Comments by "Vic 2.0" (@Vic2point0) on "Women across US protest controversial Texas abortion law" video.

Imagine "You don't get to kill an innocent human being for convenience" being controversial.
26
@tonygrowley5275 "Abortion is just an alternative." Well, it's the one alternative that results in an innocent human being dying for the sake of convenience... "The point is the woman's individual right to decide," That would need to be proven, not just asserted. And so far, we have no reason to grant women the special privilege of taking an innocent life for her convenience. "only for herself, when she give birth, or not." Giving birth isn't the issue. The baby has been created already, and usually because of choices the woman already made. "More than 1/2 of women who have an abortion in the US, already have a child, or children. They don't want any more, right now!" Well she already has more. And she shouldn't be allowed to kill either of them.
3
There are at least two problems with that sort of appeal to authority. The first is that the Supreme Court is made of people, and so ideally they'll get it right but they're also bound to make mistakes, if not become corrupt and intentionally lie. And the second is that the arguments and the science refute their decision. Every consistent definition of life (in the context of the human race) shows that the fetus is a human being. They have brain activity as early as six weeks after conception, which is the ultimate sign of life checked for before anyone is ever officially pronounced dead.
3
@tonygrowley5275 Not at all, and I explained why. You're not actually aborting anything; instead, you're killing an innocent human being that's already been created. As for who/what is "forcing" these women to give birth, that would be nature, after she decided to do the things that set that process into motion to begin with. All the pro-life side of this is saying, is you shouldn't be able to kill someone because you changed your mind, didn't plan ahead, weren't responsible, etc.
3
@tpower1912 Exactly. And it's really a red herring anyway. Obviously if enough people come to realize that an unborn fetus is the same entity as a newborn when it's born premature, such an amendment will follow. They just don't want people coming to that realization.
3
@tonygrowley5275 We are all pro-choice (I for example support all choices except for the one in which you kill an innocent human being).
3
@kishanrao936 "but there is a difference between a fetus and a newborn." No fundamental difference though, as we'll see. "A fetus cannot survive outside the womb until it is considered viable at about 24-25 weeks." This doesn't change what they are, only their circumstances. Same could be said for people in hospitals right now being kept alive with machines. And there's no fundamental difference between this and a newborn who would lay there and die if left alone as well. "Your argument to equate a 6 week old fetus with a newborn is severely flawed." Not at all, it's consistent with every other time we ask the question "Is this a live human being?" Brain activity = life, and everything else is just additional confirmation.
3
@kishanrao936 "you’re equating a fetus with someone who is in a coma being kept alive by machines" No, but I am pointing out that the viability argument doesn't work by using them as an example. Again, it doesn't change what they are, only their circumstances. "You are entitled to your belief" It's not my belief; it's common scientific fact the ultimate sign of life is brain activity. You're literally not pronounced dead until that's gone. "but brain activity doesn’t equate to being a human being" Having brain activity while being of the human species, yes, that makes you a human being that is alive. "There are some that say the zygote also should be treated as a person which it is not." It's interesting how you claim that everything I've said about what makes someone a person is mere belief, and how I have no special right to proclaim what is/isn't a person, but then go on to make strong claims about what a person is yourself. Anyway, I would agree that a zygote isn't quite yet a live human being. But this does nothing to help the pro-abortion crowd, since they typically want the "right" to kill living human beings. And I'm still waiting for you to distinguish in any meaningful way between a newborn and a fetus with brain activity. You've tried to draw the line using an arbitrary standard of viability, but now that that's failed you seem to have given up...
3
It's all empty rhetoric. They know perfectly well that abortion involves two bodies (two human beings - one of whom must die for the sake of the other's convenience).
2
@tonygrowley5275 The point of their comment is to highlight that most of those chanting "My body, my choice" don't really believe in that principle. So it challenges us to figure out what principle is behind their pro-abortion stance.
2
@tonygrowley5275 It's not a question of whether or not she should be made to give birth to the unborn baby (which nature itself will "force", if the woman first chooses to do the things required to start that process), it's whether or not she should be allowed to kill him/her. That's what abortion is. Indeed, even the term "abortion" is misleading. You're not aborting the child; the child has already been conceived.
2
@kishanrao936 The law is supposed to reference reality though. If it doesn't, it shouldn't be defended/should be changed. And of course we all recognize this when convenient (e.g., if the law said black people weren't people, I highly doubt you'd say "Welp! That's the law, nothing more to discuss").
2
@tonygrowley5275 Oh noes! The same people who think if you're not okay with forcing vaccines that makes you an anti-vaxxer, think it makes sense to say that when you kill a baby you're just "aborting" it?
2
@tonygrowley5275 Well "the dictionary" as told by Merriam-Webster is without merit, for reasons like the one I gave. But regardless of what you call it, there remains no justification for killing an innocent human being in the name of convenience. And naturally, I'm going to disagree with the implication that because something is legal that makes it justified.
2
So as it stands there is no scientific or logically sound way of justifying abortion; it requires us to pretend that the fetus magically transforms into a different entity by passing through the birth canal. But we know that's not the case. That, or pro-abortion types can just admit they think their personal convenience is more important than another human being's life. Either way you end up looking really bad!
2
@tonygrowley5275 Well the definition should be grounded in reality, yes. And we can all question the self-proclaimed "experts" when the story they're telling doesn't make sense. Sometimes we can learn something from them that will make it make sense, but other times (as in the case with merriam-webster), there is no coherent answer forthcoming. And I see you re-asserting that abortion is right, but where's your argument? What justifies abortion that wouldn't justify killing any other baby for the sake of convenience?
2
@tonygrowley5275 So we discussed this already. No one is making any women give birth. The woman (and the man she was with) started the process, then nature took over and created a baby. The birth will take place only as the result of the woman's actions. At this point, all we're saying is that no one should be able to kill a baby in the name of convenience, which is of course perfectly rational.
2
@kishanrao936 "first of all the moniker of pro-abortion is a stupid one" Not at all. That is indeed the topic. I for one am against killing innocent human beings in the womb. You are for this, I take it? "that you anti-women, misogynistic crowd" Nothing anti-woman or misogynistic about saying someone (whether man or woman) shouldn't be allowed to kill babies for the sake of convenience. In fact, insomuch as you are OK with women doing this but not men, there's more evidence that you're anti-man than there is of me being anti-woman. "people who support women making their own choices." We all support this to a degree. I simply draw the line at killing innocent human beings whereas you apparently don't. "Abortion is a medical procedure-" Any number of horrific things can be done by someone with a medical degree. This is a very poor argument. "you really can’t be pro or anti it- just as you can’t be pro or anti root canal." You can be for or against both of these things. "Our laws are based on our constitution which counts everyone who was born within its purview." Again, that's simply irrelevant to the rightness/wrongness of an action. Hence the entire concept of amendments. "If you think that the unborn should count as people, then pregnant women should count as two people-" That doesn't logically follow, no. A pregnant woman is simply a person with another person in her womb. "(they should be) allowed to claim their fetus as a dependent in their taxes." Actually that's not a bad idea. You do have to eat more (and eat different things) and generally spend more money on taking care of both yourself and your baby while pregnant, than you would if you weren't pregnant. "If the fetus is part of the woman’s body," That's exactly the premise you want people to accept blindly here. The fetus not only has their own heartbeat but their own lungs, their own independent brain activity and their own unique genetic code. By no logic whatsoever is the fetus part of the woman's body, albeit he/she is connected to the woman's body temporarily. "So ultimately your goal is to control women" Technically any law saying "You can't kill another human being" is about control. But it's empty rhetoric to just throw that word out there, because we can agree that some laws are justified while others are not. So your issue isn't with the law being about control, it's about the "right" specifically to kill the unborn (if you're a woman).
2
@kishanrao936 "If you believe root canals are wrong, then don’t get one" Obviously this is a poor argument too. We're talking about the life and death of another human being, not something the woman is doing solely to her own body. "but if I want to get one, how does it affect you?" It affects me to exactly the same degree it would affect me if you chose to kill (sorry, "abort") your two-year old child. All in all, this is just another red herring. Something doesn't have to affect me directly to be wrong. "a fetus isn’t a person." Scientifically and logically, this is an absurd claim, and you haven't given any arguments or evidence to support it. The fetus has their own heartbeat, their own lungs, their own independent brain activity and their own unique genetic code. They are a human being by every definition. "It cannot survive on its own" Neither can a newborn baby, or most toddlers for that matter. "you can believe anything you want that’s your right" There you go again pretending as if society at large doesn't agree with the premise that it's wrong to kill an innocent human being for the sake of convenience. At any rate, I've established why this is more than a mere belief but fact. "our laws are based on the constitution." Yeah again, that's irrelevant. Laws and the Constitution itself can be changed, but first people need to realize they're wrong in the first place.
2
@kishanrao936 "all of your statements are based on emotions and philosophy." Not at all. Scientifically speaking, there is no fundamental difference between a newborn baby and a fetus. And the only scientifically consistent sign of life (in the context of human beings) is brain activity, which the fetus develops at about six weeks after conception. "It’s your right to believe the blob of cells that gets created at fertilization is a person" Well that would be a different argument, but not the one I'm making. But it doesn't matter, right? Because if we drew the line at when they develop brain activity, it would still be too soon to satisfy most people who are pro-abortion. "Equating a fetus with a child is ridiculous because the child is offered protection under the constitution- a fetus is not" Which is a fallacious appeal to authority. Lawmakers don't decide what an entity is, they can only observe and try to learn about the entity and then hopefully make laws based on that knowledge.
2
@Alias Fakename Even if you could substantiate your claim about why I'm anti-abortion (which we both know you can't), that wouldn't do anything to refute the fact that killing innocent human beings for convenience is wrong. And of course, no one is forcing women to birth children. If there is a force behind that, it would be the force of nature set into motion by decisions the woman (and man) made. What you need to realize, is that the child is already here, whether he/she is located within the mother's womb or not. You're advocating killing a child. It's that simple.
2
@kishanrao936 "Nobody is arguing for the right to kill living human beings." That's literally what abortion is. The right to kill an innocent human being with its own unique genetic code, its own heartbeat, and its own independent brain activity. If you would change the standard for "living" on this topic, then you're not being scientifically consistent, as brain activity in particular is the universal sign of life (you're not pronounced dead until that's gone). "the tucker Carlsons of the world who really don’t give a hoot about abortion but are catering to the anti-woman, pro-fascist crowd." Lol, again, you've given no reason for me to believe that Tucker Carlson or anyone else is any of those things. But even assuming that he is, and everyone who is anti-abortion is just a woman-hater (including the women), how does that justify killing an innocent human being? "You’re not defined as alive until you are born. That is how science and the constitution define life." Dead wrong about the science, as I explained. As for the Constitution: 1. I would like you to provide a link to show that it denies that fetuses are living human beings. and 2. The laws are supposed to follow ethics and reality, not the other way around. So even if the Constitution denies the reality that someone is alive before they're born, that's simply it being wrong as well as you.
2
@666tiger7 A fetus is most certainly a person. Or at least, there is no scientifically or logically consistent definition of "person" or "human being" that would exclude the fetus.
2
@hexl702too5 No difference in terms of the being you're taking the life from. And there's no justification for taking an innocent human being's life for convenience.
2
How silly. You're pro-life if you just plain don't think they should be killed. Whether or not money should later be stolen from someone else to compensate for poor planning on the part of the mother and father, thinking maybe we shouldn't kill innocent human beings is a virtue.
2
@hexl702too5 "there is justification, you just don’t like it." Not at all. Killing an innocent human being is a very serious thing. And just to avoid the temporary suffering of pregnancy isn't sufficient reason to do that. "but you don’t have any jurisdiction over a woman’s uterus" And you don't have any jurisdiction over someone else's life. I know the baby is geographically located in the woman's body, temporarily, but how does that grant her the right to kill him/her? "How do you force a woman to undergo nine months of unwanted suffering, against her will?" I wouldn't be forcing anything. There is a force of nature that brings that about, but that's put into motion by the woman. Then you end up with a human being (still inside the womb) who she wants to kill. "What pro-lifers call a woman’s convenience, I call her life, liberty and future" Nonsense. Unless you believe that a woman's life, liberty and future are just gone after childbirth (which of course is false). The woman goes on to live the rest of a full and happy life either way. Only person who has their life taken is the baby. As for conservatives vs. liberals, I'd take the side of those who care about women before they're even born, over those who like to kill them or sniff them from behind 😋
1
@hexl702too5 Nothing silly about the fact that I didn't force anyone to become pregnant creating a human being. We're just saying you shouldn't kill them once they've been created, no matter where they're geographically located. "I’m talking about forcing her to STAY pregnant when she doesn’t want to..." Which translates into not allowing her to kill someone. It's like saying you're forcing a man to do your bidding when you insist that he can't punch someone in the face. Technically you are controlling his body at that point too. But there are justified and unjustified examples of controlling others.
1
@hexl702too5 "one way to force a woman to stay pregnant against her will, would be to put her into a sheep pen and detain her for nine months" Actually that, too, would probably be bad for the baby. Besides which, there's no need to shackle or closely observe every person just because some of them are violent. That'd be like putting everyone in a sheep pen and detaining them, men included. "should abortion be a criminal offense?" Yes, because it is killing an innocent human being for the sake of convenience. However, I tend to think it's the "doctors" who should pay most dearly for this. A layman (e.g., a random pregnant woman) may or may not know the extent of what she's doing when she "gets an abortion" (which, even the term "abortion" itself implies that the creation of life is simply being cancelled when in fact it's already created but I digress). But a doctor knows perfectly well what's going on out of sight, what the being they're killing is. They know it's not just a "clump of cells", for example. So they're more responsible than someone who goes along with it not thoroughly understanding the science. "what penalty should women pay?" As it is with most crimes, it would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. But there should be some penalty for taking an innocent life or being an accomplice in doing so.
1
@hexl702too5 "When a prosecutor gets a murder case, the range of penalties will not include “you get to have a good cry and go home"" Indeed! There needs to be a tangible penalty for those who kill innocent people for convenience. Yes, even if they're doing it to "help" a woman who really, really, really doesn't want to be pregnant. "Which one is a suitable penalty for abortion?" Again, it would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. As it is when anyone else kills someone. It isn't always as simple as even ruling it as a murder, sometimes they call it something else and consider a different range of penalties. That's the legal system for you. ""A random woman may not know what she’s doing" Wow…." Wow how? It's neither false nor offensive to simply acknowledge that a layman might not understand the reality of something such as an abortion. But see that's me giving the woman the benefit of the doubt. If she does thoroughly understand that she's agreeing to the killing an innocent human being for convenience, then she's worse than ignorant - she's evil. "almost 50 years of you guys hollering “Murder!” and “it’s a child not a choice!”" Idk who "you guys" is referring to; I myself wasn't always anti-abortion. As for the label of "murder", that may depend on legal definitions which makes it a fairly trivial point in either direction. And it's certainly a choice of a kind, just like I can make the choice to either befriend or be violent against someone. "And women are STILL so ignorant!" I disagree. I think some women are ignorant just like some men are. But others are getting smarter and wiser by the day. "Are you accusing the pro-loafers of doing a lousy job of getting their message across?" Actually, yes. Pro-lifers are not unlike most groups: they think it a good strategy to put their most loud and obnoxious (and often ignorant) members up front to represent them. "I thought you were the ones with the impeccable arguments." You think too much in terms of group identity. Some pro-lifers are right by accident. They believe that a fetus is a life because someone told them god said so, for example. If you look at the science, a fetus is a human being, but not everyone knows that. "Maybe the doctor thinks it’s a clump of cells too!" And maybe there's a mathematician somewhere who thinks 2 plus 2 equals 5. Anything's possible, I guess. ""The doctor should get the penalty" wow..." What's so shocking about holding someone accountable, for directly killing an innocent human being when they should know that's what they're doing? Again, it's highly unlikely they don't know the science behind it. "so you wanna let a co-conspirator to murder totally off, every time!" If you're talking about the woman, again, that would depend. Some people do really bad things entirely by accident, or with faulty information we can't reasonably blame them for believing. If you're helping me throw some "trash" away, but I've hidden a live baby in one of the trash bags without your knowing, should you get some sort of penalty there? "Just because liberals are so good at brainwashing women into thinking they aren’t killing real babies!" Men and women both. There's plenty of men out there saying women should be able to get these "abortions" too, and for most of the same reasons. "Would you accept rationale for other crimes?" Naturally. You have to determine intent as part of any case. And part of that is figuring out who knew what, and when.
1
@hexl702too5 ME: "What’s so shocking about holding somebody accountable for killing an innocent human being" YOU: "When you are stomping on someone’s rights to do it." And there it is - our fundamental disagreement. You think people (and of course only some people, namely women) have the right to kill innocent human beings for convenience, and I don't. I don't see how we're going to resolve this particular debate, given that disagreement. "Women have an inherent right to decide if /when/how many children they bear and what pain they suffer." Not if it means killing someone who's already been created. And this shouldn't be controversial.
1
@hexl702too5 "Bodily autonomy" does nothing to justify killing someone else though. And it is for convenience, because it's not to save someone else's life or some form of justice or even revenge against someone who's done you wrong.
1
@hexl702too5 Yes but even then she's the one who caused that harm to her body. Killing another human being because you set something into motion that may now harm you is still unjustified.
1
Info God Biden is that you?
1
@sp45ih Nonsense. I'd wager to guess they wouldn't approve of any men killing babies either. And what's wrong is wrong, even if some of the people who disagree with you are men. Indeed, it sounds to me like you're the one who may be sexist. Guilty dog barking first and all...
1