Do you agree with abortion??
Scroll to see replies
Original post by tazarooni89
I think the killing of unborn children could be something that will make future civilisations will look back on us with disdain, thinking "how could they have possibly lived with themselves after doing something like that?"
I think the killing of unborn children could be something that will make future civilisations will look back on us with disdain, thinking "how could they have possibly lived with themselves after doing something like that?"
If the reason behind the abortion is due to the mothers' health, or that the kid is going to be mentally ill beyond all reconciliation and therefore the parents think that you have to be cruel to be kind, I'm pretty sure they'd understand.
The only condemnation I have for abortion is when it's used by idiots as a contraceptive because they didn't use any at the time of conception.
Original post by DanielOH
My problem with anti-abortionists is when they class a baby as "alive", a lot saying that they count as life from the moment of conception.
So their logic here is that they are alive before there is brain activity or even a heartbeat.
Given that a heartbeat or functioning brain is not a prerequisite to life, we have no viable grounds to declare a human being dead. By pro-life logic, rotting corpses should still be paying taxes.
If we can agree on a cut off date at brain activity (a ceasing of brain activity is deemed clinical death) I have no qualms with that, but don't go around saying we are murdering stem cells.
So their logic here is that they are alive before there is brain activity or even a heartbeat.
Given that a heartbeat or functioning brain is not a prerequisite to life, we have no viable grounds to declare a human being dead. By pro-life logic, rotting corpses should still be paying taxes.
If we can agree on a cut off date at brain activity (a ceasing of brain activity is deemed clinical death) I have no qualms with that, but don't go around saying we are murdering stem cells.
Anti- abortionists use scientific terms and evidence to define the children as alive while in the womb.
Many creatures exist and are alive with out brains.
The concept that a person is dead because they do not have a pulse or brain activity is viable only to those who have a heart or brain. You would not consider a jelly fish as dead. But again this is using the scientific description of life and death - according to an organism.
Even if we use a very loose description of life to describe how one interacts with our environment, it is illogical to use an adult's perspective on life to determine what is life.
We wouldn't use a human adult's perspective or ability to describe how a young kid's life should be ( not in regards to how they perceive reality nor interact with it). Likewise you would not be able to determine a "quality" of life in this manner. A factual and logical representation on how life should be is dependent on our stages in life, as described in biology.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by da_nolo
Anti- abortionists use scientific terms and evidence to define the children as alive while in the womb.
Many creatures exist and are alive with out brains.
The concept that a person is dead because they do not have a pulse or brain activity is viable only to those who have a heart or brain. You would not consider a jelly fish as dead. But again this is using the scientific description of life and death - according to an organism.
Even if we use a very loose description of life to describe how one interacts with our environment, it is illogical to use an adult's perspective on life to determine what is life.
We wouldn't use a human adult to describe how a young kid's life should be ( not in regards to how they perceive reality nor interact with it). Likewise you would not be able to determine a "quality" of life as this is dependent on our stages in life. As described in biology.
Many creatures exist and are alive with out brains.
The concept that a person is dead because they do not have a pulse or brain activity is viable only to those who have a heart or brain. You would not consider a jelly fish as dead. But again this is using the scientific description of life and death - according to an organism.
Even if we use a very loose description of life to describe how one interacts with our environment, it is illogical to use an adult's perspective on life to determine what is life.
We wouldn't use a human adult to describe how a young kid's life should be ( not in regards to how they perceive reality nor interact with it). Likewise you would not be able to determine a "quality" of life as this is dependent on our stages in life. As described in biology.
Of course the standard as to what life is changes from organism to organism, but my argument is that brain activity is, in the legal sense, an attribute of life. If abortion is made illegal on the grounds that what we currently deem to be dead is in fact alive, how do we now define life and death in legal terms?
Original post by finlay4
100% Agree with abortion, who is to say a women can't do want she wants with her OWN body?
So women should be allowed to kill their children?
Original post by DanielOH
Of course the standard as to what life is changes from organism to organism, but my argument is that brain activity is, in the legal sense, an attribute of life. If abortion is made illegal on the grounds that what we currently deem to be dead is in fact alive, how do we now define life and death in legal terms?
We do not deem - not in science, not in medicine, and not legal - the pre born to be dead or non-living.
There are laws in place for many countries that protect pre-born and state that a crime has been committed against two humans if an assault or murder had been against a pregnant woman.
But I would not use law to determine what is or should be as many countries have allowed slavery and even executions due to "justified" reasons - one expressed by another in this thread.
The argument for abortion uses "dead/non-living" claim but even in legal system i do not see this claim used to describe abortion or why it is legal or the pre-born. May be wrong but I have yet to read it as the law is written (and I'm saying this based on memory). Things could have changed since I last check.
the law as it is written, uses brain activity and pulse to determine death for humans that have those things. how can you use something others do not have to determine life?
In an analogy, this is like saying an embryo is not human or alive because they don't have legs or eyes.
1. They are not supposed to have those things. How fair or moral would that explanation be?
2. What about those who do not meet that criteria after birth?
Now, how the law should be written is accordance to science. A human is alive at conception.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Drunk Punx
If the reason behind the abortion is due to the mothers' health, or that the kid is going to be mentally ill beyond all reconciliation and therefore the parents think that you have to be cruel to be kind, I'm pretty sure they'd understand.
The only condemnation I have for abortion is when it's used by idiots as a contraceptive because they didn't use any at the time of conception.
The only condemnation I have for abortion is when it's used by idiots as a contraceptive because they didn't use any at the time of conception.
Just as there are exceptional circumstances in which we may unfortunately consider it necessary to take another human's life e.g. in cases of self-defence or perhaps euthanasia, I can certainly see that similar exceptions may need to be made in the case of abortion as well.
But I agree with you, these instances are potentially more justifiable from an objective point of view, than the situations in which convenience is treated as more valuable than life.
Original post by da_nolo
We do not deem - not in science, not in medicine, and not legal - the pre born to be dead or non-living.
There are laws in place for many countries that protect pre-born and state that a crime has been committed against two humans if an assault or murder had been against a pregnant woman.
But I would not use law to determine what is or should be as many countries have allowed slavery and even executions due to "justified" reasons - one expressed by another in this thread.
The argument for abortion uses "dead/non-living" claim but even in legal system i do not see this claim used to describe abortion or why it is legal or the pre-born. May be wrong but I have yet to read it as the law is written (and I'm saying this based on memory). Things could have changed since I last check.
the law as it is written, uses brain activity and pulse to determine death for humans that have those things.
Now, how the law should be written is accordance to science. A human is alive at conception.
There are laws in place for many countries that protect pre-born and state that a crime has been committed against two humans if an assault or murder had been against a pregnant woman.
But I would not use law to determine what is or should be as many countries have allowed slavery and even executions due to "justified" reasons - one expressed by another in this thread.
The argument for abortion uses "dead/non-living" claim but even in legal system i do not see this claim used to describe abortion or why it is legal or the pre-born. May be wrong but I have yet to read it as the law is written (and I'm saying this based on memory). Things could have changed since I last check.
the law as it is written, uses brain activity and pulse to determine death for humans that have those things.
Now, how the law should be written is accordance to science. A human is alive at conception.
A solid argument. One I still disagree with as it's a matter of opinion, but I commend you for the effort.
Edit: Although reading it again, the leg and eye analogy doesn't work because human beings lose legs and eyes all the time. Losing a pulse results in death.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by DanielOH
My problem with anti-abortionists is when they class a baby as "alive", a lot saying that they count as life from the moment of conception.
So their logic here is that they are alive before there is brain activity or even a heartbeat.
Given that a heartbeat or functioning brain is not a prerequisite to life, we have no viable grounds to declare a human being dead. By pro-life logic, rotting corpses should still be paying taxes.
If we can agree on a cut off date at brain activity (a ceasing of brain activity is deemed clinical death) I have no qualms with that, but don't go around saying we are murdering stem cells.
So their logic here is that they are alive before there is brain activity or even a heartbeat.
Given that a heartbeat or functioning brain is not a prerequisite to life, we have no viable grounds to declare a human being dead. By pro-life logic, rotting corpses should still be paying taxes.
If we can agree on a cut off date at brain activity (a ceasing of brain activity is deemed clinical death) I have no qualms with that, but don't go around saying we are murdering stem cells.
I think that our definition of death is fundamentally based around the permanent cessation of someone's conscious awareness, ability to interact with the world, and other bodily functions.
We might deem the ceasing of brain activity to be clinical death, but this is really just a proxy for the definition above, because we assume that once someone's brain has stopped functioning, it never will again. But suppose science advanced to the point where we were able to revive the brain-dead under certain circumstances so that they can walk, talk and think once again in future? We'd probably have to revise our criteria for clinical death.
I think it's all well and good to bury or cremate someone once a medical professional is satisfied that, given our current scientific knowledge and methods, there is absolutely no hope that the person will ever think, feel or act ever again. The person can be considered permanently gone, and there's no use to anyone in keeping it biologically "alive" in any sense. But of course this reasoning cannot usually be applied to an unborn child who, if allowed to continue on its current course, is destined to be an ordinary son or daughter, and a fully fledged human being like you and me, regardless of its current brain activity.
(edited 7 years ago)
He's not making real arguments, he's just trying to use emotion to force his opinion onto others. He also asked for opinions where it becomes a human being, and when he was given a nice point during the development (no brain activity yet) he gave the argument of "yeah but it will have it later!". But the thing is that it's not about what the kid might be later, the point is that in the moment then and there, it's still brain dead, it's still not a person. Why did he bother asking the question since he would dismiss it no matter what by saying "that thing that's not developed yet, will be developed later therefore we shouldn't prevent that". And that's assuming the fetus doesn't die for no reason just like many do, so it's not even guaranteed that it will become a person.
He is also ignoring all the situations where the mother's life and/or health is under threat (where the kid will probably die too anyway), where the fetus is messed up and will probably die after birth, or the more "mild" (not immediately deadly) diseases/disabilities the child might be born with, he's ignoring cases of rape or cases where the woman is simply not emotionally stable enough to so much as go through pregnancy and childbirth, let alone raising a kid (plus a person with emotional and stress issues may end up miscarrying anyway). Lastly there are people who simply don't want kids, and no matter what you say, no type of contraception is 100% effective.
I don't see what weight he is giving to the pro-life argument.
He is also ignoring all the situations where the mother's life and/or health is under threat (where the kid will probably die too anyway), where the fetus is messed up and will probably die after birth, or the more "mild" (not immediately deadly) diseases/disabilities the child might be born with, he's ignoring cases of rape or cases where the woman is simply not emotionally stable enough to so much as go through pregnancy and childbirth, let alone raising a kid (plus a person with emotional and stress issues may end up miscarrying anyway). Lastly there are people who simply don't want kids, and no matter what you say, no type of contraception is 100% effective.
I don't see what weight he is giving to the pro-life argument.
Original post by Nadile
He's not making real arguments, he's just trying to use emotion to force his opinion onto others. He also asked for opinions where it becomes a human being, and when he was given a nice point during the development (no brain activity yet) he gave the argument of "yeah but it will have it later!". But the thing is that it's not about what the kid might be later, the point is that in the moment then and there, it's still brain dead, it's still not a person. Why did he bother asking the question since he would dismiss it no matter what by saying "that thing that's not developed yet, will be developed later therefore we shouldn't prevent that". And that's assuming the fetus doesn't die for no reason just like many do, so it's not even guaranteed that it will become a person.
He is also ignoring all the situations where the mother's life and/or health is under threat (where the kid will probably die too anyway), where the fetus is messed up and will probably die after birth, or the more "mild" (not immediately deadly) diseases/disabilities the child might be born with, he's ignoring cases of rape or cases where the woman is simply not emotionally stable enough to so much as go through pregnancy and childbirth, let alone raising a kid (plus a person with emotional and stress issues may end up miscarrying anyway). Lastly there are people who simply don't want kids, and no matter what you say, no type of contraception is 100% effective.
I don't see what weight he is giving to the pro-life argument.
He is also ignoring all the situations where the mother's life and/or health is under threat (where the kid will probably die too anyway), where the fetus is messed up and will probably die after birth, or the more "mild" (not immediately deadly) diseases/disabilities the child might be born with, he's ignoring cases of rape or cases where the woman is simply not emotionally stable enough to so much as go through pregnancy and childbirth, let alone raising a kid (plus a person with emotional and stress issues may end up miscarrying anyway). Lastly there are people who simply don't want kids, and no matter what you say, no type of contraception is 100% effective.
I don't see what weight he is giving to the pro-life argument.
That's the problem, though, the debate is fundamentally an emotional and opinionated one. Questions like "when is something alive" and "when is taking a life more valuable than making sure an already existing life maintains its quality" can never have a difinitive answer, because definitions and morals are purely subjective.
Original post by DanielOH
That's the problem, though, the debate is fundamentally an emotional and opinionated one. Questions like "when is something alive" and "when is taking a life more valuable than making sure an already existing life maintains its quality" can never have a difinitive answer, because definitions and morals are purely subjective.
Or we could keep emotions out of it and look at the practical side of things. For example, it's more reasonable to keep a mother of two in good health instead of sacrificing it for the good of a person who doesn't even exist yet. And looking at what is alive and what isn't is the wrong approach. Of course the embryo is alive, that doesn't mean it's human and should have human rights yet.
Original post by Trapz99
So women should be allowed to kill their children?
Arguably, is the fetus really considered a child when it's hardly grown past the size of a small classroom ruler? That's for the parent to decide and if they don't believe so, do as they wish.
Original post by Nadile
And looking at what is alive and what isn't is the wrong approach. Of course the embryo is alive, that doesn't mean it's human and should have human rights yet.
What are you saying this based on? And why do you get to decide?
Original post by DanielOH
A solid argument. One I still disagree with as it's a matter of opinion, but I commend you for the effort.
Edit: Although reading it again, the leg and eye analogy doesn't work because human beings lose legs and eyes all the time. Losing a pulse results in death.
Edit: Although reading it again, the leg and eye analogy doesn't work because human beings lose legs and eyes all the time. Losing a pulse results in death.
Yes. Analogies are loose similarities. However, the point is still about using practical descriptions and characteristics in accordance to a person's age or stage in life. The focus is on how we describe an embryo.
As you stated, "losing a pulse results in death." I agree. To lose a pulse requires a person to have it. If an embryo does not have a pulse to begin with, that embryo cannot loose it. So how do we determine death? We would have to use a different method. Therefore, we would not use the same methodology to describe an embryo as we would an adult - or any other stage of life for humans.
Pulse would not be used to say an embryo is alive or not. Same for conscious.
Thank you for your comments, though I (naturally) would disagree with it being a matter of opinion.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by tazarooni89
What are you saying this based on? And why do you get to decide?
I didn't decide. The majority did which can be clearly seen from the fact that an embryo can be aborted. I mean, if it's not human, not a person then why in the world would it have human rights? Human DNA doesn't make you a person, if it at least has a functioning brain then it becomes reasonable to start thinking about that.
Original post by Inexorably
Okay so many problems with his ''destruction''
45 ranting about killing baby - She's not literally think about killing her child 1 minute before giving birth how stupid is he.
45 ranting about killing baby - She's not literally think about killing her child 1 minute before giving birth how stupid is he.
1:15 ranting about killing babies - Okay so I suppose this guy must break his heart when he stands on a snail, when he allows for a cow to be killed to eat steak, when he allows for a chicken to be killed etc. etc. There is no difference between that little cluster of cells in a woman's body and these animals, you can shove the word "KILL" on anything, doesn't change a thing. "Look at the chicken burger from an animal you had KILLED", "Look at the snail you KILLED". etc.
Otherwise, The difference between those animals and the pre-born child (even as an embryo) is the same difference they have to you - which is determined by DNA.
2:00 - After the 24 week cut off, well there you go... he literally just ruined his own point because it's not a LEGAL ABORTION? JFC. Also many European countries have a cut off of around 12-14 weeks.
I do believe the focus, however, was on who is being killed, not when. The child in the photo would not look all that different a couple weeks prior to that incident. As Ben says 1:22 - "I am tired of euphemisms." He wants to call the baby in the picture what we would call any "wanted" pre-born individual. My mum did not call me a fetus or group of tissues but "my baby."
I agree with Ben to a degree, but I don't have an issue with the term fetus as that term is used for humans.
Oxford dictionary. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception
2:40 - Not a 'kid', not a 'child'.
Knowing word meanings is important.
Oxford Dictionaries
NOUN
1. a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
synonyms: youngster · little one · boy · girl · baby · newborn · infant · [more]
a son or daughter of any age.
2. an immature or irresponsible person:
"she's such a child!"
3. a person who has little or no experience in a particular area:
"he's a child in financial matters"
(children)
4. the descendants of a family or people:
"the children of Abraham"
(child of)
5. a person or thing influenced by a specified environment:
"a child of the sixties" · [more]
Every definition I have ever found of the word child refers to all of us when we were still within our mother's womb. well, I am sure we would not use all definitions, but 1. and 4. are perfect. That is how the terms should be used and how pre-born children should be seen. Only reason why pro-abortionists say otherwise is to - dehumanize.
2:50 - "You don't have a right to kill it", well yes you do as it's your body and your entitlement
Otherwise, the DNA of the kid is not identical to the mom, which makes the child, not her body.
3:15 - Yes its own rights are more important than the baby's convenience whilst it's in the womb. God he probably would let women give birth even if they were going to die just for the child.
4:05 - Yes actually you do get to choose other people's outcomes in life. "Pulling the plug" and the death sentence are two good examples. Also stop referring to the foetus as "someone" it's not yet.
When do you get to choose to kill another person?
Both your examples are in error as a baby did not commit a crime. Can't sentence pre-born to death in that sense. I would argue that "pulling the plug" is not the same either. One in the process of being introduced to life while the other is on their way out. Medically, I think there could be some steep differences.
4:15 - Omg when the baby has tastebuds? God forbid.... and fingernails and teeth...
4:45 - "BEGINNINGS OF" =/= fully formed at all, greatly over exaggerated.
4:45 - "BEGINNINGS OF" =/= fully formed at all, greatly over exaggerated.
what is fully formed?
5:10 - "Personal convenience issue", goddamn I'm not even a ****ing woman but if I met this guy I would punch him so hard in the ****ing gob purely for referring to abortion as that. Don't ever ****ing describe it as that issue, especially to anyone who was raped.
5:30 - He just compared this to slavery and hitler, bye.
5:40 - Right, and allowing women to die just to give birth was one of those disgusting legal things in the past 
To kill another person just to prevent something that may be preventable or treatable is ridiculous. I'm sure you would agree. Medicines are advancing and can advance to solve the issue of health in regards to the mother - most incidences I have read about are not predictable however. For example, massive hemorrhaging.
A co-worker once provided how his daughter was born to me. He explained there there was so much blood as result that his wife's parents (also in room during delivery) thought their own daughter was going to die. Some things are not foreseeable.
If we focus our efforts and money on studying pregnancies then perhaps we can overcome many of the obstacles that still exist.
6:10 - Can't call something that's incapable of committing any act 'innocent', since it can't be 'guilty' either.
Innocent until proven guilty no?
6:45 - Sure, when it's born it's a human.
--
Okay how the ****ing hell are morons on YouTube defending this? All he's doing is scaremongering people by using words such as 'kill' and murder' alongside cute words like 'innocent' to make the act seem worse than it actually is. The entire thing is so greatly over-exaggerated and is full of complete crap.I am prochoice and always will be. And hopefully morons like this never influence any governmental policy regarding abortion ever... but then again, this is the states so.
Your position is saddening.
Original post by Nadile
I didn't decide. The majority did which can be clearly seen from the fact that an embryo can be aborted. I mean, if it's not human, not a person then why in the world would it have human rights? Human DNA doesn't make you a person, if it at least has a functioning brain then it becomes reasonable to start thinking about that.
"The majority?" What gives anyone, even "the majority", the right to decide which humans are "human enough" to get their rights equal to everyone else?
It's rather frightening to think of the number of instances throughout history when the more powerful or majority of people have decided it's okay to kill a group of humans because, based on whatever definition they've chosen at the time, "they're not proper people like us".*
Original post by da_nolo
I don't believe him to think it occurs in a blink of an eye, but is responding to the way the presented actress was making her statement. Olivia did say that she is about to have her own child, but just after that she does explain that she should still be able to destroy that or a pregnancy. Ben Shapiro is criticizing how the message was presented.
In the most overdramatic way possible, without actual substance, yes.
none of this is relevant as those things are not human. Whether or not those things should have rights is not the same as asking, "should your human daughter or son have same rights as they would once born?"
That doesn't matter. Please explain and justify to me why, e.g. a 12 week old foetus in the womb, has more worth/rights than a gorilla that is capable of sign language? One of them is clearly more intellectual and beneficial to the world, so why are you prioritising the child. Heck even a snail probably has more worth as it actively does something in the world.
There was a time when "cut offs" did not exist. They were fought for by various individuals. Many pro-abortionists argued for late term abortions during that time.
Yes, but they exist now. You can't argue about something that isn't even legal - that's like me throwing a hissy fit over robbery being legal...when it's not legal.
I do believe the focus, however, was on who is being killed, not when. The child in the photo would not look all that different a couple weeks prior to that incident. As Ben says 1:22 - "I am tired of euphemisms." He wants to call the baby in the picture what we would call any "wanted" pre-born individual. My mum did not call me a fetus or group of tissues but "my baby."
But the child was after the cut-off limit, so before the cut off limit it would not look like that, so either way you try and argue it... there's no point to be made. And the only difference between calling it a "baby" and a "foetus" is because the mother developed a special attachment to it; there's nothing else to it. Just because you're attached to something doesn't make it objectively more important.
I agree with Ben to a degree, but I don't have an issue with the term fetus as that term is used for humans.
Oxford dictionary. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conceptio
Knowing word meanings is important.
Oxford Dictionaries
NOUN
1. a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
synonyms: youngster · little one · boy · girl · baby · newborn · infant · [more]
a son or daughter of any age.
2. an immature or irresponsible person:
"she's such a child!"
3. a person who has little or no experience in a particular area:
"he's a child in financial matters"
(children)
4. the descendants of a family or people:
"the children of Abraham"
(child of)
5. a person or thing influenced by a specified environment:
"a child of the sixties" · [more]
Every definition I have ever found of the word child refers to all of us when we were still within our mother's womb. well, I am sure we would not use all definitions, but 1. and 4. are perfect. That is how the terms should be used and how pre-born children should be seen. Only reason why pro-abortionists say otherwise is to - dehumanize.
Oxford dictionary. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conceptio
Knowing word meanings is important.
Oxford Dictionaries
NOUN
1. a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
synonyms: youngster · little one · boy · girl · baby · newborn · infant · [more]
a son or daughter of any age.
2. an immature or irresponsible person:
"she's such a child!"
3. a person who has little or no experience in a particular area:
"he's a child in financial matters"
(children)
4. the descendants of a family or people:
"the children of Abraham"
(child of)
5. a person or thing influenced by a specified environment:
"a child of the sixties" · [more]
Every definition I have ever found of the word child refers to all of us when we were still within our mother's womb. well, I am sure we would not use all definitions, but 1. and 4. are perfect. That is how the terms should be used and how pre-born children should be seen. Only reason why pro-abortionists say otherwise is to - dehumanize.
Synonyms are not the same thing and can have subtle differences. It is also not surprising that the majority of people want to call a person in the womb a child, because i) the majority of people do not get abortions and thus form an emotional attachment and ii) as shown by your definitions list, it's heavily religiously influenced. To also reiterate what I said before, just because you're attached to something enough to call it a 'child' it doesn't make it objectively better.
How is this an "entitlement?" How does that come in to play?
There are no laws saying you can't decide what you do to your own body (excluding euthanasia laws), so you're entitled to do what you want with it. I literally cannot make that clearer.
Otherwise, the DNA of the kid is not identical to the mom, which makes the child, not her body.
Ummm no. If I had a skin graft using someone elses skin, that skin is still a part of my body. And as the child is in and physically attached to her body, it is part of her body.
how are you using the word "its" in this statement: May you elaborate that first sentence?
I think I meant her, but I'm not certain.
When do you get to choose to kill another person?
Both your examples are in error as a baby did not commit a crime. Can't sentence pre-born to death in that sense. I would argue that "pulling the plug" is not the same either. One in the process of being introduced to life while the other is on their way out. Medically, I think there could be some steep differences.
Both your examples are in error as a baby did not commit a crime. Can't sentence pre-born to death in that sense. I would argue that "pulling the plug" is not the same either. One in the process of being introduced to life while the other is on their way out. Medically, I think there could be some steep differences.
Not necessarily. You could choose to pull the plug on a several hours old child; there would be no difference. That's when you get to choose to kill someone.
based on?
what is fully formed?
what is fully formed?
Based on his actual words. He says "the BEGINNINGS" of, that is not full formation.
Part of the argument for abortion is convenience. Did you skip the intro to this video? Even abortion clinics have provided statements that suggests convenience being an underline decision. Statistics on who does what for what ever reason indicate over 90% +/- (I am rounding) is not based on want; not health, not rape, not incest. This is success to abortion clinics.
My problem is with them using the term convenience, I'm very well aware of why he said it but it's a disgusting term to use. It's a decision in your life about whether you want to give birth or not, and if you're going to say "well thats just a CONVENIENCE ISSUE" then lo and behold buddy because every single decision you make in life can be argued as a "convenience issue".
I was confused by this portion. Not sure what is being suggested.
By what I said or his comparison? If it's what I said, it's because comparing abortion to hitler and slavery is beyond laughable.
There are many reasons why a mom might die while giving birth, but that was not based on allowing that woman to die. We did not have medical knowledge to identify why the woman would die and how to either a. prevent it or b. treat it. The birth rate grew between 1800 to 1900 simply because of breakthroughs in medicine.
To kill another person just to prevent something that may be preventable or treatable is ridiculous. I'm sure you would agree. Medicines are advancing and can advance to solve the issue of health in regards to the mother - most incidences I have read about are not predictable however. For example, massive hemorrhaging.
To kill another person just to prevent something that may be preventable or treatable is ridiculous. I'm sure you would agree. Medicines are advancing and can advance to solve the issue of health in regards to the mother - most incidences I have read about are not predictable however. For example, massive hemorrhaging.
I would not agree. If that person was old enough to decide they didn't want to live anymore because of a disease that although may be treatable, is still painful, I would accept. Likewise, if a mother wants to make that decision for her foetus she is perfectly within her rights to as it's still a part of her body.
If we focus our efforts and money on studying pregnancies then perhaps we can overcome many of the obstacles that still exist.
And I don't dispute that. Of course more funding would help towards safe pregnancies... for women that want them.
Innocent until proven guilty no?
Once again, you cannot refer to anything as innocent OR guilty if it cannot commit an act capable of such a thing
Why?
Because then it's in the world, separate from the mother and living life on its own.
Your position is saddening.
My position is only saddening because, like most prolifers, you are heavily emotionally invested in an unborn foetus and quite wrongly prioritise its life over a great deal of things which are more important (a right to choose what to do with your own body being just one of them). The world would be a much worse place if we resorted back to banning abortion and having people seeking out 'back street abortions'.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
