Abortion: The Thread

[mym217866]

No issue there, I guarantee you. :I

Also, none of us have argued against women doing whatever the hell they want with their sex lives. Feel free to read back and quote where we said that isn't the case lol, because it doesn't seem like you've been paying a lot of attention to the prior discussion. We're all talking about the lives the the babies, not how women want to express themselves sexually which I could give a half a shit.


Or I'm simply against a woman not killing their child, because that's fucking barbaric? Women are attributed equal rights as with anyone else, yes women are the ones that incubate babies, I just did an entire post that if the woman is on top of their shit, men can be held just as responsible, thanks to the scientific advancements of DNA testing and the heavy imposing of child support. Once again as well, no one here has resorted to any religious arguments, keep crying wolf all you want it ain't taking you places, you're only getting annoying bringing that up let alone making any legitimate points there. Finally, it is a scientific fact that abstinence is the only 100% foolproof way to not produce a baby. I am not stopping anyone from using birth control, quite the opposite actually (that's something I am a proponent of alongside sex ed ftr, before one of you shouts me down again that I'm not), however its a matter of acknowledging the risks (which even IUD's have a less than 1% chance of failing, there have been a couple recorded cases). If a baby is produced, they should not be killed over something that let alone isn't even their fault. Sex always = chance to produce a baby, no matter how minute. I don't control biology, neither do you.

I'm gonna say it again. You are not the virtuous moral authority for saying "I think women should chop up their babies because they're simply a clump of cells, but only if they don't want them!" What a bloody joke. Quit acting like it, and spare me your crocodile tears over how misogynist pro-lifers are. I for one treat the women in my life with a shit ton of respect and authority, hell my Italian girlfriend would slap me and curse me out shitless if I otherwise didn't. You're the ones allowing babies to be killed up to before they past the birth canal. That is fucking disgusting, you mug.

You sound like you're acting such like a "virtuous moral authority". . This type of language makes you seem - wrong. It makes you seem repulsive. I think that's the main problem here is not really your beliefs, but the type of way you come across. It's lacking of empathy here, it's aggressive, it disregards other people for your own moral standards. I don't think you are acknowledging the feelings of the people who are having the child themselves. This doesn't sound respectful at all, rather, it seems you're respectful towards people unless they reveal they do things that go against the morals you set up for yourself.


There are some people lack the ability to take care of even themselves. There are some people who can't even take care of a child, and the child will probably die anyway. In every single last post you've ever made in this whole thread, you have completely disregarded the lives of the women in favor for the child, and much worse than that have actively judged them.

You believe in the rights of a "person" that doesn't need to money, education and care, that's not the problem, the problem is that you judge the people who breathe the same air as you, the people that eat the same food as you, the people who live with you as "fucking disgusting", "mugs", "fucking barbaric", "bloody jokes" for something that has nothing to do with you whatsoever. I think *that's" what makes you misogynistic. Or maybe you're just hateful to people in general, what do I know. Fascinating how you have the audacity to complain about someone's moral authority, when flaunting your morals and how "outraged" you are at anyone who disagrees is all you do on this website.

 

[obii]

Deaths from the Holocaust: 6 Million Jews and 11 million others

Total Amount of Slaves in the United States in 1860: Nearly 4 Million

Total Abortions Performed in 2016 Alone Reported to CDC (the most recent public stat): 623,471 (or roughly 186 babies aborted per every 1,000 births; not counting stats from California, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Washington DC as they did not report that year)

Total Abortions Performed since 1973: ~62 million

I would like to think we're smart here in knowing had a vast majority of these fetuses not been aborted, they would've had an incredibly high likelihood of developing into fully-fledged human beings. 62 million is an absurdly high number of people whose lives have been ripped away because of people like you normalizing of killing innocent people by lying to the public that fetuses are not lives. This is what many in the United States did with the lives of Blacks, because they were deemed sub-human. This is what Hitler and the German Reich did with the Jews and anyone not the 'Aryan master race" through eugenics, because they were deemed sub-human. Now we're doing it to babies under the umbrella that it's women's rights and that humans at a largely unspecified stage of development are simply fetuses and are non-entities. In turn, many of you have labeled them as sub-human.

This is an epidemic. You are not a virtuous moral arbiter for defending the ripping of these lives up until birth, so don't even dare act like it. If you were honest, you'd swallow your pride and at least concede what abortion scientifically is.

Jesus christ please go outside

 

[kd24]

pro-lifers are sexually repressed nerds who can't stand the idea that women might have enough autonomy to freely express themselves sexually. if they can't have that pussy then they want that shit locked down for everyone else too.

the anti-abortion argument boils down to whether you support a woman's right to body integrity over the rights of a fetus. if you support the latter you ARE against women's rights. just own it, and say that women are second-class citizens for it because sex is a two-player game and biology dictates that they get the short end of the stick (just because biology dictates a norm doesn't mean we should follow it - we have the power to change that as a species). just say that you're OK with this and move on rather than hiding behind religious arguments (that are tantamount to appeal to authority/conservatism) or telling women they shouldn't have sex if they don't want kids.

i think you're disregarding the idea that some people believe in souls and mysticism. ill state for the record again just to not show bias, im pretty much just like joe biden in this issue (im pro-choice because in my opinion you shouldn't be able to enforce your values on anyone else, but in my own personal opinion i find abortion a killing of a soul in a sense and would never advocate for it; but i would never condemn someone for their choices). but i can easily empathize with pro-lifers who really believe that when someone is conceived, they have their own soul and they are trying to protect that individual who can't protect themselves. to call them sexually repressed nerds is just wildly immature. i think the idea of them being a bunch of women-haters is just pretty far from the truth. this post is just a gross generalization of how you view pro-lifers, it doesn't seem backed by any actual experience talking to them or empathizing with them. i feel comfortable saying this because ive been able to talk to a few people who do the march for life kind of things and when i ask them about their opinions on abortion they have and why they have them, in my experience, it always is due to their belief of "it's killing a soul" and they become very passionate and emotional. which is a pretty heavy thing if you do take your religious / spiritual beliefs seriously.

 

[Apagogie]

i think you're disregarding the idea that some people believe in souls and mysticism. ill state for the record again just to not show bias, im pretty much just like joe biden in this issue (im pro-choice because in my opinion you shouldn't be able to enforce your values on anyone else, but in my own personal opinion i find abortion a killing of a soul in a sense and would never advocate for it; but i would never condemn someone for their choices). but i can easily empathize with pro-lifers who really believe that when someone is conceived, they have their own soul and they are trying to protect that individual who can't protect themselves. to call them sexually repressed nerds is just wildly immature. i think the idea of them being a bunch of women-haters is just pretty far from the truth. this post is just a gross generalization of how you view pro-lifers, it doesn't seem backed by any actual experience talking to them or empathizing with them. i feel comfortable saying this because ive been able to talk to a few people who do the march for life kind of things and when i ask them about their opinions on abortion they have and why they have them, in my experience, it always is due to their belief of "it's killing a soul" and they become very passionate and emotional. which is a pretty heavy thing if you do take your religious / spiritual beliefs seriously.

And that's why this debate won't end on a conclusion. It's not the purpose of a debate but I mean we will never agree.
Pro-lifes are spiritual. They consider a foetus like a Human once the egg is fertilized. For them, abortion is a mass slaughter
Pro-choices consider a foetus like a bunch of cells during the first weeks. For us, it's the same thing than losing cells.

It's impossible to debate on beliefs. Even with 0 prove of its existence, people still believe in God centuries after centuries.

I just want to mention a last thing which doesn't have been much said during the previous pages. The lack of abortion will increase the births (just look at demography of Romania during the communist period). I don't think it's a good thing to still increase the population of humans on earth, we are already too much. It is realistically impossible to stop sexual relationships so abortion is the best way to regulate the population of the world.

 

[Dece1t]

are some people lack the ability to take care of even themselves. There are some people who can't even take care of a child, and the child will probably die anyway. In every single last post you've ever made in this whole thread, you have completely disregarded the lives of the women in favor for the child, and much worse than that have actively judged them.

Hide

I personally believe you do not lose out on choice if you take away abortion. You have three: Abstinence, Birth Control/Contraception, or Parenthood/Adoption [this addresses the non-bolded]. All of these do not resort to a baby being killed (although the day after pill is an interesting topic that I'd be willing to debate).

I'm 100% for women being treated equally to men, as with babies being treated equally as men and women since I also consider them as people.

Going back on topic of woman's inequality to men, okay, but that goes back to the choice of risking the production of a baby or not. It's also worth noting that women and men are inherently different (and in our case, that women are the ones that incubate babies and men do not), however that doesn't mean they aren't afforded the same rights as men or anyone else, or that they're inferior let alone. Men should be held just as accountable if a woman becomes pregnant, because that's the man's child as well and he had a role creating it. That's is why for rape, these men are often punished harshly (and I completely support harsh punishment for rape offenders, such as castration and long time in solitary confinement), and if a man refuses to be a part of the baby's life, that is why there is an enforcement of child support. There are cases where yea, there is an abandoning of responsibility and men are not held accountable. I would completely agree, that's a serious issue. However, the woman has the rights through the court and through DNA testing to force it, surprisingly it's not that easy for men to simply run away if the woman is on top of their shit.

But pardon me, I don't respect women according to you.

And that's why this debate won't end on a conclusion. It's not the purpose of a debate but I mean we will never agree.
Pro-lifes are spiritual. They consider a foetus like a Human once the egg is fertilized. For them, abortion is a mass slaughter
Pro-choices consider a foetus like a bunch of cells during the first weeks. For us, it's the same thing than losing cells.

It's impossible to debate on beliefs. Even with 0 prove of its existence, people still believe in God centuries after centuries.

I just want to mention a last thing which doesn't have been much said during the previous pages. The lack of abortion will increase the births (just look at demography of Romania during the communist period). I don't think it's a good thing to still increase the population of humans on earth, we are already too much. It is realistically impossible to stop sexual relationships so abortion is the best way to regulate the population of the world.

i think you're disregarding the idea that some people believe in souls and mysticism. ill state for the record again just to not show bias, im pretty much just like joe biden in this issue (im pro-choice because in my opinion you shouldn't be able to enforce your values on anyone else, but in my own personal opinion i find abortion a killing of a soul in a sense and would never advocate for it; but i would never condemn someone for their choices). but i can easily empathize with pro-lifers who really believe that when someone is conceived, they have their own soul and they are trying to protect that individual who can't protect themselves. to call them sexually repressed nerds is just wildly immature. i think the idea of them being a bunch of women-haters is just pretty far from the truth. this post is just a gross generalization of how you view pro-lifers, it doesn't seem backed by any actual experience talking to them or empathizing with them. i feel comfortable saying this because ive been able to talk to a few people who do the march for life kind of things and when i ask them about their opinions on abortion they have and why they have them, in my experience, it always is due to their belief of "it's killing a soul" and they become very passionate and emotional. which is a pretty heavy thing if you do take your religious / spiritual beliefs seriously.

None of us pro-lifers talked about the souls of the babies. I for one talked about its extraordinarily high potential of fetuses developing into a fully-fledged person, and that right should not be taken away just because a woman finds it inconvenient. Right church wrong pew in my opinion. I'm getting very sick of y'all bringing up something that has never been brought up here by anyone other than over-assuming pro-choicers.

***

Edit: mym217866 Fair, I get my language was pretty blunt. When replying to some of these people, you have to be sometimes because some of them will eat you up otherwise. The more sincerer ones get my respect. Your standard of harsh language should really apply to much more posts than just mine though, my friend. Additionally, yea I see some serious hypocrisy when people are lecturing me that equating women's rights/women controlling their own bodies is killing babies. I will call those posts out, because that notion is completely backwards. If that's what you call empowerment, and if you want to spit right in the face of biology and call a baby with a completely different set of DNA the woman's body, that's downright stupid. Sorry.

 

[Celever]

None of us pro-lifers talked about the souls of the babies. I for one talked about its extraordinarily high potential of fetuses developing into a fully-fledged person, and that right should not be taken away just because a woman finds it inconvenient. Right church wrong pew in my opinion. I'm getting very sick of y'all bringing up something that has never been brought up here by anyone other than over-assuming pro-choicers.

No, you just don't understand anything you're talking about.

"Potential" is noumenal. Pregnant women are phenomenal. You're either prioritising or, as you self-identify your beliefs, equalising the noumenal with the phenomenal. The rest of us, because our beliefs are based post-enlightenment, believe that the phenomenal matters more than the noumenal. Your standpoint is functionally congruent with arguing for souls because as people who like to focus on what actually exists percepitbly, potentiality and souls have as much meaning as each other. Read some Kant and synthesise it with Kierkegaard because the collective conscience of the west is pretty much those two men mashed together, with some nuance. Then maybe you'll understand.

 

[Dece1t]

No, you just don't understand anything you're talking about.

"Potential" is noumenal. Pregnant women are phenomenal. You're either prioritising or, as you self-identify your beliefs, equalising the noumenal with the phenomenal. The rest of us, because our beliefs are based post-enlightenment, believe that the phenomenal matters more than the noumenal. Your standpoint is functionally congruent with arguing for souls because as people who like to focus on what actually exists percepitbly, potentiality and souls have as much meaning as each other. Read some Kant and synthesise it with Kierkegaard because the collective conscience of the west is pretty much those two men mashed together, with some nuance. Then maybe you'll understand.

It comes down to how often is that likelihood. Mayo Clinic estimates 10-20% of pregnancies tend end in miscarriages. Highballing that rate, 80% are born to full term. That's pretty reliable, as our current human population would show us, unlike 100+ years ago when mothers could die from giving birth let alone the babies surviving before and through infancy and up through childhood. I would like to say those odds are much more than reasonable enough to say that we can safely assume fetuses will develop fully.

You tell me then why its not fair to say that potential is pretty high, if the fetus is left to its own devices. How do you suppose you were born, especially in our day and age when the vast majority of women that are pregnant end up carrying their babies to term? Our technology today used to save lives, especially those that are premature, is incredibly advanced. That is why I believe I have every reason to rub up against the "potential life"argument. Why to you is basic logic not a feasible argument?

 

[ManOfMany]

If potential were really that important, that makes every women who ever had unprotected sex a mass-murderer (the majority of embryos fail to develop successfully). Potential is undoubtedly a religious argument and even Dece1t acknowledges it because he is only arguing concerning fully formed fetuses who are soon to be born. These are functional organisms and have some value from a non-religious standpoint, unlike a clump of cells.

 

[Celever]

You tell me then why its not fair to say that potential is pretty high, if the fetus is left to its own devices. How do you suppose you were born, especially in our day and age when the vast majority of women that are pregnant end up carrying their babies to term? Our technology today used to save lives, especially those that are premature, is incredibly advanced. That is why I think I have every reason to rub up against your potential argument.

Because potential isn't phenomenal and therefore matters less than the noumenal. Let's say some tribespeople are building a fire, and they're gathering wood. All of the wood that they're gathering has an extremely high potential to become a fire, which is necessary for the tribespeople's survival, because wood is flammable and the tribe is intending on setting the wood alight. They successfully build a fire with much of the wood that they have gathered, and there is now a roaring blaze that they're using for warmth and cooking. Then let's say it begins to rain, and the tribespeople have to make the choice between covering the existing fire from the rain or the leftover wood that they have gathered. Once the leftover wood is wet it will lose its potential to become firewood and the same is true for the wood of the fire that is already burning. What's the right choice? Clearly, the tribespeople work to protect the fire and the wood that is already ablaze, and leave the rest of the wood to get wet. After all, they can just gather more wood later on once it stops raining.

The telos of a foetus is to become a human and, though perhaps there's a high potential for that to happen, it still matters less than a human because it is not yet a human. In terms of actual raw significance of something, the wood that will become a fire but is not yet in the fire matters less than wood that is already burning, even though there was a high potential that it would soon begin burning.

Also just to respond to your guilt trip of "how do you suppose you were born": if I hadn't been born I wouldn't care. I wasn't lying in the womb thinking "shiiiiit I really hope I don't get aborted ahaha" because I didn't have the capacity to think that. I only care about things that I have knowledge of and that's true for every single being ever. Considering that I didn't have knowledge of my own life, I also wouldn't have cared if it was taken away.

 

[Dece1t]

If potential were really that important, that makes every women who ever had unprotected sex a mass-murderer (the majority of embryos fail to develop successfully). Potential is undoubtedly a religious argument and even Dece1t acknowledges it because he is only arguing concerning fully formed fetuses who are soon to be born. These are functional organisms and have some value from a non-religious standpoint, unlike a clump of cells.

Wrong. It's not murder because it isn't the woman physically doing the killing. That also does not change the fact that, as outlined previously, around 62 million babies have been aborted (or murdered) since 1973. Once again, why is that still okay? (and do not say just because the woman didn't want it, or the baby would not live a good life/would die anyways, that's an unbelievably flawed argument that's been addressed.

Because potential isn't phenomenal and therefore matters less than the noumenal. Let's say some tribespeople are building a fire, and they're gathering wood. All of the wood that they're gathering has an extremely high potential to become a fire, which is necessary for the tribespeople's survival, because wood is flammable and the tribe is intending on setting the wood alight. They successfully build a fire with much of the wood that they have gathered, and there is now a roaring blaze that they're using for warmth and cooking. Then let's say it begins to rain, and the tribespeople have to make the choice between covering the existing fire from the rain or the leftover wood that they have gathered. Once the leftover wood is wet it will lose its potential to become firewood and the same is true for the wood of the fire that is already burning. What's the right choice? Clearly, the tribespeople work to protect the fire and the wood that is already ablaze, and leave the rest of the wood to get wet. After all, they can just gather more wood later on once it stops raining.

The telos of a foetus is to become a human and, though perhaps there's a high potential for that to happen, it still matters less than a human because it is not yet a human. In terms of actual raw significance of something, the wood that will become a fire but is not yet in the fire matters less than wood that is already burning, even though there was a high potential that it would soon begin burning.

Also just to respond to your guilt trip of "how do you suppose you were born": if I hadn't been born I wouldn't care. I wasn't lying in the womb thinking "shiiiiit I really hope I don't get aborted ahaha" because I didn't have the capacity to think that. I only care about things that I have knowledge of and that's true for every single being ever. Considering that I didn't have knowledge of my own life, I also wouldn't have cared if it was taken away.

That's still a pretty shallow point of view. What makes that fetus not human?

 

[Celever]

That's still a pretty shallow point of view. What makes that fetus not human?

What makes it human other than potentiality? The burden of proof is on you; you're claiming that it's human. The person who points to a giraffe and claims it's a duck has more need to prove it than his friend who says "no that's not a duck".

 

[Dece1t]

What makes it human other than potentiality? The burden of proof is on you; you're claiming that it's human. The person who points to a giraffe and claims it's a duck has more need to prove it than his friend who says "no that's not a duck".

Orch just outlined how its a life in a massive post, so I'm not going to repeat him word for word. It all goes back to what makes it your right to rip that life away?

Edit: and you're only proving my point that you believe fetuses, only when unwanted, are sub-humam, and that's your basis of life.

 

[Celever]

Orch just outlined how its a life in a massive post, so I'm not going to repeat him word for word. It all goes back to what makes it your right to rip that life away?

Claiming it's merely a life is meaningless. So's that snail you accidentally stood on last week, and you're not in jail for manslaughter. So pray tell, what makes it a human life?

 

[Dece1t]

Claiming it's merely a life is meaningless. So's that snail you accidentally stood on last week, and you're not in jail for manslaughter. So pray tell, what makes it a human life?

The same reason why you and I are human lives. That fetus will develop into one of us. A baby, a child, a teenager, an adult, with a separate set of DNA and a unique genetic code.

Great job dodging my question btw, how about answer first what makes it your right to kill it?

 

[Celever]

The same reason why you and I are human lives. That fetus will develop into one of us. A baby, a child, a teenager, an adult.

Great job dodging my question btw, how about answer first what makes it your right to kill it?

Right, but you've just gone back to arguing it's a human because of its potentiality to become a human and I just debunked that. So actually answer my question of why it's a human life?

The same reason why I bought a McDonald's a few days ago. It was useful and I wanted to. When I was 11 I chose to be vegetarian for 7 years until I was 18, and I ended up with a bunch of nutritional deficiencies so I started eating meat again. Eating meat kills animals, but it makes my life better and I'm healthier now for killing all of that life via spending my money on its death. It's better for me to take that life, so if it's better for a woman to take the life of whatever's living inside her, why not? If I get a tapeworm you'd best believe I'm flushing it out, too.

 

[Dece1t]

Right, but you've just gone back to arguing it's a human because of its potentiality to become a human and I just debunked that. So actually answer my question of why it's a human life?

The same reason why I bought a McDonald's a few days ago. It was useful and I wanted to. When I was 11 I chose to be vegetarian for 7 years until I was 18, and I ended up with a bunch of nutritional deficiencies so I started eating meat again. Eating meat kills animals, but it makes my life better and I'm healthier now for killing all of that life via spending my money on its death.

Firstly did you really debunk it though? You didn't. I think it comes down to how valuable do we think life inherently is. I know I edited my previous response too late when you replied, but like I said, my stance on humanity/life is read back to orch's previous post (I c/p'd below), and mesh that in with the fact that it has a separate DNA and unique genetic code.

here's a common consensus by most biologists of what constitutes a life taken from wikipedia:

1. Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
2. Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
3. Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
6. Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.

a zygote is able to maintain homeostasis with cellular communication, diffusion of water using complex proteins, and changing cell membrane composition of fat to maintain temperature.

a zygote is organized by cells.

a zygote grows by assimilating nutrients in the womb to form more cells.

a zygote is able to use epigenetics to adapt its genetic expressions to adapt to the conditions of mother's womb.

a zygote is able to response to stimuli with various receptors on cell membrane and in the cytoplasm which trigger appropriate reactions to maintain its homeostasis and growth.

a zygote certainly have an ability to reproduce by eventual maturity into a human adult to sexually reproduce.

the claims that a zygote is not a life simply doesn't hold up in the science where we treat bacteria as living beings...

***

It's better for me to take that life, so if it's better for a woman to take the life of whatever's living inside her, why not? If I get a tapeworm you'd best believe I'm flushing it out, too.

Additionally, you just acknowledged that you are taking a life. I'm glad we agree and that the facade of you believing its not a life is now peeled off, now you're going back to the convenience argument. That is an unbelievably subjective way to determine livelihood. It does not hold up at all.

 

[ManOfMany]

The same reason why you and I are human lives. That fetus will develop into one of us. A baby, a child, a teenager, an adult, with a separate set of DNA and a unique genetic code.

Great job dodging my question btw, how about answer first what makes it your right to kill it?

should not all women who attempt to be pregnant be condemned for all the millions of failed embryos every day? Even though it's not intentional, under your moral code this would be an atrocity. Would it not be the same as someone accidentally running over a toddler who runs into the street? If you really believed in this moral code that takes into account "potential", women should never be allowed to have unprotected sex, ever. But you don't. You just want to regulate womens' bodies.

EDIT: I'm glad to know you're a vegetarian as well

 

[Celever]

Firstly did you really debunk it though? You didn't.

If I didn't debunk it, then refute it. You literally haven't attempted to so far.

I think it comes down to how valuable do we think life inherently is.

Are you vegetarian?

I know I edited my previous response too late when you replied, but like I said, my stance on humanity/life is read back to orch's previous post, and mesh that in with the fact that it has a separate DNA and unique genetic code.

I don't want to assume that you don't know this but how I'm reading this is that you don't. You know that every animal foetus has a unique genetic code to its mother, right? Like, that's how evolution works -- secular or religious evolution.

Additionally, you just acknowledged that you are taking a life. I'm glad we agree. Now you're going back to convenience as well, that is an unbelievably subjective way to determine livelihood. Checkmate.

You... you what? I never claimed that foetuses aren't lives, I claimed that they're not human lives.

 

[Apagogie]

None of us pro-lifers talked about the souls of the babies. I for one talked about its extraordinarily high potential of fetuses developing into a fully-fledged baby. Right church wrong pew in my opinion. I'm getting very sick of y'all bringing up something that has never been brought up here by anyone other than over-assuming pro-choicers.

Even if you don't assume to be spiritual, you are.
The problem for you is not to kill cells since it's just impossible to don't kill them, we do just in hitting the table. If abortion is a problem for you, it's because you think foetuses are equal to humans. Your comparaison with Shoah and Slaves and counting the foetus such as dead humans or dead babies doesn't have sense otherwise. Abortion is a problem because it kills humans. Eggs fertilized are humans for you, even if invertebrates are technically more developed than them.

You have no rational reason to think this. Eggs fertilized are just a bunch of cells during the first weeks and if this can be considered as humans, everything as developed as an egg fertilized is a human such as octopus or cows.
So the only reason why you think eggs fertilized are humans is due to an irrational reason. Even if there is no logical reason to think that an egg fertilized is the same as a baby, you still think it. The only way to justify this is to say that at the second where an egg is fertilized by a sexual relationship, it gets a soul which already makes it as sensible as a baby human, even if technically it's not the case.

Could we abort the bunch of cells which is the egg fertilized after one second ? This answer already decides if you are pro-choice or pro-life. If you are not spiritual, the answer is yes and you are pro-choice.

 

[willempju]

Dece1t Even if a foetus were a human being (which it isn't) then nobody can be forced to violate their bodily integrity to let it develop.

If someone is dying and in desparate need of blood and you are the only one around with the right blood type then nobody can force you to give your blood. Even if that means this person will die. Even if it were your fault they needed blood in the first place. Even if you already started giving blood and change your mind halfway no one can stop you.

That's the same with abortion if you consider a foetus a human. Even if the mother consciously took the risk of getting pregnant than no one can force her to give up her bodily resources to save the foetus from dying. And this means she has the right to remove it.

Unless you want the government to tame you from the streets to turn you into a lab rat because it might save more people than it costs, you really should respect bodily integrity.

 

[earl]

The laughing reacts are in full swing, libs being destroyed left and right

 

[Dece1t]

Even if you don't assume to be spiritual, you are.
The problem for you is not to kill cells since it's just impossible to don't kill them, we do just in hitting the table. If abortion is a problem for you, it's because you think foetuses are equal to humans. Your comparaison with Shoah and Slaves and counting the foetus such as dead humans or dead babies doesn't have sense otherwise. Abortion is a problem because it kills humans. Eggs fertilized are humans for you, even if invertebrates are technically more developed than them.

You have no rational reason to think this. Eggs fertilized are just a bunch of cells during the first weeks and if this can be considered as humans, everything as developed as an egg fertilized is a human such as octopus or cows.
So the only reason why you think eggs fertilized are humans is due to an irrational reason. Even if there is no logical reason to think that an egg fertilized is the same as a baby, you still think it. The only way to justify this is to say that at the second where an egg is fertilized by a sexual relationship, it gets a soul which already makes it as sensible as a baby human, even if technically it's not the case.

Could we abort the bunch of cells which is the egg fertilized after one second ? This answer already decides if you are pro-choice or pro-life. If you are not spiritual, the answer is yes and you are pro-choice.

If I didn't debunk it, then refute it. You literally haven't attempted to so far.

Are you vegetarian?

I don't want to assume that you don't know this but how I'm reading this is that you don't. You know that every animal foetus has a unique genetic code to its mother, right? Like, that's how evolution works -- secular or religious evolution.

You... you what? I never claimed that foetuses aren't lives, I claimed that they're not human lives.

should not all women who attempt to be pregnant be condemned for all the millions of failed embryos every day? Even though it's not intentional, under your moral code this would be an atrocity. Would it not be the same as someone accidentally running over a toddler who runs into the street? If you really believed in this moral code that takes into account "potential", women should never be allowed to have unprotected sex, ever. But you don't. You just want to regulate womens' bodies.

EDIT: I'm glad to know you're a vegetarian as well

All 3 of you are doing an amazing job strawmanning my argument (refer to bold). If you read back towards the beginning of this thread, I settled that we're talking about human life and human life alone. Not fucking octopi life. Not animal life. Human. Life. I'm shitting myself that I seriously need to differentiate that. That is what this thread is about: aborting human fetuses. If you're seriously resorting to far-off arguments like that, you've lost it.

Celever, I've been doing nothing but refuting. You're embarrassing yourself at this point mate. I just told you what I believed a human life is and why I believe it holds up.

Many I just told you that is entirely different because no one is physically committing the murder. That is called a miscarriage. Hear about those before?

Union Caboche who are you to dictate whether I'm spiritual or not firstly? That is none of your business because if I am, I'm certainly not applying my religion or spirituality to any of my arguments here, other than you apparently inserting it. Secondly, I have given an incredibly rational reason, more reasonable to the horse shit y'all have spewed out here. Refer to the fact that fetuses are almost certain to fully develop into humans. Why? We see it in the US's booming 330 million population. I have fair reason to say it will develop into one of us. It's not like we live in 3rd world countries/the past when disease was rampant and fetuses, let alone the mother, had a slim chance to get through pregnancy.

***

willempju bodily integrity has nothing to do with an independent being with independent DNA. A fetus is not the woman's body. Go back to high school biology please.

 

[Celever]

All 3 of you are doing an amazing job strawmanning my argument (refer to bold). If you read back towards the beginning of this thread, I settled that we're talking about human life and human life alone. Not fucking octopi life. Not animal life. Human. Life. I'm shitting myself that I seriously need to differentiate that. That is what this thread is about: aborting human fetuses. If you're seriously resorting to far-off arguments like that, you've lost it.

Celever, I've been doing nothing but refuting. You're embarrassing yourself at this point mate. I just told you what I believed a human life is and why I believe it holds up.

This issue is that your definition of human life includes other animals and so therefore you're calling every animal a human. We already explained that to you. The only thing that separates your definition of a human foetus from an animal foetus is the potentiality that it will become a human, which as Union Caboche keeps pointing out is a spiritual/religious argument and, as I keep pointing out, therefore is meaningless in the context of real, phenomenal women that exist. That's why we all asked if you're vegetarian because your definitions equate the life of a cow, lobster, or chicken to that of a human.

 

[Dece1t]

This issue is that your definition of human life includes other animals and so therefore you're calling every animal a human. We already explained that to you. The only thing that separates your definition of a human foetus from an animal foetus is the potentiality that it will become a human, which as Union Caboche keeps pointing out is a spiritual/religious argument and, as I keep pointing out, therefore is meaningless in the context of real, phenomenal women that exist. That's why we all asked if you're vegetarian because your definitions equate the life of a cow, lobster, or chicken to that of a human.

I never once called animals human. This entire time I have been talking about human fetuses, differentiating that human's are inherently valuable. You're gonna have to quote me on that one.

Edit: Here's your differentiating factor. Human DNA. I seriously did not think I need to outline that.

 

[ManOfMany]

Let me ask you something Dece1t. What do you think separates us, as humans, from other animals? Is it simply the fact that we have human DNA? Is it our increased capacity for rational thought, empathy, and self-awareness?

If it's the former that is fine. But it means that there is no point trying to justify your arguments with facts like the fetus has functional organs, can feel suffering, and the like. It is simply not relevant and it is impossible to debate that viewpoint logically.

EDIT: Great, hopefully now you can stop bringing up things like the fetus being able to survive outside of the womb and just accept that your viewpoint is a spiritual belief that cannot be debated