Comments by "Scott Charney" (@scottcharney1091) on "Texas women seek abortions in other states" video.

  1. That's irrelevant. Pregnancy itself can be very damaging to a woman. That's not just true physically; it's also true in terms of finances, her safety due to abusive partners/family, etc. In any case, there's no harm in not being born.
    8
  2. True, but abortion doesn't involve children.
    7
  3.  @ManMan-xq8jh  Nobody minds not being born.
    6
  4. It's a form of healthcare. It deals with a woman's biological workings, and thus her health.
    4
  5.  @strafer8764  True, and the prerogative for continuing the pregnancy lies with the woman, the host organism.
    4
  6. *you're No, there's no baby involved.
    3
  7. Would *have. And that doesn't matter. There's no harm in not being born.
    3
  8. It's a quasi-parasite, and it is indeed the choice of the host organism as to whether or not to continue the pregnancy.
    3
  9. It's the woman whose body is being affected by pregnancy and birth.
    2
  10.  @Voicenreason247  True, and irrelevant. She's the host organism.
    2
  11. What's that supposed to mean? There's no harm in not being born.
    2
  12.  @ManMan-xq8jh  None of that is relevant.
    2
  13. That wasn't a feasible option for her. Continuing a pregnancy is not a walk in the park.
    2
  14. It's a question of personhood, not life.
    2
  15. You can write "ass" on the internet.
    2
  16.  @markwilkie7633  No, the pregnant woman has the right to decide to continue the pregnancy or not.
    2
  17.  @markwilkie7633  Not at all. Someone can be found to feed them, by a couple of different methods. That's very different than/from gestation!
    2
  18.  @markwilkie7633  Not so. Embryos & fetuses don't have the characteristics of personhood, the qualities that make killing wrong. There's no harm in not being born.
    2
  19.  @markwilkie7633  True, but not all human beings are persons, specifically embryos & fetuses. Personhood comes later.
    2
  20. Most women feel relief, not regret. "God" is imaginary.
    2
  21. *you're She doesn't have to go through with the pregnancy if she doesn't want to.
    1
  22. Embryos aren't children. There's no harm in not being born.
    1
  23. ?
    1
  24. God doesn't exist, and embryos aren't babies.
    1
  25. Embryos aren't children.
    1
  26. Baby?
    1
  27. Thou shalt keep thine religion to thy self.
    1
  28. Child?
    1
  29.  @nicolefuentes2147  Abortion usually involves embryos, and sometimes fetuses.
    1
  30. There is no harm in not being born.
    1
  31. How?
    1
  32.  @sisalicious03  It's not a child, and there's no harm in not being born.
    1
  33.  @sisalicious03  If you're referring to The Silent Scream, it was known to be nonsense almost as soon as it appeared in 1984. Doctors and scientists spoke up almost immediately.
    1
  34.  @sisalicious03  It's a question of personhood, not life per se.
    1
  35.  @sisalicious03  Yeah, Abby Johnson is a very dubious source, and besides, her anecdotes are not data.
    1
  36.  @Voicenreason247  Empathy for the women involved is sufficient.
    1
  37. We don't all follow your fairy tale (religion).
    1
  38. It is, and it is.
    1
  39. In your opinion.
    1
  40. God doesn't exist.
    1
  41. It's not murder. There's no harm in not being born.
    1
  42.  @markwilkie7633  I wrote "quasi." It's not a baby yet, and it doesn't matter how it got there.
    1
  43.  @markwilkie7633  Embryos and fetuses are in a quasi-parasitic relationship with the pregnant woman. All rights go to her.
    1
  44.  @markwilkie7633  Not so. They're not, by definition, attached to a host organism for existence. Someone can be found to take care of them.
    1
  45.  @markwilkie7633  True, but what does that have to do with abortion?
    1
  46.  @markwilkie7633  Personhood consists of the characteristics that make killing wrong- sentience, the will to live, hopes & dreams, preferences, biological autonomy, and all the other things that are taken away/violated when someone is killed. In a rudimentary but genuine way, babies have this. Embryos & fetuses do not and cannot. As for when it arrives, I can't say with certainty, but I can tell you that it's well after nearly all (or entirely all) abortions are performed.
    1
  47.  @markwilkie7633  I would slow down for anything that ran out into the street, and besides, I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion. No, as I wrote, I may not know the precise time of the beginning of personhood (there are differing opinions on this), but it doesn't matter, as whenever it happens is well after abortions are performed. Yes, human fetuses are human. That's beside the point.
    1
  48.  @markwilkie7633  People always use this argument. They bring up comatose people, for example. Life support is discontinued very often, on a case-by-case basis. People in such a state obviously had personhood before becoming comatose. Their situation, however, has changed to the degree that it sometimes becomes not just okay to kill them, but in fact it becomes cruel not to. In the case of people who have no will to live, they had it once and could regain it, which is why it's even more crucial to be as careful as can be about what to do next. I'm thinking of cases like the physician-assisted suicide laws in some countries that enable people with apparently incurable psychiatric agony (depression, among other things) choose death in a clean, dignified manner. None of this comparable to embryos & fetuses, who have never had the attributes of personhood. Were you thinking of other examples?
    1
  49.  @markwilkie7633  It's a hard one. On the one hand, they obviously had personhood before becoming comatose. On the other, they're completely without sentience, and (crucially) their ability to regain it is often extremely weak if it's possible at all. That's why the decision as to what to do next is in the hands of family members or someone else with power of attorney. Killing the comatose is often the kindest thing to do. So, in cases where regaining consciousness is impossible, virtually impossible, or if it happens at all it's sure to leave the sufferer a horribly debilitated near-corpse, personhood is gone. Becoming comatose, then, doesn't automatically take away personhood, but it very often does. For embryos/fetuses, it's not that complicated. They've never had personhood. If they never get it at all, they're not missing anything.
    1
  50.  @markwilkie7633  I already gave you a definition of personhood, or at least the characteristics thereof. I also tried to explain that the loss of personhood is an exceptional, rare thing. It certainly doesn't happen when somebody goes to sleep under normal circumstances.
    1
  51.  @markwilkie7633  That's not true. I'm trying to explain the nuances of some very complicated, nuanced matters. It's not arbitrary; I'm weighing different circumstances and coming to conclusions based on said circumstances interacting with principles. That's how reality works. There is no universally accepted definition of person, and your position is not objectively true. What kind of evidence are you looking for?
    1
  52. ?
    1
  53. It's not a baby, and your deity is made-up, as with all deities.
    1
  54.  @Freedomsnotfree  It's a question of personhood, not life.
    1
  55. Embryos aren't babies. Also, stop shouting.
    1
  56.  @whattheflimflam  Having an abortion is one way to do just that.
    1
  57. True, but embryos aren't babies.
    1
  58. There's no baby.
    1
  59. True, and irrelevant. There are no babies involved.
    1
  60. How so?
    1