doesn't exist, but what I am saying is there is no attribute of the embryo which gives it inaliable individual rights.
Let's stop pretending that any of this has to do with science shall we? we all know that this anti-abortion craze began, and still is a matter of upholding Biblical text, and limiting people's happiness
Sam26100 1 year ago
So as an infant who hadn't developed his morality through the process of living and breathing as a human being, it would have been okay to kill you?
What attributes give you inalienable individual rights? FYI The founding fathers believe those unalienable rights were granted to every individual by their Creator, not any arbitrary attributes like consciousness or morality.
catfish77x 1 year ago
Science proves the human embryo is a living human being. Actually the pro-life movement was first championed by the national media and doctors, not the religious. I, nor Scott Klussendorf, have made one argument based on Scripture. As far as limiting people happiness, what if I considered it fun to beat the tar out of you? Should my "happiness" not be limited in that case?
catfish77x 1 year ago
You can certainly try to "beat the tar out of me", I've got 2 handguns registered in my name, plus plenty of people who know me and would make you regret it.
A woman who is poor would be forced to bear a child who would grow up in extreeme poverty, no education, and probably end up a drug dealer or a gangster if it were up to you
If the woman knows that the birth would bring a child into conditions which are bad for it, she should be able to prevent the birth as an act of mercy
Sam26100 1 year ago
Sam, I was not trying to threaten you in any way but your response shows that you feel it is your right to limit other people's happiness if it interfere's with your right, and rightly so. There is a hierarchy of rights. Your right not to be assaulted is greater than someone else's right to happiness if they feel assaulting you would make them happy. Don't you agree that the right to life should be the highest of all rights? Without life you have no way to exercise any other rights.
catfish77x 1 year ago
Should we kill children that are already born and living in bad conditions as an act of mercy?
catfish77x 1 year ago
I already answered this question
Three months after the mother learns of her pregnancy is enough time to decide this issue. If she can't decide, then she has to live with her inability to
Sam26100 1 year ago
You know why religion truly is against abortion?
by forcing mothers to have children they don't want, you will create a greater ammount of poor miserable people, this is exactly the effect that Theresa had in India when she taught the natives to not use contraception, etc
By creating more misory, your leaders know that they will have many more believers. People who are happy with their lives have less need for religion, religion hates real happiness, because it can't compete with it
Sam26100 1 year ago
This is a well understood fact
Do you know that religious groups in late 19th century opposed anesthesia?
They argued that it was God's will that people suffer during surgery. Such a claim is perfectly incomprehensible, but their real motive is: To prevent science from releaving people's pain, which would shift people's hope away from prayer, and more toward secular and scientific thinking. Such thinking leads to greater progress, better industry, better life, and less blind faith
Sam26100 1 year ago
Too much to even comment on here!
catfish77x 1 year ago
How do you know you had consciousness at your birth? Do you remember being born and suddenly attaining it? Can you prove humans don't have consciousness before birth?
catfish77x 1 year ago
Yes, it's a scientific fact, well established by child psychologists. Babies are aware, a fetus isn't. Look it up
I bring up religion, because I don't think it's a coincidence that practically every anti-abortionist (with very few exceptions) are religious people. I know the Bible says abortion is murder, but it also says that children of people who don't believe in Christ have to be slaughtered, among many other things priests like to avoid talking about during mass.
Sam26100 1 year ago
Are newborns self aware? Child psychologists say no. You can look it up for yourself.
catfish77x 1 year ago
@catfish77x If you are unconscious are you self aware? However, are you still you? Would it be alright if I decided it would be alright to kill you if you blanked out while hitting your head on something? Of course not! So why would this instance be any different?
tebownater 1 year ago
@tebownater Because a person is physically capable of valuing their life at that instant. If I took your life it would be murder because you are at the developmental point at which you can value your own existence. Now if I accidently scraped you with a key, I just killed some skin cells, I didn't murder them. They are human and alive, but are not conscious or capable of being self aware. If I am knocked out, my brain is still physically developed.
HearingEveryRhyme 1 year ago
I agree and don't think it is a coincidence that most pro-lifers are Christians either. In think many Christians are pro-lifers because that is what the Bible teachers. That man is created in the image of God and therefore humans are valuable not because of their function, morality, consciousness, etc but simply because of their human nature and that human life should not be destroyed without just cause.
catfish77x 1 year ago
Where in the Bible does it say that children of people who don't believe in Christ have to be slaughtered? I have never read that.
catfish77x 1 year ago
Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all old and young, girls and women and little children. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
Sam26100 1 year ago
That was a commandment given to a specific group of people at a specific time and a specific place. It is not a commandment for all Christians to go out and kill all non-Christians. That kind of interpretation would hardly be consistent with the rest of Scripture. Do you see the difference?
catfish77x 1 year ago
But it was a commandment given by God no?
So God is sometimes murderous and sometimes isn't
Or is it more likely that people are simply making this stuff up, and changing it with the times, to suit their own needs? If you were a skeptic which would you go with?
Hmm... A being who's existance cannot be confirmed in any consistent manner, but who will punish you AFTER you die if you don't follow his "teachings", and who's teachings seem to change constantly
It's awfully convenient
Sam26100 1 year ago
Yes, it was a commandment given by God, but that doesn't make it murder. He is God after all. If He gave you life, He can take it away.
The Scripture has not been changed with time but it is true that people sometimes interpret the Scripture to suit their own desires and, yes, that is wrong. That is why study of the Bible is so important.
catfish77x 1 year ago
How are God's teachings changing all the time? The only change I really see was from the old covenant to the new covenant because of and after Christ's death for our sins and resurrection.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think people should be punished for doing wrong?
catfish77x 1 year ago
How are God's teachings changing all the time?
Are you freaking serious?
In my small workplace I have Christians from at least five different denominations, each claiming that their particular brand of Biblical interpretation is the correct one.
Mormonism didn't exist several centuries ago, and now mormons are convinced that their beliefs are right, while other Christians got it wrong, and how different they are!
Catholics used to sell indulgences, there are many other examples
Sam26100 1 year ago
I don't quite follow your logic here. It is true that there are many different denominations that have risen out of relatively minor theological differences but that doesn't mean God's word or teachings have changed. Understanding and interpretation of scripture changes but the Bible itself doesn't. That is why it is important to study it for ones self and see what it is really saying. Have you ever studied the Bible yourself?
catfish77x 1 year ago
Umm, are you saying that the people who wrote the Bible were more in touch with God than the people who re-wrote it?
You do know that these denominations have each re-written the text to suit their own needs don't you?
I don't know which denomination you belong to, but most likely it doesn't preach the exact Bible as it was originally written. But even if it does, why would you logically assume that people who re-write it are liars, but the people who originally wrote it weren't?
Sam26100 1 year ago
I've read the Bible, that was a while ago but I am well familiar with it. I have a pretty good idea of what it says.
It's like a disco ball. It has something for everyone. If you like violence against non-believers, there's text in it to support your desires. If you like easy escapist fantasies about eternal life, there's stuff in there. If you want peace and love on earth, there's stuff in there. If you like communism, there's stuff in there for you too
It's like a well adapted virus
Sam26100 1 year ago
A group of desert people two thousand years write a book. This book has a bunch of moral commandments and teachings in it, designed to attract worshipers.
The writers claim that it wasn't their own word, but rather the word of an all powerful being with superior knowledge. These people didn't even know how electricity worked, but they knew the being which created all of existance
Logical conclusion: They just wanted to scare people into going along with their cult
End of "study"
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Sam26100 wow this is a silly statement
HLZBORO738 1 year ago
@HLZBORO738 Your statement means nothing.
You'll have to actually explain WHY it's "silly" for it to mean anything to me. Hope that makes sense...
Sam26100 1 year ago