@clip11 Because in a lot of cases adoption can harm the baby. My family adopted a girl from China, and the conditions of the orphanages there are absolutely atrocious. So many children die in them from malnutrition and disease that in a lot of cases it would be far less harmful to have an abortion than it would be to put the baby up for adoption and let it suffer through months to years of life in an orphanage. Also, there's no evidence that abortion harms a non-sentient fetus.
@TaylorX04 I was simply answering your charge that "you seldom met a pro lifer who was not religious in some way." Well, now you have. By the way, there are thousands of us. Nice to meet you.
yes abortion interferes with gods plan because only he knows why he does things if a human isnt born maybe he knew it was going to be better off that way god cannot force us to do what he wants he has given us the free will to choose how we want to live our lives if we dont want to live it according to his rule then he sees that and judges you according to your acts and bad choices
@realwomanhavecurves Free will, lol. Do you think God is all-knowing and always right? If you do, then explain to me how free will can exist with an all-knowing god that's always right. If God knows what we do before we do it and he's never wrong, then we can only do what God already knows we will do. Is that free will? Nope.
@TaylorX04 You have a point their i agree with you on that its a hot topic and people seem to always debate over god and his existence all i kno is that i believe in god because i have seem him work in my life i respect your choice of what religion or things you believe in. But i noticed that now a days people have a big hate towards god they try to find any litle thing or proof against him to down size him
@realwomanhavecurves It's not a big hate towards god on my part, because I'm not making any arguments about how cruel or immoral god is, I'm just illustrating inconsistencies and contradictions in the character of this god, according to how believers often define him. Downsizing god is a funny way of putting it to me, when no one has been able to offer evidence that their god exists in the 100,000+ years that humanity has been around.
@TaylorX04 Yes we can. God has a plan for all of us. If we don't let Him work in us, then that is where we interfer w/ His plan. But if you believe in Him and trust in Him, He will protect you.
@mjt19741 What's your point with Psalm 22:9-12? It only seems to add to my argument, if David was "knit" to God even from his mother's womb. It's a lot like Jeremiah 29:11. I see nothing about humans having the ability to foil God's plans.
the only plan god outlines is you either follow what the bible says or youre going to hell. that isnt much of a plan to me. its not one im going to follow. i make my own destiny, not some 2000 year old little black book. even if god and hell existed, id "rather rule in hell than serve in heaven". now i must ask, do you have proof of gods existence?
@856893tfr The Bible is proof. The Bible talks about war. Example, the middle east. How long have all these countries in the middle east been trying to invade Israel?
Think about it, alot of these middle eastern countries want to kill the Jewish religion. Some Muslims believe that tjey will go to Heaven when they end all religions including religions like, Buddist, Hindu's, Jews and Christians. They believe to end all religions except theirs.
@856893tfr Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
sorry but you cant use the bible to prove why killing is wrong. youre saying that because the bible must be true, therefore you can argue with it. but it is not the case. just because the bible says it doesnt mean its right. you must prove objectively why killing is wrong. its hard isnt it? i cant answer it either
@856893tfr You asked me if I have any proof that God exists. I was telling you about the middle east.
If you think about it, I never was arguing with you.
Killing a person is murder. Murder is depriving someone of their life. Not letting them live their life to it's full extent. If you think about it, abortion is legal but it is equalivant to murder.
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
@TaylorX04 To be honset with ya, I am a Pro Life Chrsitian and I tell alot of Pro Lifers to not mix religion into the subject of abortion. I used to do that until a Pro Choicer kept telling me not to mix it in. When I decided to not mix religion w/ abortion, I realized that it is not a religios arguement, it is a political arguement. And alot of Pro Lifers don't realize that not all abortions are for the wrong reason(s).
@mjt19741 If a woman is raped or molested by a family member, I am all for her getting an abortion. If her life is threatened by a terminal illness or whatever reason her life is threatened, I am all for abortion. The girl that kept telling me to not mix religion into the subject told me that when she got her abortion it was because she would have gone homeless if she would have carried her baby to the full term. I am not against that nor for it, but I told her that I understand.
i am pro life. i am atheos. be pro life dont have any thig to do whit be a religious people. most of the religius are pro live but not only them there are people who dont belive in any god and we are pro life too. becaus of conviction of a humanity.
Or Allah, or Yahweh without Jesus, or Krishna, or Zeus, or Odin, or Quetzalcoatl... However, none of this really has anything to do with my video. You're dodging the question by mindlessly preaching.
This is a very well thought out argument, although i am pro life and i am not religious but whilst i accept homosexuality because it is natural ie monkeys do it abortion clinics are not prodominant in the animal kingdom and that is how we can know it is wrong without using the bias of scripture. Lastly I just want to point out that just because women are for pro choice and men pro life, that this doesn't mean that men are trying to opress women and instead shows that pro choice is a selfish act.
In Ethics, there is a familiar saying that "just because it is doesn't mean it OUGHT to be". There is no basis for making moral judgments about the behavior of nature, especially when many species do not have the moral developments we do.
Abortion clinics may not exist in nature, but abortions are performed internally at random and fairly often intervals, as I said in the video. Does that mean abortion is ok? No, but it's just further reason not to consult nature for moral judgments.
So you are arguing with nature? the natural order is what keeps us alive ie the food chain and everything in nature functions us to survive and reproduce. you cannot argue with nature it's like playing on a monopoly board and landing on prison. Is it nfair? probably but you knew the rules and so you only have youreself to blame. I can tell you do theology so you must know that most theories dismiss abortion ie the categorical imperative as you wouldn't want abortion univeralised. h8 word count
Wow, you've completely misunderstood what I said, but I don't really know how I could explain it any better. I'm not arguing with nature, I'm just telling YOU that you can't make moral judgments based on the operation of nature. Fact of nature: some female spiders eat the males after they procreate. Does that mean that women should eat men after they reproduce? Of course not. Do you understand what I'm saying a little better now? Just because something's natural doesn't mean it's good for us.
By bringing up the categorical imperative, you're also assuming that I subscribe to deontological ethics, which I don't. Like the Golden Rule, the categorical imperative looks good on paper, but has several flaws in practical application.
I completely understood what you meant but natural law is the only law that we can know to be true. You could also explain nature through darwinism in that species live to pass on genes. This according to evolution is the purpose of man "survival machines" as dawkins put it. You say about female spiders but that is a different specy and only happens AFTER they've reproduced.
The problem with calling them "natural laws" is that we may be misinterpreting what is actually there. Perception is inescapable. Regardless, you said "abortion clinics are not prodominant in the animal kingdom" - note that you said ANIMAL KINGDOM, not humanity. Even so, my point about spontaneous abortions still stands. You're making a lot of arbitrary assertions that don't help your argument one bit.
cats often kill their own kittens, bottlenose dolphins have also been known to kill their own babies. Regardless, we really should not model our lives off the animal kingdom.
Are you agreeing with me? I don't believe we should model our lives after the animal kingdom either, but what does any of this have to do with the content of the video?
Abortion, suicide and infanticide were all useful tools to maintain sustainable human populations in locations where the carrying capacity had already been reached. In the Polynesian islands, for instance.
So goes the lexicon of dehumanization. It has been useful to slave owners and Nazis as well as abortionists.
The living, growing off-spring of two humans can only be a human being. Placement on the continuum of life is not relevant. We could use your ideas to start killing senile old people at the other end of the continuum.
Dehumanization is a meaningless word when the object in question is not yet a human. If you want to argue that a fetus is a human being, make a coherent logical argument instead of emotional appeals.
Senility is not a total absence of brain function, dipshit. And for the record, I do think that if someone is in a vegetative state, with no possibility of recovery, it is senseless to allow them to consume medical resources.
"The living, growing off-spring of two humans can only be a human being."
it could be a miscarriage. google 'miscarriage stats' a website i got from the top, allaboutlifechallenges (dot) org suggests a possible 40-50% miscarriage rate. so if we make things simple, half of human 'life' actually dies before it is even born, and this is with no consideration of abortion.
"Does abortion interfere with God's plan for the fetus? If it does, then God does not seem omnipotent. If it does not, then abortion is God's will for the fetus"
I'm sorry, but couldn't this logic be used to justify any action whatsoever? Does rape interfere with God's plan for the rapee?
That said, I think you have a defensible definition of when life begins.
Yes, it probably could be used for any action, but it is not attempting to justify anything, except perhaps in the minds of the most devout believers. I'm pointing out how it might seem to contradict Christians who tirade against abortion, but clearly I'm no believer. Simply indicating yet another example of the irrational conclusions religion can drive you to.
We must remember that the greatest abortionist on earth was the bible god, during the flood. He didn't get past the first two prototypes and tried to fix everything with the flood, but that didn't work. Screwing things up seems to be a pattern with the bible god, as always.
God knows what you are going to do before you do it. you have a choice to make a decision you want but God ,because he is all knowing. already knows what decision you are going to make
just because someone is religious (God Forbid) does not mean their point illogical. The embryo has all the equipment at the moment of conception. that is why abortions are wrong a plant does not have the capability of becoming a becoming a human ever. without tampering an embryo will become a human and that is why abortions are wrong
I agree with that first sentence, but from there your post descends into complete idiocy. Are you religious, by chance? Lol.
Capability/potential does not have any value, as I already said in the video. Embryos DO NOT have all the equipment at conception, this is just... so wrong it's not even funny. Do some research. Jesus Christ...
So are those countless potential lives that are naturally aborted every hour of every day considered valuable in God's eyes? It doesn't seem like it to me...
Please go ahead and give an example of why potential/capability has value.
To God lives lost through miscarriage are the same as someone dieing of old age or cancer.
When you want to commit suicide and you go up to the top of a large building you have potential if you are ground level you have no potential and are therefore are not able to do anything because you have no potential
...I see the idiocy increases. I'm talking about potential/capability for LIFE, genius. Your example is not even relevant.
If God doesn't discriminate between aborted embryos and people who die after living a full life, why do you think he'd give a shit about abortion? Because we're the ones "murdering" potential babies and he wants to do it himself?
Death is a part of life. God gives a shit abortion because as you said He doesn't discriminate between aborted(miscarried) embryos and people who die after living a full life. So when you manually kill someone having lived a full life or as an embryo it is murder.
So God should be held accountable for murdering miscarried embryos? I mean, he could certainly prevent it, couldn't he? Why do so many embryos just naturally abort? God doesn't seem to value potential life. Keep shooting yourself in the foot though.
God does not have to murder someone for them to die. people die because of medical complications just like embryos. I have already made this point you are just unwilling to accept it.
TaylorX04, "Because we're the ones "murdering" potential babies and he wants to do it himself?" well god dont like competition. :) jc impregnated his own mother to begat himself if you buy into this bs you have no ability to reason.
Most of those 55% are undoubtedly religious and ignore the facts (like you). You contradict countless doctors and experts, who actually KNOW what they're talking about. 12th week? Please, pull your head out of your bible and do some real research.
I believe you are correct. I can understand how some people can get all emotional over honestly mistaken events like crying or a fetus fighting with the needle, but these are reflexes and nothing more. Biology PROVES this, and it's exactly why we need to be wary of any sentimental propaganda that is thrown our way.
That's funny because Pro Lifers, as myself have just as many references stating that a fetus does feel pain. They have a heartbeat, they smile, they cry.
Also funny how they don't mention partial birth abortions that are done in the third trimester...where forceps are crammed into the baby's skull to cause death before the head emerges...if the head emerges and they take a breath it's murder. You can be Pro Life and not religious.
Heartbeat does not mean they can feel pain, it means their heart is beating. The "smiling fetus" bullshit is a well-known fraud. Fetuses do not cry before the third trimester, maybe even later. You can make all the emotional appeals you want, but until you produce some hard evidence, as I have, your propaganda is worth nothing.
I can provide MANY links showing fetal development....you apparently have no clue.
Saying they can't "cry" before the third trimester is ridiculous...babies have been BORN before the 3rd trimester and have survived. This happens all the time. They feel pain, they cry....look it up.
Ugh. You continue to embarass yourself, but so be it. Of course a baby can be born prior to the third trimester, but it's still not fully developed. Crying is not always an emotional response either, it can be a reflex, but a fetus cannot even cry at 8 weeks (when 90% of abortions occur) because it has no tear ducts.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I am far from embarrassing myself. I am stating facts that can easily be backed from doing 5 minutes of research. Babies have survived abortions meaning they are LIFE. Abortion is terminating a LIFE.
Pro Choicers need to think they aren't alive so they can sleep at night, but it goes against FACTS.
You have not provided your sources because you're heavily biased and wrong. Babies have been stillborn, does that mean they're life? Does coming out of the birth canal mean its alive? Your statements are stupid and baseless, you've lost your commenting privileges.
the chance of a fetus surviving when only 24 weeks old are only 40%... all that means is that the baby will finish developing outside the womb, and will certainly be on a ventilator, due to the fact that the lungs are NOT developed.
Great video... you might also ask sukirue to provide the MANY links she refers to. I would be curious if any of them are from accredited doctors or just pro-life organizations. :)
FYI at least 18 states prohibit partial birth abortions...
I'm a pro choice guy... but I do think that it should be taken care of ASAP... I don't think there are many excuses to remain pregnant into the second term let alone the third...
most children don't smile until many weeks after they are born - well they do smile before that but that is normally a result of passing gas - they don't smile as a way of showing their emotional condition as you or I do.
People should not play the god card when debating anything it is just ignorant. In the past Tyrannical Monarchs reigned over the world, why? Because they claimed God ordained it. In the past people were forced to believe it or face damnation. Anti-abortionists claim you will go to hell if you have an abortion. If god did gift us with free will then why should we be punished for his mistakes? If got is almighty why give us the ability to abort? Wake up people.
If you are getting at whether or not I eat meat, I do. And I do so because of the amino acids that are needed from meat. I don't approve of many of the methods that they use in killing animals for meat, but I is something that is important to us as we evolved to eat that way.
Meeting halfway can still satisfy the needs of many, but reason is needed for that, and many of those who oppose abortion do it out of irrationality.
Well, they use emotions, religion, I guess things that really have little meaning to me. But, present evidence and then we have a different story, such as that life is life, the physiological affects on the woman having the abortion. Which presented properly makes sense, but when people use irrational appeals to change minds of others then I can't support that.
s4system..So how can emotions have so little meaning to you? Have you never e.g. been in love?.That emotion to me has tremendous value,importance,and motivational power,yet if you try to disect it in an intellectual or philosophical way then it will undoubtedly appear to be irrational..but that surely doesn`t mean it should be dismissed and disregarded..does it?
I don't think he's saying emotions are entirely without merit. He's simply saying that they're not enough to conclude the truth of something. Just because we prefer to ground our beliefs and views in objective, verifiable evidence does not mean we see no meaning or importance in emotions. Feelings and emotions are subjective, they vary from person to person, and unless they're coupled with reason and evidence, it's very easy to get carried away and draw false conclusions or take harmful actions.
No. I really don't find emotions all that enlightening when one speaks in terms of evidence. I don't have that many, I do have love, but that is about it.
When I do speak of emotions, they don't hold weight for me in rational discussions and thus should be left out. Emotional appeals a large waste of time for me.
I do think that they should be dismissed, but in the case of abortion, it can cause serious mental health issues, which has to do with emotions that warrants merit.
I agree wholeheartedly. I quit debate team the second my captain started yakking about appealing to the audience's emotions. I simply could not feign emotions that I do not have, nor understand.
Emotion is white noise to me. When I do feel them, I lack the ability to define them.
Emotions seem vestigial to me. They are good for deterring and inciting certain behaviors in irrational animals, but for adult humans, which are rational animals, they are sort of a step backwards, at a certain point
TaylorX04 This is just too biased,bigotted, and unintelligent to generate any serious discussion..Re "There are a lot of trolls here on Youtube, lol."..Well you`d know!
Oh please lecture me about "biased, bigotted, and unintelligent", Mr. "prolifeinternational". You avoid serious discussion only because you can't formulate a decent argument or refutation of any of mine.
How can you expect anyone to want to engage in serious discussion when presented with this trash?..E.G.."They couldn`t care less about the life of the mother"..Biased,bigotted and unintelligent!..Btw so what if the fetus can`t think until the third trimester (it doesn`t need to!)..does that somehow justify butchering it?..Tiller would be proud of you!
Well, how much DO you care about the mother? Obviously not enough to let her make her own decisions. Not enough to take her situation into account.
It justifies butchering it in the same way it's justified to butcher a plant. Non-thinking things are not members of the moral community, so it's not an ethical issue at all. Nice try though.
Tay. Re "Well, how much DO you care about the mother?"..I care about endangered Rhinos in Africa that are slaughtered only so that their horns can be removed and sold by Chinese pharmacists as aphrodisiacs..I`m concerned too that tigers are killed in Asia and again sold for Chinese medicinal purposes..Does my concern for preserving these two species mean that "I couldn`t care less about Chinese pharmacists"?
In the context you've just cited, yes, it does mean that. You don't care about the Chinese pharmacists being able to keep their jobs and you don't care about their justifications for medicinal purposes (although I'd personally be on your side on that issue).
The rhinos and tigers are fully-formed, conscious creatures, not even remotely like a fetus. Also, those pharmacists have no right to those animals, unlike the mother who has a right to her own body.
Taylor..The point was that the endangered species are my primary concern..if preserving them causes unavoidable hardship to others,it does not mean at all that I necessarily want or seek to inflict that hardship...By claimimg that prolifers "couldn`t care less about women" you seem to be alleging that we have a deliberate and malevolent intent..but I can assure you that we do not.
You believe that a mass of tissue trumps the woman's freedom and right to her own body. However you want to phrase that, it's still giving no regard to the woman.
Tay Re "You believe that a mass of tissue trumps the woman's freedom and right to her own body." I believe that e.g. my life and your life began at conception with a unique genetic makeup acquired from both our parents. It is evident that we then continued to grow and develop until maturity in our early twenties. By having consensual sex both parents have a shared responsibility if a pregnancy arises. If they don`t want the child themselves,they can give it to someone who does,NOT murder it.
Life begins at conception? So then what of all those miscarriages and natural abortions of zygotes and embryos? Those are excusable simply because we don't have a hand in them?
I'd sooner have people use condoms than get an abortion after the fact, but there are all kinds of unforeseeable circumstances that might crop up. Also, my sister is adopted from China, and let me tell you it's not a better situation than abortion. The child is fully conscious and can suffer much more.
Taylor Re "Life begins at conception? So then what of all those miscarriages and natural abortions of zygotes and embryos? Those are excusable simply because we don't have a hand in them?"..Do you really not see the profound difference here?..If I`m driving down the road and deliberately run over and kill you is that not worlds apart from accidentally fatally hitting you?...
You invent the worst analogies, lol... my point is, what reason do you have for believing life begins at conception? I have never heard anyone argue that except when they have a religious belief that requires them to do so. My further point would then be that God seems fine with naturally aborting fetuses and other potential lives. Is it just immoral because we humans aren't leaving the terminating up to God?
Taylor..Thanks for yet another thumbs down..unfortunately I can`t reciprocate!..Btw I didn`t think you believed in God so wouldn`t it be better if we both refrained from using God/the Bible when it suited us here?..I think it is self evident that life begins at conception..when do you suggest is a more appropriate time to mark it`s begining?
You're quite welcome. I've noticed the other two commenters have received several thumbs down too.
As I raise the question in the video, what does it mean to be alive? Would you grant all animals and plants the right to life, arguing that their lives begin at conception also? How is something really a life that merits rights if it doesn't have consciousness? Without brain function, all it is is a mass of tissue that has the POTENTIAL to be life, but is not yet life.
Taylor you raise so many points and issues in such quick successsion,that I don`t think I can keep up..I`m happy to address any reasonable questions (pref one or two at a time) and hope that you will do the same..Getting back to the fundamental of when life begins ..If not at conception (which I believe for no other reason than it appears self evident)..then when,and why,in your opinion?
I believe life begins at the point when an entity has the capability of perceiving the world, if even in some small degree. If there is no thalamus (not until 28 weeks in the fetus) to exchange information between areas of the brain, the entity is nothing but an object, albeit an object with the potential for life. Potential life cannot bear responsibility, so it is given to the guardian/parent. Thus, I'd say the mother has her choice to abort or not.
Taylor..Re "If there is no thalamus (not until 28 weeks in the fetus) to exchange information between areas of the brain, the entity is nothing but an object," Please see inbox message of a true story and then tell me when,in your opinion,Will`s life began.Thanks.
Taylor..Re "and let me tell you it's not a better situation than abortion."..I agree it is not always ideal and I also have experience of this..But the children that generally tend to do best,when adopted,are those that find homes as new borns..they undertstandably don`t have the emotional baggage that older children very often have to very unfortunately endure..Personally I would rather have been adopted than aborted and had no life at all.
Well, of course you'd say that now, after you've lived decades of a life. If you had never a brain and were aborted, you wouldn't even know what you'd be missing out on though.
Re "of course you'd say that now, "..Well in that case what right have you or anyone else to decide on behalf of an unborn child whether or not they should live or die?.Besides being possibly unaware of one`s death,surely doesn`t somehow justify the killing..does it?..If I shot you in your sleep would that make it okay?
Another bad analogy. I'm not saying it's right simply because the fetus is unaware of death. The fetus is unaware of everything, whereas I've experienced several years of life and so have you. Saying you'd rather be adopted than aborted is a non-argument.
Women have the same right as a pet owner who decides to put down an animal because either they can't care for it or because the animal would become miserable in living on. Women don't just go out and have abortions for the hell of it.
Thanks for the compliment. I have to give you some credit though for reminding me of the 2nd Samuel 12 story in your latest video.
I'm sure it won't be long before this becomes a battleground of heated discussion, like some of my videos on Islam and those attacking creationism. There are a lot of trolls here on Youtube, lol.
In most cases, pregnancy will not harm the woman. I've always figured that if a woman doesn't want a baby, why can't she put him up for adoption?
clip11 2 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@clip11 Because in a lot of cases adoption can harm the baby. My family adopted a girl from China, and the conditions of the orphanages there are absolutely atrocious. So many children die in them from malnutrition and disease that in a lot of cases it would be far less harmful to have an abortion than it would be to put the baby up for adoption and let it suffer through months to years of life in an orphanage. Also, there's no evidence that abortion harms a non-sentient fetus.
TaylorX04 1 day ago
As Penn Gilette said - Its not pro-life or pro choice, everyone is both of those, its for or against abortion thats the question.
TheCaptainLulz 10 months ago
I am pro life and I am an atheist.
000SMITH000 1 year ago
@000SMITH000 Good for you, then this video doesn't apply to you.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 I was simply answering your charge that "you seldom met a pro lifer who was not religious in some way." Well, now you have. By the way, there are thousands of us. Nice to meet you.
000SMITH000 1 year ago
yes abortion interferes with gods plan because only he knows why he does things if a human isnt born maybe he knew it was going to be better off that way god cannot force us to do what he wants he has given us the free will to choose how we want to live our lives if we dont want to live it according to his rule then he sees that and judges you according to your acts and bad choices
realwomanhavecurves 1 year ago
@realwomanhavecurves Free will, lol. Do you think God is all-knowing and always right? If you do, then explain to me how free will can exist with an all-knowing god that's always right. If God knows what we do before we do it and he's never wrong, then we can only do what God already knows we will do. Is that free will? Nope.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 You have a point their i agree with you on that its a hot topic and people seem to always debate over god and his existence all i kno is that i believe in god because i have seem him work in my life i respect your choice of what religion or things you believe in. But i noticed that now a days people have a big hate towards god they try to find any litle thing or proof against him to down size him
realwomanhavecurves 1 year ago
@realwomanhavecurves It's not a big hate towards god on my part, because I'm not making any arguments about how cruel or immoral god is, I'm just illustrating inconsistencies and contradictions in the character of this god, according to how believers often define him. Downsizing god is a funny way of putting it to me, when no one has been able to offer evidence that their god exists in the 100,000+ years that humanity has been around.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
Yes it does interfer w/ God's plan for the fetus.
mjt19741 1 year ago
@mjt19741 So human beings can mess up God's "infallible" plans?
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 Yes we can. God has a plan for all of us. If we don't let Him work in us, then that is where we interfer w/ His plan. But if you believe in Him and trust in Him, He will protect you.
mjt19741 1 year ago
@mjt19741 That seems greatly at odds with passages like Psalm 33:10-11.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 But don't forget about Psalms 22:9-12.
mjt19741 1 year ago
@mjt19741 What's your point with Psalm 22:9-12? It only seems to add to my argument, if David was "knit" to God even from his mother's womb. It's a lot like Jeremiah 29:11. I see nothing about humans having the ability to foil God's plans.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 That is your view on the subject. That's fine then.
mjt19741 1 year ago
@mjt19741
the only plan god outlines is you either follow what the bible says or youre going to hell. that isnt much of a plan to me. its not one im going to follow. i make my own destiny, not some 2000 year old little black book. even if god and hell existed, id "rather rule in hell than serve in heaven". now i must ask, do you have proof of gods existence?
856893tfr 1 year ago
@856893tfr The Bible is proof. The Bible talks about war. Example, the middle east. How long have all these countries in the middle east been trying to invade Israel?
Think about it, alot of these middle eastern countries want to kill the Jewish religion. Some Muslims believe that tjey will go to Heaven when they end all religions including religions like, Buddist, Hindu's, Jews and Christians. They believe to end all religions except theirs.
mjt19741 1 year ago
@856893tfr Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
mjt19741 1 year ago
@mjt19741
sorry but you cant use the bible to prove why killing is wrong. youre saying that because the bible must be true, therefore you can argue with it. but it is not the case. just because the bible says it doesnt mean its right. you must prove objectively why killing is wrong. its hard isnt it? i cant answer it either
856893tfr 1 year ago
@856893tfr You asked me if I have any proof that God exists. I was telling you about the middle east.
If you think about it, I never was arguing with you.
Killing a person is murder. Murder is depriving someone of their life. Not letting them live their life to it's full extent. If you think about it, abortion is legal but it is equalivant to murder.
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
mjt19741 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 To be honset with ya, I am a Pro Life Chrsitian and I tell alot of Pro Lifers to not mix religion into the subject of abortion. I used to do that until a Pro Choicer kept telling me not to mix it in. When I decided to not mix religion w/ abortion, I realized that it is not a religios arguement, it is a political arguement. And alot of Pro Lifers don't realize that not all abortions are for the wrong reason(s).
mjt19741 1 year ago
@mjt19741 If a woman is raped or molested by a family member, I am all for her getting an abortion. If her life is threatened by a terminal illness or whatever reason her life is threatened, I am all for abortion. The girl that kept telling me to not mix religion into the subject told me that when she got her abortion it was because she would have gone homeless if she would have carried her baby to the full term. I am not against that nor for it, but I told her that I understand.
mjt19741 1 year ago
@mjt19741
if abortion interferes with gods plan for the fetus, why does he let abortion happen?
856893tfr 1 year ago
@856893tfr A perfect example would be the Ten Commandments. Especially the part that says: THOU SHALT NOT KILL.
But people choose to kill anyway. In other words people choose to either kill or not kill.
mjt19741 1 year ago
perfectly put. thank you.
twentyfirstcentury21 1 year ago
i am pro life. i am atheos. be pro life dont have any thig to do whit be a religious people. most of the religius are pro live but not only them there are people who dont belive in any god and we are pro life too. becaus of conviction of a humanity.
sorry bad inglish.
m3ndoza1 2 years ago
See, it all comes down to this.. One day we will ALL stand in front of Jesus for judgement.. Peace
briEsp90 2 years ago
Or Allah, or Yahweh without Jesus, or Krishna, or Zeus, or Odin, or Quetzalcoatl... However, none of this really has anything to do with my video. You're dodging the question by mindlessly preaching.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
My video destroys this argument
bj07bran7 2 years ago
I think you mean "my video is a joke compared to this argument".
TaylorX04 2 years ago
Your argument fails.
bj07bran7 2 years ago
Your video doesn't even touch on my argument. It simply makes assertions about the definitions of "human" and "life" that you fail to demonstrate.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
This is a very well thought out argument, although i am pro life and i am not religious but whilst i accept homosexuality because it is natural ie monkeys do it abortion clinics are not prodominant in the animal kingdom and that is how we can know it is wrong without using the bias of scripture. Lastly I just want to point out that just because women are for pro choice and men pro life, that this doesn't mean that men are trying to opress women and instead shows that pro choice is a selfish act.
annonymous12345 2 years ago
In Ethics, there is a familiar saying that "just because it is doesn't mean it OUGHT to be". There is no basis for making moral judgments about the behavior of nature, especially when many species do not have the moral developments we do.
Abortion clinics may not exist in nature, but abortions are performed internally at random and fairly often intervals, as I said in the video. Does that mean abortion is ok? No, but it's just further reason not to consult nature for moral judgments.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
So you are arguing with nature? the natural order is what keeps us alive ie the food chain and everything in nature functions us to survive and reproduce. you cannot argue with nature it's like playing on a monopoly board and landing on prison. Is it nfair? probably but you knew the rules and so you only have youreself to blame. I can tell you do theology so you must know that most theories dismiss abortion ie the categorical imperative as you wouldn't want abortion univeralised. h8 word count
annonymous12345 2 years ago
Wow, you've completely misunderstood what I said, but I don't really know how I could explain it any better. I'm not arguing with nature, I'm just telling YOU that you can't make moral judgments based on the operation of nature. Fact of nature: some female spiders eat the males after they procreate. Does that mean that women should eat men after they reproduce? Of course not. Do you understand what I'm saying a little better now? Just because something's natural doesn't mean it's good for us.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
By bringing up the categorical imperative, you're also assuming that I subscribe to deontological ethics, which I don't. Like the Golden Rule, the categorical imperative looks good on paper, but has several flaws in practical application.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
I completely understood what you meant but natural law is the only law that we can know to be true. You could also explain nature through darwinism in that species live to pass on genes. This according to evolution is the purpose of man "survival machines" as dawkins put it. You say about female spiders but that is a different specy and only happens AFTER they've reproduced.
annonymous12345 2 years ago
The problem with calling them "natural laws" is that we may be misinterpreting what is actually there. Perception is inescapable. Regardless, you said "abortion clinics are not prodominant in the animal kingdom" - note that you said ANIMAL KINGDOM, not humanity. Even so, my point about spontaneous abortions still stands. You're making a lot of arbitrary assertions that don't help your argument one bit.
TaylorX04 2 years ago
cats often kill their own kittens, bottlenose dolphins have also been known to kill their own babies. Regardless, we really should not model our lives off the animal kingdom.
agentsab 2 years ago
Are you agreeing with me? I don't believe we should model our lives after the animal kingdom either, but what does any of this have to do with the content of the video?
TaylorX04 2 years ago
yep, agreeing with you in response to annonymous12345
agentsab 2 years ago
Abortion, suicide and infanticide were all useful tools to maintain sustainable human populations in locations where the carrying capacity had already been reached. In the Polynesian islands, for instance.
beriukay 2 years ago
but denying that we are a part of the animal kingdom is silly...
1n354a 2 years ago 4
Well done. Thanks for posting this as a response.
eequalsfb 2 years ago
Thank you. I admire your videos as well. :-)
TaylorX04 2 years ago
So goes the lexicon of dehumanization. It has been useful to slave owners and Nazis as well as abortionists.
The living, growing off-spring of two humans can only be a human being. Placement on the continuum of life is not relevant. We could use your ideas to start killing senile old people at the other end of the continuum.
saverimuttuwhat 3 years ago
Dehumanization is a meaningless word when the object in question is not yet a human. If you want to argue that a fetus is a human being, make a coherent logical argument instead of emotional appeals.
Senility is not a total absence of brain function, dipshit. And for the record, I do think that if someone is in a vegetative state, with no possibility of recovery, it is senseless to allow them to consume medical resources.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
"The living, growing off-spring of two humans can only be a human being."
it could be a miscarriage. google 'miscarriage stats' a website i got from the top, allaboutlifechallenges (dot) org suggests a possible 40-50% miscarriage rate. so if we make things simple, half of human 'life' actually dies before it is even born, and this is with no consideration of abortion.
bignastydragon 2 years ago 3
PS: He's not a "member of the prolife movement", but Christopher Hitchens has intelligent, nonreligious things to say about this. Look him up
MLeFou 3 years ago
"Does abortion interfere with God's plan for the fetus? If it does, then God does not seem omnipotent. If it does not, then abortion is God's will for the fetus"
I'm sorry, but couldn't this logic be used to justify any action whatsoever? Does rape interfere with God's plan for the rapee?
That said, I think you have a defensible definition of when life begins.
MLeFou 3 years ago
Yes, it probably could be used for any action, but it is not attempting to justify anything, except perhaps in the minds of the most devout believers. I'm pointing out how it might seem to contradict Christians who tirade against abortion, but clearly I'm no believer. Simply indicating yet another example of the irrational conclusions religion can drive you to.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
Great video.
We must remember that the greatest abortionist on earth was the bible god, during the flood. He didn't get past the first two prototypes and tried to fix everything with the flood, but that didn't work. Screwing things up seems to be a pattern with the bible god, as always.
Keep up the good work, TaylorX04!
ComputerJA 3 years ago
definition of free will in a Christian sense:
God knows what you are going to do before you do it. you have a choice to make a decision you want but God ,because he is all knowing. already knows what decision you are going to make
memphisbass34 3 years ago
just because someone is religious (God Forbid) does not mean their point illogical. The embryo has all the equipment at the moment of conception. that is why abortions are wrong a plant does not have the capability of becoming a becoming a human ever. without tampering an embryo will become a human and that is why abortions are wrong
memphisbass34 3 years ago
I agree with that first sentence, but from there your post descends into complete idiocy. Are you religious, by chance? Lol.
Capability/potential does not have any value, as I already said in the video. Embryos DO NOT have all the equipment at conception, this is just... so wrong it's not even funny. Do some research. Jesus Christ...
TaylorX04 3 years ago
capability/potential does have value just because you say it doesn't does not make it true
when do you think it is a baby and not an embryo?
memphisbass34 3 years ago
So are those countless potential lives that are naturally aborted every hour of every day considered valuable in God's eyes? It doesn't seem like it to me...
Please go ahead and give an example of why potential/capability has value.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
To God lives lost through miscarriage are the same as someone dieing of old age or cancer.
When you want to commit suicide and you go up to the top of a large building you have potential if you are ground level you have no potential and are therefore are not able to do anything because you have no potential
memphisbass34 3 years ago
...I see the idiocy increases. I'm talking about potential/capability for LIFE, genius. Your example is not even relevant.
If God doesn't discriminate between aborted embryos and people who die after living a full life, why do you think he'd give a shit about abortion? Because we're the ones "murdering" potential babies and he wants to do it himself?
TaylorX04 3 years ago
Death is a part of life. God gives a shit abortion because as you said He doesn't discriminate between aborted(miscarried) embryos and people who die after living a full life. So when you manually kill someone having lived a full life or as an embryo it is murder.
thanks for proving my arguement
memphisbass34 3 years ago
So God should be held accountable for murdering miscarried embryos? I mean, he could certainly prevent it, couldn't he? Why do so many embryos just naturally abort? God doesn't seem to value potential life. Keep shooting yourself in the foot though.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
God does not have to murder someone for them to die. people die because of medical complications just like embryos. I have already made this point you are just unwilling to accept it.
memphisbass34 3 years ago
TaylorX04, "Because we're the ones "murdering" potential babies and he wants to do it himself?" well god dont like competition. :) jc impregnated his own mother to begat himself if you buy into this bs you have no ability to reason.
ptica11 3 years ago
you still have not answered the question: when does life begin?
memphisbass34 3 years ago
Life begins when an organism has the capacity to think, feel and interact with the world around it.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
Excellent piece! Very logical and articulate! On the mark!
FatherChrismas 3 years ago
55% of Americans are now against abortion, the majority is for LIFE not death.
People (unlike yourself) have researched fetal development and KNOW that all systems are working by the 12th week of gestation.
sukirue 3 years ago
Most of those 55% are undoubtedly religious and ignore the facts (like you). You contradict countless doctors and experts, who actually KNOW what they're talking about. 12th week? Please, pull your head out of your bible and do some real research.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
Do correct me if I'm wrong, but at 12 weeks, aren't the organs not even in the right place?
EndlessVoids 3 years ago
I believe you are correct. I can understand how some people can get all emotional over honestly mistaken events like crying or a fetus fighting with the needle, but these are reflexes and nothing more. Biology PROVES this, and it's exactly why we need to be wary of any sentimental propaganda that is thrown our way.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
That's funny because Pro Lifers, as myself have just as many references stating that a fetus does feel pain. They have a heartbeat, they smile, they cry.
Also funny how they don't mention partial birth abortions that are done in the third trimester...where forceps are crammed into the baby's skull to cause death before the head emerges...if the head emerges and they take a breath it's murder. You can be Pro Life and not religious.
sukirue 3 years ago
Heartbeat does not mean they can feel pain, it means their heart is beating. The "smiling fetus" bullshit is a well-known fraud. Fetuses do not cry before the third trimester, maybe even later. You can make all the emotional appeals you want, but until you produce some hard evidence, as I have, your propaganda is worth nothing.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
I can provide MANY links showing fetal development....you apparently have no clue.
Saying they can't "cry" before the third trimester is ridiculous...babies have been BORN before the 3rd trimester and have survived. This happens all the time. They feel pain, they cry....look it up.
sukirue 3 years ago
Ugh. You continue to embarass yourself, but so be it. Of course a baby can be born prior to the third trimester, but it's still not fully developed. Crying is not always an emotional response either, it can be a reflex, but a fetus cannot even cry at 8 weeks (when 90% of abortions occur) because it has no tear ducts.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am far from embarrassing myself. I am stating facts that can easily be backed from doing 5 minutes of research. Babies have survived abortions meaning they are LIFE. Abortion is terminating a LIFE.
Pro Choicers need to think they aren't alive so they can sleep at night, but it goes against FACTS.
sukirue 3 years ago
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, no.
You have not provided your sources because you're heavily biased and wrong. Babies have been stillborn, does that mean they're life? Does coming out of the birth canal mean its alive? Your statements are stupid and baseless, you've lost your commenting privileges.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
the chance of a fetus surviving when only 24 weeks old are only 40%... all that means is that the baby will finish developing outside the womb, and will certainly be on a ventilator, due to the fact that the lungs are NOT developed.
chyrd 3 years ago
Great video... you might also ask sukirue to provide the MANY links she refers to. I would be curious if any of them are from accredited doctors or just pro-life organizations. :)
cboxgo 3 years ago
FYI at least 18 states prohibit partial birth abortions...
I'm a pro choice guy... but I do think that it should be taken care of ASAP... I don't think there are many excuses to remain pregnant into the second term let alone the third...
chyrd 3 years ago
most children don't smile until many weeks after they are born - well they do smile before that but that is normally a result of passing gas - they don't smile as a way of showing their emotional condition as you or I do.
1n354a 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks for making this vid Taylor, everyone, check out my newest vid, I discuss abortion in a new light! Subscribe if you like <3
neil1337 3 years ago
you rock
thanks for the vid
five stars
Xxmusicxl0vexlifexX 3 years ago
People should not play the god card when debating anything it is just ignorant. In the past Tyrannical Monarchs reigned over the world, why? Because they claimed God ordained it. In the past people were forced to believe it or face damnation. Anti-abortionists claim you will go to hell if you have an abortion. If god did gift us with free will then why should we be punished for his mistakes? If got is almighty why give us the ability to abort? Wake up people.
Kretin69 3 years ago 2
couldnt have said it better myself
Xxmusicxl0vexlifexX 3 years ago
I don't agree with abortion. I also think that the death penalty is wrong along with killing animals, plants, etc.
But, for me I can meet half way as I do think that abortion is fine in the first trimester, but not really afterwards.
Also, I am an atheist.
s4stem 3 years ago
What do you eat?
TruthahnDerRuin 3 years ago
Everything. I will try almost anything once.
If you are getting at whether or not I eat meat, I do. And I do so because of the amino acids that are needed from meat. I don't approve of many of the methods that they use in killing animals for meat, but I is something that is important to us as we evolved to eat that way.
Meeting halfway can still satisfy the needs of many, but reason is needed for that, and many of those who oppose abortion do it out of irrationality.
s4stem 3 years ago
s4syst Re "many of those who oppose abortion do it out of irrationality."..Please elaborate?
prolifeinternational 3 years ago
Well, they use emotions, religion, I guess things that really have little meaning to me. But, present evidence and then we have a different story, such as that life is life, the physiological affects on the woman having the abortion. Which presented properly makes sense, but when people use irrational appeals to change minds of others then I can't support that.
s4stem 3 years ago
s4system..So how can emotions have so little meaning to you? Have you never e.g. been in love?.That emotion to me has tremendous value,importance,and motivational power,yet if you try to disect it in an intellectual or philosophical way then it will undoubtedly appear to be irrational..but that surely doesn`t mean it should be dismissed and disregarded..does it?
prolifeinternational 3 years ago
I don't think he's saying emotions are entirely without merit. He's simply saying that they're not enough to conclude the truth of something. Just because we prefer to ground our beliefs and views in objective, verifiable evidence does not mean we see no meaning or importance in emotions. Feelings and emotions are subjective, they vary from person to person, and unless they're coupled with reason and evidence, it's very easy to get carried away and draw false conclusions or take harmful actions.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
No. I really don't find emotions all that enlightening when one speaks in terms of evidence. I don't have that many, I do have love, but that is about it.
When I do speak of emotions, they don't hold weight for me in rational discussions and thus should be left out. Emotional appeals a large waste of time for me.
I do think that they should be dismissed, but in the case of abortion, it can cause serious mental health issues, which has to do with emotions that warrants merit.
s4stem 3 years ago
I agree wholeheartedly. I quit debate team the second my captain started yakking about appealing to the audience's emotions. I simply could not feign emotions that I do not have, nor understand.
Emotion is white noise to me. When I do feel them, I lack the ability to define them.
Emotions seem vestigial to me. They are good for deterring and inciting certain behaviors in irrational animals, but for adult humans, which are rational animals, they are sort of a step backwards, at a certain point
sirfascio 3 years ago
TaylorX04 This is just too biased,bigotted, and unintelligent to generate any serious discussion..Re "There are a lot of trolls here on Youtube, lol."..Well you`d know!
prolifeinternational 3 years ago
Oh please lecture me about "biased, bigotted, and unintelligent", Mr. "prolifeinternational". You avoid serious discussion only because you can't formulate a decent argument or refutation of any of mine.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
How can you expect anyone to want to engage in serious discussion when presented with this trash?..E.G.."They couldn`t care less about the life of the mother"..Biased,bigotted and unintelligent!..Btw so what if the fetus can`t think until the third trimester (it doesn`t need to!)..does that somehow justify butchering it?..Tiller would be proud of you!
prolifeinternational 3 years ago
Well, how much DO you care about the mother? Obviously not enough to let her make her own decisions. Not enough to take her situation into account.
It justifies butchering it in the same way it's justified to butcher a plant. Non-thinking things are not members of the moral community, so it's not an ethical issue at all. Nice try though.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
Tay. Re "Well, how much DO you care about the mother?"..I care about endangered Rhinos in Africa that are slaughtered only so that their horns can be removed and sold by Chinese pharmacists as aphrodisiacs..I`m concerned too that tigers are killed in Asia and again sold for Chinese medicinal purposes..Does my concern for preserving these two species mean that "I couldn`t care less about Chinese pharmacists"?
prolifeinternational 3 years ago
In the context you've just cited, yes, it does mean that. You don't care about the Chinese pharmacists being able to keep their jobs and you don't care about their justifications for medicinal purposes (although I'd personally be on your side on that issue).
The rhinos and tigers are fully-formed, conscious creatures, not even remotely like a fetus. Also, those pharmacists have no right to those animals, unlike the mother who has a right to her own body.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
Taylor..The point was that the endangered species are my primary concern..if preserving them causes unavoidable hardship to others,it does not mean at all that I necessarily want or seek to inflict that hardship...By claimimg that prolifers "couldn`t care less about women" you seem to be alleging that we have a deliberate and malevolent intent..but I can assure you that we do not.
prolifeinternational 3 years ago
You believe that a mass of tissue trumps the woman's freedom and right to her own body. However you want to phrase that, it's still giving no regard to the woman.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
Tay Re "You believe that a mass of tissue trumps the woman's freedom and right to her own body." I believe that e.g. my life and your life began at conception with a unique genetic makeup acquired from both our parents. It is evident that we then continued to grow and develop until maturity in our early twenties. By having consensual sex both parents have a shared responsibility if a pregnancy arises. If they don`t want the child themselves,they can give it to someone who does,NOT murder it.
prolifeinternational 3 years ago
Life begins at conception? So then what of all those miscarriages and natural abortions of zygotes and embryos? Those are excusable simply because we don't have a hand in them?
I'd sooner have people use condoms than get an abortion after the fact, but there are all kinds of unforeseeable circumstances that might crop up. Also, my sister is adopted from China, and let me tell you it's not a better situation than abortion. The child is fully conscious and can suffer much more.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
Taylor Re "Life begins at conception? So then what of all those miscarriages and natural abortions of zygotes and embryos? Those are excusable simply because we don't have a hand in them?"..Do you really not see the profound difference here?..If I`m driving down the road and deliberately run over and kill you is that not worlds apart from accidentally fatally hitting you?...
prolifeinternational 3 years ago
You invent the worst analogies, lol... my point is, what reason do you have for believing life begins at conception? I have never heard anyone argue that except when they have a religious belief that requires them to do so. My further point would then be that God seems fine with naturally aborting fetuses and other potential lives. Is it just immoral because we humans aren't leaving the terminating up to God?
TaylorX04 3 years ago
Taylor..Thanks for yet another thumbs down..unfortunately I can`t reciprocate!..Btw I didn`t think you believed in God so wouldn`t it be better if we both refrained from using God/the Bible when it suited us here?..I think it is self evident that life begins at conception..when do you suggest is a more appropriate time to mark it`s begining?
prolifeinternational 3 years ago
You're quite welcome. I've noticed the other two commenters have received several thumbs down too.
As I raise the question in the video, what does it mean to be alive? Would you grant all animals and plants the right to life, arguing that their lives begin at conception also? How is something really a life that merits rights if it doesn't have consciousness? Without brain function, all it is is a mass of tissue that has the POTENTIAL to be life, but is not yet life.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
Taylor you raise so many points and issues in such quick successsion,that I don`t think I can keep up..I`m happy to address any reasonable questions (pref one or two at a time) and hope that you will do the same..Getting back to the fundamental of when life begins ..If not at conception (which I believe for no other reason than it appears self evident)..then when,and why,in your opinion?
prolifeinternational 3 years ago
I believe life begins at the point when an entity has the capability of perceiving the world, if even in some small degree. If there is no thalamus (not until 28 weeks in the fetus) to exchange information between areas of the brain, the entity is nothing but an object, albeit an object with the potential for life. Potential life cannot bear responsibility, so it is given to the guardian/parent. Thus, I'd say the mother has her choice to abort or not.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
Taylor..Re "If there is no thalamus (not until 28 weeks in the fetus) to exchange information between areas of the brain, the entity is nothing but an object," Please see inbox message of a true story and then tell me when,in your opinion,Will`s life began.Thanks.
prolifeinternational 3 years ago
Taylor..Re "and let me tell you it's not a better situation than abortion."..I agree it is not always ideal and I also have experience of this..But the children that generally tend to do best,when adopted,are those that find homes as new borns..they undertstandably don`t have the emotional baggage that older children very often have to very unfortunately endure..Personally I would rather have been adopted than aborted and had no life at all.
prolifeinternational 3 years ago
Well, of course you'd say that now, after you've lived decades of a life. If you had never a brain and were aborted, you wouldn't even know what you'd be missing out on though.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
Re "of course you'd say that now, "..Well in that case what right have you or anyone else to decide on behalf of an unborn child whether or not they should live or die?.Besides being possibly unaware of one`s death,surely doesn`t somehow justify the killing..does it?..If I shot you in your sleep would that make it okay?
prolifeinternational 3 years ago
Another bad analogy. I'm not saying it's right simply because the fetus is unaware of death. The fetus is unaware of everything, whereas I've experienced several years of life and so have you. Saying you'd rather be adopted than aborted is a non-argument.
Women have the same right as a pet owner who decides to put down an animal because either they can't care for it or because the animal would become miserable in living on. Women don't just go out and have abortions for the hell of it.
TaylorX04 3 years ago
Excellent! But you will have commenters who try to have it both ways.
Largo64 3 years ago
Thanks for the compliment. I have to give you some credit though for reminding me of the 2nd Samuel 12 story in your latest video.
I'm sure it won't be long before this becomes a battleground of heated discussion, like some of my videos on Islam and those attacking creationism. There are a lot of trolls here on Youtube, lol.
TaylorX04 3 years ago