Comments by "King Orange" (@kingorange7739) on "The New Young Faces of the Anti-Abortion Movement" video.

  1. The debate is not within life threatening cases. Most pro life members are fine with that exception
    3
  2. Iris vermeend biology says otherwise. Maybe u should study it.
    3
  3. Such as? Also how does that excuse the killing of an innocent human being?
    3
  4. Alok Singh Rawat I’ll come back to ur first question. However u do realize that I am aware of the consequences that can have. But here’s the thing. It’s no excuse. U don’t get to kill others to make ur own life better.
    3
  5. I will.
    3
  6.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  Not having a sense of ownership doesn't mean jack. A newborn does not have a sense of ownership either. Does that make it ok to kill it? Also Child definition: "a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority." or "a son or daughter of any age." A fetus does fall under the generalized term of a child. It may not be one biologically due to the stage of development. But within generalized definitions, a fetus is a child.
    2
  7.  @sophiekoren6447  "it’s not your place to tell someone They canning can’t do with their body" - Again it is not about their body. I do not care about what they do with their body. I care about what they do with their child's body. Also yes it can be. Plenty of laws dictate what people can do with their bodies. Seatbelt laws, drinking age, smoking age, age of consent, drafting, jury duty. Need I go on? "sometimes if a woman is raped or incest her only option is abortion" - U mean 2%? Also again, there is always other options unless ur life is literally at risk as a result of the pregnancy. "so the thing that’s morally wrong is the rape in the incest not the abortion." - So are u concurring that abortion in majority cases outside of rape and incest should be illegal? Because if not it clearly displays that u r only trying to use that as a pathetic excuse and that it is not even ur topic or care or concern.
    2
  8. marissa danielson so it’s not wrong to terminate u? Because here’s a secret, we are all a clump of cells. 😂
    2
  9. Mel Pug ok why is that?
    2
  10.  @melpug4817  You do not need to apologize for an honest mistake my friend. We all make them. I understand your point, but the simple basis is we will never know that for certain and ultimately it should never be our choice to make on whether or not the child's life is worth living or is worth risking. That choice must only fall on the one truly making those choices for themselves. The one which like I had, should have a chance in life. A life in which they can form relationships, love, hate, challenge, learn, grow, mature, form views, and bring purpose to their existence.
    2
  11. Nobody You know it’s not that we are against options, we are against options that involve the death of the baby.
    2
  12. Wesley Heartland in the case of preventing murder it really is
    2
  13. Wesley Heartland tell me how it is not murder?
    2
  14. Wesley Heartland how is it self defense when it has less than a 1% chance of killing u.
    2
  15. @Wesley Heartland It is a human being with the potential of becoming a person. Also what makes someone a person?
    2
  16. Wesley Heartland because by admitting to that u are admitting to killing an innocent human being.
    2
  17. Wesley Heartland not necessarily. First off abortion is not a passive removal but an active termination. Secondly to an extent the mother made the choice when she chose the risk of sexual intercourse. (Rape is an exception). Thirdly it is clearly stated that one’s own rights does not extend to the right to infringe on the lives of others. A mother is infringing on the life of a baby.
    2
  18. Wesley Heartland also that is not what reproductive slavery means.
    2
  19. Wesley Heartland consent to pregnancy is not a relevance. One is simply a consequence of the other. Again no one is forcing the woman to do anything we are only stating what she can’t do. Which is killing a baby for convenience. By all means if she has a method to remove the baby without killing it then she can do that. But when that is not an option, then we are simply saying that she can’t kill a baby to undo the consequences of her own actions.
    2
  20. Wesley Heartland not really. Again I believe a woman’s rights but I don’t believe they override the baby’s right to live. Again I don’t understand why U think it would be ok to kill a baby for the sake of a woman’s convenience.
    2
  21.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  Not really no. If he can explain why then maybe a debate can come into play. Otherwise it is an empty statement.
    2
  22. Not her body, it’s the child’s body. Not her choice
    2
  23.  @acgraphics1139  We are all clumps of cells and appearance does not override biology.
    2
  24. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg I can put that same logic with human beings after birth. Do tell me what determines a right to live if it isn’t fundamental to every human being?
    2
  25. criss Cross if u can’t provide u give them to ones that can. In fact the government makes u do that. Adoption is a thing u know
    2
  26. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg also if they had no right to live, then being charged double homocide over killing a pregnant woman makes no sense
    2
  27.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  So being religious makes someone dumb?
    2
  28. Known people who did it. It’s possible. 2 wrongs don’t make a right
    2
  29. Again, u do know adoption is an option. no one is forcing you to raise the kid.
    2
  30.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  Ok. And again, adoption negates any need for it. It is literally just choosing to kill the child.
    2
  31. Pathetic.
    2
  32.  @a.vulcan6282  "Someone using your body is not the same thing as performing an action for someone." True. Doesn't change the point. "Also, you aren't legally obligated to feed your kid - you can just make a phone call to Social Services." - Yes u r. If the alternative is not available, u cannot choose to starve ur kid. Either u do it, or u seek an alternative. During pregnancy there aren't alternatives. "Wrong again. You're never legally obligated to give YOUR blood to someone irrespective of if you were at fault or not, which is a separate issue." - I never said u were. But if someone died because of u and u chose not to take action that could save him or her, u are held legally responsible.
    2
  33. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg irreverent
    2
  34. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg ?. I do not even understand u anymore. Cry about what?
    2
  35. That’s a decision they make before creating the child
    2
  36. What? 😂
    2
  37. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg care you use any factual backing?
    1
  38. What?
    1
  39. True. But it’s not ur body. It’s the child’s
    1
  40. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg someone in a coma does not have a sense of ownership either. Doesn’t mean they can be killed automatically. I already explained to u that consciousness and pain doesn’t constitute a human being protected because if it did a lot more people would have to be killed than an unborn fetus. Personhood is a legal concept and not a scientific one and as such is not relevant. Anyone can be denied personhood depending on the nation. Doesn’t mean killing them is ok. Fetus is the stage of development of the human so yes I will give u that. Also yes it is. A fetus by definition does still count within the generalized term of a child. Again some definitions may contradict this. But that is at best an inconclusive matter. But even if not a child. It’s still a human being.
    1
  41. What r u talking about?
    1
  42. Katherin define kids.
    1
  43. Katherin what age r u referring to?
    1
  44. @XXXδ0NDƐRXXX ok and most don’t get pregnant or do anything until teen years. Unless you want to find me a statistic percentage. This adds nothing
    1
  45. How so?
    1
  46. marissa danielson so it’s not morally wrong to kill babies? To kill innocence? Ur joking right?
    1
  47. Because that’s not her body. U don’t get decide for ur child if their life is worth living. And there is no consistency with the logic. If a newborn was born, and a mother decided then that she doesn’t want it and stab it in the head then she would rightfully be arrested for homocide. It’s not different here
    1
  48. Christian Bauer 1st point. Using the mother’s body is not the same as being part of it. It shares nutrients, 2nd point, ur relying on a threaten to do worse. I understand ur concerns with foster care, and believe that’s an issue that needs to be fixed. But ur dumbster argument is faulty when it’s the same logic as someone threaten to kill an entire school over not being allowed to get revenge as a bully. It doesn’t hold up. Third, ur not a fully formed being till 20. Also given ur logic. What constitutes a human being?
    1
  49.  @Randomyoutuber-4831  "1st point, by that logic all the blood cells, eggs, and other micro organisms in a female's body are not part of the mother's body but rather just using it as they share nutrients with her." - Ur relying on a straw man argument. Ur comparing building blocks to one's own body versus actual separate entities. A fetus exists with its own genetic code, dna strand, and own set of essential body parts. The contrast is pretty straight forward. "2nd, alot of the anti-abortion supporters seem to cease to care what happens to children after they leave the womb, such as refusing to increase welfare spending and funding to orphanages; it's insanity, they're forcing people to have children and then take away their ability to properly care for them." - Ok there we agree, so the fix is easy, we outlaw abortion and then actually work together to fix the orphanage. But that is the thing. Both problems need to be sorted out, u cannot use one evil to justify a greater evil being committed. Now I disagree with the prospect that they r forcing anything, at the end of the day, unless the mother was raped which is an extreme minority case, then they chose the risk to get pregnant and as such need to take responsibility for it. "third, until a fetus is fully developed it is not considered a human being." - So ur not a human being till ur 20? Again, human development does not end till then, so by ur logic, 5 year olds aren't human either. But tell u what, I'll spare u the troll comment due to the poor choice in words and instead ask when u think a fetus is fully developed. What constitutes it being fully developed? "But I have to ask, why exactly should a mother not be allowed to kill their child? and that's not sarcasm, I'm asking that as a serious question." - Wait so r u seriously going the route that a mother should be allowed to kill her newborn, or 6 year old with no consequences? Because that is literally homocide. So if u r, then u need some help. But to answer it more logically. It is because again, it falls under homocide and murder. It is the taking of an innocent human being. do u not find anything wrong with that? In fact I'll reverse ur question. Why in any right mind, should a mother be allowed to kill her child?
    1
  50.  @Randomyoutuber-4831  "1st point, just because it has a DNA strand does not make it a human being; sperm and eggs contain DNA strands and they are not considered to be human." - True but it does not contain a separate genetic code that can develop. Again, a Sperm and egg are only extensions of the dna and genetics of the person carrying them. A zygote on the other hand, forms its own chromosomes and contains its own unique genetic code. Also that ignores earlier points, what constitutes a human being to u? "2nd point, and what about all the cases of unwanted pregnancies from drunken nights," - Still fault of their own "failed birth control," - Does not work 100% and anyone using it would know this. "or the mother simply being unfit to raise a child in the cases of drug or alcohol addiction?" - Carry to term and then taken by the government to be handed to an adoption parent. "Why does the woman have to take responsibility in this case?" - Because she is still in fault based on the choices she made which put the child in this position. This is why fathers cannot just take off and leave without being forced into child support. Same principle. If one parent is held accountable, the other has to as well. To argue otherwise is sexist. "Not every women, chooses to get pregnant." - True but again, with the exception of rape, they choose the risk. The same way a drunk risks his life or the lives of others when driving home. "And even though rape is rare it is still a very valid case." - Valid, yes, but in ur case, not relevant. That is not the line ur drawing which means ur only using it as an excuse which holds no weight in this debate. "And would you rather see orphanages overflowing with unwanted kids because around 600,000 babies are aborted every year which means 600,000 kids are going to be crammed into the foster care system each year." - I mean if that for the time being is the only other option to avoid them being killed, yes. "3rd point, let me rephrase, a fully FORMED fetus as opposed to developed. Which is about 24 weeks into the pregnancy, after that point it is a human being and should not be aborted; by that point the mother has probably decided to keep the child or missed the opportunity to get rid of it." - Thanks for giving me a line, but ok, why 24 weeks, why not 23 or 22 or 21? What makes 24 weeks special? Also again, where I disagree is the mother made that choice well and before that point. I mean many can argue that logic at 10 or 12 weeks, I argue it at conception. "fourth and final point, animals in the wild eat their babies all the time: bears, felines, canines, primates, and many species of rodents practice this to name a few. But you're not looking at this from a logical standpoint, you're looking at it from a moral stand point; taking an innocent life is wrong from a moral standpoint, but from a logical standpoint when a mother gives birth to a child they are accepting the responsibility of raising the child the way they see fit because that life was placed into their care, therefore if they seek to extinguish that life they should be allowed to because that life was entrusted to them by society" - Wait wait, hold on. U just said earlier u think 24 weeks should be the cut off, yet ur now advocating the murder of a child is ok because the mother is doing it? So if u got news that a mother drowned her six year old son, that would not bother u? Children are not slaves, they aren't just property u know. Also there is no logic to that, ur going back to the mid evil days in terms of logic. 21st century only succeeded logically because we upheld morals. "I mean there have been tons of incidents of women leaving fetuses abandoned. But past all that, I never said killing was a good thing (invoking straw man again) but I said that the option should exist because that's the risk society simply has to take if they are forcing a child on a woman." - So to u, there should be no legal consequences for a mother drowning 3 of her kids? Dude if ur actually advocating that is ok, I beg u to get help. That is not things work. Again, applying ur logic would simply revert the world back to the stone ages. Also yes, society is taking a risk, we take a risk in everything we do. Does not mean they won't act against people who think to do something so monstrous. Again, I am actually concerned that u r advocating homocide to be legal. Also society ain't forcing anything. The mother does not have to keep the kid. Once when the kid is born, the mother will never have to see him or her again if she does not want to. Hell some adoption parents even cover medical bills. So again faulty logic and borderline insanity when advocating the legal killing of innocent children. Seriously u must be joking or u need to get help.
    1
  51.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  So u mean to tell me that if a baby was in a coma then u would be ok to kill it? Consciousness nor pain constitutes a human being. If it did, a lot more than fetuses would be allowed to be killed. Also I explained this before. By generalized definitions. A fetus does fall under the definition of a child. Again at least in the generalized term. Victimhood does not mean jack either. It can very much been seen as a victim. Does the law say murder only applies to "victims"? No. It applies to every innocent human being. Murder is murder.
    1
  52.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  "No, personhood is established when a baby is born more or less." - Ok and? Personhood is only a legal term and not a scientific one and as such is not relevant. "-Strawman argument." - How is that a strawman argument. It is simple truth. "-Right, because children are born." - It does not have to be. Again, read the definitions. No where does it say that someone has to be born to classify as a child in the generalized form. "-Actually, it doe, otherwise, you can't say it's wrong." - Bullshit. By that logic, killing anything uncoucious without pain would be ok. Also yes I can. "-It doesn't need to. It's implied." - Where in the constitution does it imply such a notion? Also imply means ur only interpreting it as that. Not that u actually know. "Abortion isn't murder." - For the time being yes. But it does not have to be to be wrong. Because leaving the law basis out of it, it can pretty much be it. Again. By the same logic. The Nazis did not murder 6 million jews because it was lawful within their country. Does that mean ur going to defend their right to do that? I certainly hope not. U see my point. Using legality as a protection is fools hardy when concepts like personhood are subjective. Jews were denied personhood does that mean killing them was ok?
    1
  53.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  "It's also a philosophical term, you ignoramus." - So? Philosophy is not objective. It is pretty much just as subjective as legality. Also so what? Clearly the Nazis and Soviets disagreed with that philosophy. "It's a strawman argument, because I wasn't making the argument of whether fetuses are human beings or not." - Ok, then ur yet to justify why killing them is ok to u? "That is how most dictionaries define children." - Source? Give me one please? "False. Consciousness and the ability to feel pain are not the only factors of whether somebody is a victim or not. Again, stop talking about Logic, until you actually know something about it." - Then tell me the factors that matter to u. U cannot just say that I am not using logic when I am only countering the evidence u provided. If there were other factors that mattered to u, maybe u should say what those factors are. U cannot call me ignorant, when ur not even giving me the info behind ur claim to properly counter. "By the fact that the supreme court has ruled that fetuses aren't Constitutional persons." - Ok and? All I am saying is that it is not a fundamental right. And again, personhood doesn't mean jack. That is not an objective ground to stand on. "Sure, but you have not demonstrated why abortion is wrong. You are just arbitrarily asserting that is wrong simply because a fetus is human." - No I hold it to the same standard as any innocent human being. Even non citizens in the country, still have rights. And still have a right to live. Killing an illegal immigrant without probable cause would still count as murder. I am simply holding them all to the same standard. Because by admitting that they are a human being, u r also indirectly stating that there is no consistency to why killing a fetus would be ok without applying the same logic against those after birth. "Stop talking about things you have no clue about." - Such as? "It's very clearly that murdering actual persons, is wrong. You can't say the same thing about fetuses." - Jews were not people in the Nazi government. So ur logic does not work here. "Yes, I see that your point is a blatant and pathetic false equivalency fallacy." - U r yet to prove how it is either. "Ignoring the definition of murder, while at the same time claiming abortion is murder, is just ignorance." - Where did I claim it as murder? Again given that murder is a legal term, it again is not the point. I am saying abortion should be classified as murder as it has nothing to defend it without condoning the deaths people that would be classified as murder. "Jews were clearly persons in a philosophical sense." - Philosophy is subjective and not universal. The Nazis did not have to agree with that philosophy. By the logic u r using, the Nazis had every right to commit the holocaust. Again, personhood is not scientific. There is no objectivity behind it and as such holds no relevance in this context.
    1
  54.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  "The whole issue of abortion is philosophical...." - true, but context and objective facts to back the opinion is not. "Not to mention, objectivity and subjectivity are both philosophical terms... LOL!" - Perhaps but they stem from the basis of fact versus opinion which are not philosophical. U r actually trying to put yourself in a position where u do not need to use facts or backing. Pathetic. And I doubt ur this stupid to know what I mean. Objective by definition means universal, it can be proven. U cannot prove or disprove a philosophy until it is put in application. And as such just remains an extension of an opinion. "Irrelevant." - Not really, given u r trying to use a basis that is not objective or factual. "Again, I'm not the one trying to argue that It should be illegal, that's all you, and the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that case." - Which I already provided. But u cannot just ignore the evidence without a source to counter it. That is what I am trying to say. Yes a burden of proof to the argument would fall on me, but that only means I need to start with evidence to back me. Once that is done, you have to have logic, factual info, or statistics to counter it. Otherwise, again. It is just falling under denial. "Merriam Webster" - Child definition: "1a: a young person especially between infancy and puberty a play for both children and adults b: a person not yet of the age of majority (see MAJORITY sense 2a) Under the law she is still a child. c: a childlike or childish person He is a child in most business matters. 2a: a son or daughter of human parents Do you have any children? b: DESCENDANT the children of Israel 3a: an unborn or recently born person … Meghan Markle, married Prince Harry, now pregnant with child. — Laura Simonetti bdialect : a female infant 4: one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs a child of the streets a child of nature America has been called "the first child of the Enlightenment" 5: PRODUCT, RESULT barbed wire … is truly a child of the plains — W. P. Webb 6usually childe \ ˈchī(-​ə)ld \, archaic : a youth of noble birth , Dictionary.com - Child Definiition: a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children. a son or daughter: All my children are married. a baby or infant. a human fetus. a childish person: He's such a child about money. a descendant: a child of an ancient breed. Yourdictionary.com - Child Definition a human infant; baby an unborn human offspring; fetus a boy or girl in the period before puberty a son or daughter; offspring a descendant a member of a tribe, clan, etc.: often used in pl.: children of Israel a person like a child in interests, judgment, etc., or one regarded as immature and childish a person identified with a specified place, time, etc.: a child of the Renaissance a thing that springs from a specified source; product: a child of one's imagination ARCHAIC childe BRIT., DIAL. a female infant Cambridge dictionary - Child Defenition: a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a son or daughter of any age: an eight-year-old child As a child I didn't eat vegetables. A small group of children waited outside the door. Both her children are now married with children of their own. Jan is married with three young children. See also brainchild disapproving an adult who behaves badly, like a badly behaved child: He's such a child if he doesn't get his own way. a child of sth someone who has been very influenced by a particular period or situation: Me, I'm a child of the 60s. More examples She had to drag her child away from the toy shop. Her eldest child is nearly 14. She's got four children, all under the age of five. The children are always hungry when they get home from school. Don't be so silly - you're acting like a child! Thesaurus: synonyms and related words Want to learn more? Improve your vocabulary with English Vocabulary in Use from Cambridge. Learn the words you need to communicate with confidence. Idioms be child's play children should be seen and not heard (great) with child (Definition of child from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press) child | INTERMEDIATE ENGLISH child noun [ C ] US /tʃɑɪld/ plural children US/ˈtʃɪl·drən/ a person from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a son or daughter of any age: Jan has a three-year-old child and two school-age children. Now in their 60s, Jerome and Sally have two grown children (= adult sons or daughters). childlike Macmillan dictionary - Child Definition: 1 a young person from the time they are born until they are about 14 years old The center has places for 30 children. The movie is not suitable for young children. He can’t understand – he’s just a child. Synonyms and related words - General words for child and types of child adolescent a growing boy/girl bairn ... Explore Thesaurus ​ 1a ​ONLY BEFORE NOUNfor or about children a child car seat new programs to address the problem of child poverty Synonyms and related words + 1b ​ONLY BEFORE NOUNused for showing that the person mentioned is a child a child actor child workers Synonyms and related words + 2 someone’s son or daughter of any age All of our children are grown and married. They’re expecting their second child in May. Synonyms and related words + See also only child ​ 3 an adult who behaves in ways that are not reasonable or sensible Synonyms and related words + 4 someone whose character is influenced by the main political and social attitudes of a particular period of time child of: a selfish, materialistic child of the ’80s - Good job sourcing ur info. Except the irony is the very sources u tried to use to defeat me. All but 2 actively work against u, and only 1 does not include a definition that can imply a fetus being included. Or did u think I would not look? Seriously. How much detail u clearly miss is actually hilarious to me.
    1
  55. ​ asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  "Consciousness, the ability to feel pain, violation of their will, are the main ones." - So does someone only have to have one of these factors or all 3 for them to be protected by u? Also really? For making a fuss about me stating the obvious that consciousness and pain do not work as a line u could only come up with 1 extra? "I can when you counter me with fallacious arguments, like the one you just strawmanned me with..." - Not when u can't prove that it is a fallacy. U have not even proved it is strawman. Seriously. tell me how it is either. "I have, many times, yet you seem to forget every time..." - U only consistently mentioned consciousness and pain which I already explained are not consistent lines. U only mentioned 3 since then. Victimhood, which again falls under the same problem as consciousness. Since ownership which also falls under the same problems as consciousness, and now violation of their will, Which regardless of the answer to my previous question in response to your third factor, is going to be easy to deconstruct as well. “I certainly can, when you purposely use the less accurate terminology, and you keep committing the same old tired fallacious arguments over and over again.” - r u kidding me? U must be trolling at this point. The very sources u tried to use in order to prove me wrong have definitions that actively work against your argument. At that point it is just u being blind or really special. U still have not proven how my arguments are fallacious or strawman. So sure u can say it all u want, but without context to back it. U just look like a big idiot. Or a troll if u want to defend ur pride a little bit. “What does that have to do with a fetus being a victim or not??? This is just another Red Herring argument.” - “Victim definition: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. “ See the problem here? Because personhood again only falls under legal terms. It is not an accurate measure to determine if someone should be killed or not for the reason I already mentioned. Anyone can be denied personhood depending on the government. Does not mean that killing them is ok. “Again, it does, because otherwise, you can't say there is a victim, and if there's no victim, you can't say it's wrong.” - So the jews can’t say what the Nazis did was wrong during the holocaust. A victim has to be a person, and jews were not people in the Nazi government. So therefore, the jews aren’t victims? Also again. U do not have to be a victim. One can simply be a recipient of a crime or form of oppression. Which would also allow them to base something as wrong. “But that's a false equivalence fallacy. It's easy to see why killing an actual grown person is wrong, that's not the case with fetuses.” - No it isn’t. Not if you're trying to look at it from a pure logical standpoint. Again, our emotions keep us from harming others in that sense. But if u invalidate the life of an unborn human being. Then there is no consistent reasoning why killing an adult should not be allowed either. Either all humans have intrinsic value or none do. U cannot cherry pick without being discriminated against or an elitist. “Irrelevant. Killing immigrants is taking something from somebody that they didn't want taken from them, and abortion is not.” - Once again inconsistent logic. Someone in a coma cannot object to being killed either yet they are still protected. Also by the time a fetus gains full brain activity it does have a resistance to death. It will try to defend itself. “That standard no longer makes any sense when you apply it to fetuses.” - And why is that? “False. I have stated the differences many many times now, you are just too dense to acknowledge it.” - differences that yet again cannot be held to standard because of the inconsistency. There is no consistent logic u can use. “Logic.” - Show them then and be consistent without contradicting urself. “Nonsense. The Nazi's just denied that they were persons. That has no bearing on whether they were persons or not. You have crap reasoning skills.” - Yes, because person is a legal term. So they can deny personhood. The Soviets did the same thing. Hell America did the same thing. What part of this do you not understand? Personhood is a legal term. Which means, it can be granted or denied to anyone that the governing system desires. And may I remind u that the Nazis were not held for crimes against persons but crimes against humanity. Humans!! Again, all human beings must be held to the same standard. Either all human beings have intrinsic value or none do. “I did, you falsely equated what Nazi's thought of Jews, to what Jews actually were, which is persons.” - No they weren’t! Person definition: “a human being regarded as an individual.” The Nazis did not regard the Jews as individuals! They were not legally recognized as people. So in terms of the Nazi government. They were not people. This obviously changed after the war once when the Americans took over. But u see what I mean. Depending on the system. Personhood can be granted or denied by any system of power. Slaves were not regarded as people by European powers and America, Jews were not regarded as people by the Nazis, The Capitalists were not regarded as people by the Soviets. Personhood is subjective. It is a made up concept. It is a construct of the current power base. Humanity is not. Again, see the problem here? “10th comment down” - Ok fair enough. I will admit to making a mistake there. But even so, still taking of life of an innocent human being and if abortion did become illegal, it would then be classified as murder due to the other factors of the definition. “it's also a philosophical term, and YOU brought it up, so don't give me that crap.” - Philosophy is subjective!!! Christ almighty. Dude what part of this do u not get? There is no objectivity behind personhood or in this case murder. I admit the use of the word was an error of my own judgement however, I still stand by the other points and again if it was made illegal would be categorized as murder. “You are just making up your own definition of murder.” - no I really am not. Murder definition: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Abortion is premeditated killing of one human being by another. The only thing that keeps it from being murder is that it is currently legal. “So is abortion, but that isn't stopping you from arguing against it, now does it?” - Yes, because I can use objective logic, reasoning, evidence, info, and statistics to back my points. I have not many if any contradictions to my arguments. My claim might be subjective but the backing is objective. And I can objectively state that allowing abortion when claiming that that the taking of innocent human beings is wrong is a contradiction. “It matters not. The idea that Jews were persons, is practically universally accepted. Arguing against that, is just making yourself look foolish.” - According to what? The systems put in place nowadays? The same systems that once denied slaves personhood? Things change, yes, but again, the freeing of slaves was done out of the principle of human rights. Not people. Because again, they were not recognized as people at the time. This is the same scenario all over again. Also there is no such thing as practically universally accepted. All that translate to is that the majority agree. But here is the thing. Even if everyone agrees on something does not automatically make it true. Because again, objective claims have to be proven. “False” - No it is quite true. U are still condoning innocent human beings to die. U r still basing it that no consequence or redemption should be done against those that take the lives of innocence. And again other forms of arguments u tried to use to separate them failed due to yet again a lack of consistency. This is not a hard concept to understand. “You could say that for your entire argument against abortion. You aren't that bright, are you?” - Again, not really. Because I have actual objective backing. Again, My points still hold logic and aren’t contradictory. Consistency is part of having a good logic. Without it, u contradict yourself and make yourself a complete hypocrite. Also, that is trying so hard to strawman. Ur basically trying to go against the concept of objectivity in general. I can prove my claims with backing. Again I may not be able to say Abortion is objectively wrong. The same way genocide cannot be stated as objectively wrong because Nazis and psychos can disagree with me and have no way to factually prove one way or another. Morals cannot be proven. However, I can call out contradictions and put the objective claim that if one thinks killing human beings is wrong, then it would be contradictory to then be pro choice. Again abortion is a front to the very foundations that the USA stands on, based on the principle that all “men” (Mankind) are created equal and have unalienable rights. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. Abortion is fundamentally anti life. And as such, is a contradiction to those principles. Which again will in the long run will result in no consistent logic to why killing a 30 year old man is wrong.
    1
  56. ​ asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  “Most of those factors.” - So 2 out of the 3? Most really does fall under being a bit subjective don’t you think? Again. Cherry Picking. “Oh they do, only you are just pathetically trying to beat me up for those requisites, because they don't magically start at an universal and precise instant, which is just a pathetic continuation fallacy.” - Again. They aren’t consistent. I already stated why. Consciousness means that you would condone people in comas to death by the same logic, and pain is really out of line because it implies that as long as the death is not painful then it is ok. Which does not work either. Again. U r trying to yet again ignore that. “You didn't _ask…” - I don’t have to. U made the claim. U should have the decency to explain why while u make the claim. “By assuming those were the only 2 factors.” - I did not assume anything. I responded to what u gave me. If you had more to add, maybe you should have done it the first time. This is a debate, not a game of poker. “They actually are consistent when applied to 1st and 2 term fetuses, but again, you are pathetically committing a continuation fallacy to squeeze out of it.” - Again, no they really are not. Again I have already explained why consciousness and pain on their own are not enough and even if you were to combine the 2, there would still be those you would have to condone to death to be consistent with your own logic. And now since u mentioned it. Am I now to assume that ur against third trimester abortion? “There is no problem with consciousness. You are just trying to fallaciously make there seem like there is one…” - I already explained over and over why consciousness failed? Am I to assume that u condone those in comas to death? Or those with severe brain damage? If not then u r being hypocritical to ur own logic. “Without committing more logical fallacies? LOL!” - U r yet to prove why they are fallacies. Back ur claims like u actually have a brain, please. “No, they don't. The first definitions given are the most widely used, and you are pathetically appealing to the much lesser used, obscure definitions, which just shows you are cherry picking.” - They are in the very sources you tried to use!!!!! How is that Cherry Picking? I literally quoted all the definitions included. All of them!!!! If anything ur the one Cherry picking because u r trying to ignore info from your very own sources!!! Have u seriously had an apple fall that far from the tree? “Looking up those terms, explains how those are bad reasoning.” - Which I did and they worked for my logic, and even your own sources work for my logic. So I would hardly consider that bad reasoning when u cannot even consistently use sources that do not help my argument. “Right, fetuses aren't that.” - Because again, personhood is a legal term. Anyone can be granted or denied it depending on the nation. I do understand how is it so difficult for you to understand. How many times must I copy and paste definitions and concepts before you understand that? “No, personhood is also a philosophical term.” - Which again is irrelevant. It is again subjective! It is again, non universal or factual! What part of that can u not get through your thick skull?!! Look I try to keep cool through most of my debates but when I have to repeat the same debunk over and over and over again. It starts to get on my nerves. Seriously. U must have a really bad memory if u keep repeating already debunked arguments. “Subjective.” - Ok then ur perfectly fine with Jews and slaves being killed? They were not people either. “Again, the onus is on you, to demonstrate that it is not okay... What part of 'burden of proof', isn't your small brain understanding?” - Which I already explained. Yet u seem to dumb to see it. There has to be consitency with logic. Otherwise societies are doomed to fall or corrupt themselves. So again. I stated this before. There is not one consistent logic u can use to defend abortion without condoning the same logic against those after birth. That is my problem here and I have explained time and time again. Also again. I have already shown my proof and backing, yet u continue not to. And the few times u did provide sources, they worked against u. Seriously, if my brain is small, urs must be the size of a dime then. Because at least I can actually look through my sources to make sure that they are not actively going against my points. Unlike u. Idiot. “Again, strawman argument, as I'm not claiming personhood is based on what a particular government defines persons... Dam, you are dense…” - No? But u r trying to define it through a philosophy that cannot be proven and no one has an obligation to agree to. So no not really. Again ur literally resorting to, “I get to decide what is and isn’t a person.” Sorry kiddo. Life does not work that way. “Again, you don't know jack about Logic.” - Really, coming from someone who tries to objectify personhood and has sources that contradicts his own logic. And I’m the dense one. Yeah u keep telling urself that kiddo. “Emotions are not objective.” - Exactly. Thank u. Which is why I am saying u cannot hold them as a standard. From an emotional standpoint. It is a lot easier to kill an unborn fetus who cannot even be seen than a baby looking at you straight in the eyes yet logically, they are more a less the same. “I'm not doing that, so that's another strawman argument.” - Yes u r. Ur entire argument stems from that. U admitted to the Fetus being a human being yet still argue for the ability to kill it despite the logic not being consistent and again taken at a pure technical note would target groups outside said Fetus. That ain’t strawman. That is the simple truth. A Truth u keep denying. “There is, when you are committing continuum fallacies…” - “Wow I am going to keep calling my opponents arguments fallacies without so much of explaining why or providing counter logic.” What an amazing debater u r. U make it look so easy. Just keep saying no ur wrong without explaining why. What a revolution. Joking aside, Can you actually explain your reason then for why killing adults should not be allowed with the logic u used to condone killing unborn children? “Unwarranted assertion. Value is subjective.” - Then you're being elitist. If you're going to assert to me one human being is intrinsically worth more than the other over factors beyond their control, that that is you being an elitist and frankly using the same kind of logic that allowed men like Hitler to come to power. Yes, value is subjective. To the individual. But a value that holds consistent logic is objectively going to fall under one of those 2 categories. The universe does not choose favorites.
    1
  57.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  “Nonsense.” - Again not really. I already provided the reasoning as to why. If your stupid ass wants to deny it, that is your problem. Anyway congratulations, you have wasted my time. You know for how aggressive you were in the comment section on the video. I was really hoping that you could at least provide something new and thought provoking. I could not have been more disappointed. I honestly feel like I lost brain cells through this and I got bored with a debate. Something I never thought would happen. Even people dumber than u have more to offer as at least they can provide different arguments when their previously one fails. Even if they are all equally stupid, at least it gives me some entertainment in thinking of my next way to humiliate them. And those smarter than you actually provide well constructed arguments that try to be new or original that actually can be thought provoking and I would seriously have to work to create counters. But u r the worst of both worlds. Ur too stupid to take seriously and have any ounce of respect for, but not stupid enough to be entertained by you. At the end of the day, this debate has bored me. As u repeatly misused your own info, the little info u provided anyway, repeat already debunked arguments instead of using new ones, constantly made claims without backing or explaining them. And even had the launcuary to call me ignorant or dense when you haven’t sourced info or built actual objective and logical counters. Literally it has fallen down a paradox. And I can only debunk your limited arguments so much before I get tired of it. In the event that you actually come up with a new, original, well constructed, and sourced argument. Then by all means I will look forward to continuing this debate. Otherwise don’t bother wasting your time responding because I am not going to let you waste mine. If u do not respond, I will take it as your failure to come up with any real logical counters and claim my victory. So best of luck to you. I hope you can learn better debate skills because if not, you are going to do a shitty job at swaying undecided people. I used to be one of those people. Here is a little secret. I used to be Pro Choice. But then I saw the logical gaps. The gaps u keep putting in the surface that caused me to change my mind. So thanks for reassuring me of my choice.
    1
  58. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg oh if only half of what u said was true. I’m not the only who tried to use a subjective standard. Personhood as the thing that constitutes someone’s right to live. U did. I wasn’t the one who kept repeating debunked arguments. U did. I wasn’t the one beginning with trying to insult the other. U did. And again. I find it funny that u try to call me ignorant despite using a completely subjective standard that not everyone is in agreement to. Also I don’t tuck tail. I said I would be happy to respond for something actually new. So don’t twist my words to fit ur egocentric delusions. So just keep using the petty insults like most pro choice members do and u wonder why more and more people turn against u. Also again. I used the sources u provided me. I can’t cherry pick info that exists as a whole. Cherry-picking would be if I disregarded the other aspects of the sources. I didnt. But again most of ur sources held different definitions which made ur claim inclusive at best. But I don’t expect u to understand that. Like I said. If u want to actually do some research and present some new arguments to back your stance, then I’ll gladly continue. Otherwise ur just taking time away from other pro choice members that will actually provide good arguments. Again take the time to research, take the time to close the loop holes in your logic. And maybe just maybe you will fair alright.
    1
  59. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg do u even know the definition of ignorance? Again. I’m not going to waste time in something going no where. U didn’t even answer my questions that would of actually helped the argument move forward. Also again, none of them are fallacies. You have not proven that. They aren’t falsely equivalent. As again the same logic is being used. You are the one trying to ignore that. Also I never said I never insulted u. But I only began to do so as a response to ur own. I wanted to give u the respect of an opponent. But u clearly showed there was no point. Again, it’s not cherry picking when it’s within ur own sources. Again if anything u are the one cherry-picking because ur only trying to use the top definition on some of ur pages as the only validation. U cannot do that. If u site a source, u got to use and look into the full source. Otherwise u just contradict yourself yet again. Seriously explain how my arguments are fallacy with backing that I have not already debunked. Because again counciousness did not work, not pain, nor will, and once again personhood is a legal term so it is subjective which makes it irrelevant. So give me something different. So u may yet have an argument that makes sense.
    1
  60. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg it’s also funny to me that u purposely dodged questions that were meant to further challenge ur own logic basis. Maybe actually answer the questions that are productive. Seriously look in the mirror before trying to call other tucking tail. Anywho, like I said before. Give an actual new, decent, argument, that is sourced. If u can do that I’ll continue. Otherwise do not bother replying. Because it’s clear that is just coming down to a petty insult contest and I’m not going to take part in that any further. So again. I would actually recommend carefully reading through the previous points. Maybe you’ll learn something. Anywho if u have nothing else new to say then take care. Be safe from COVID. Because again I got some other pro choice people to attend to now.
    1
  61. OMG, r u joking? Dude, u do know most pro life are fine with emergency procedures being done to protect the mother.
    1
  62.  @colderester7058  Emergency procedure to save the mother's life is not the same is a deliberate killing of a human child. Don't strawman.
    1
  63.  @colderester7058  Also ur only accounted for less than 1% of abortion cases
    1
  64. We don’t ignore. We just don’t use it as an excuse to kill innocence
    1
  65. Also there is less than a 1% chance of the mother dying in childbirth within any first world nation
    1
  66.  @tarar8539  U don't remember being a newborn either. so why not kill u then? Also so what, just because u would not want to live that life does not mean others wouldn't be willing to endure it. U don't get to decide for them. Also it is not a hard choice for a mother. It is one of the easiest choices for some. Because they don't care. And for those that do care, and do see it as a hard choice. Doesn't that just kinda prove my point? If there was nothing wrong with it, it would not be a hard choice to make. The kind of choice that puts mothers in depressions and even consider suicide over. So no, considering that and the fact that it is not ur fucking life. That should not be her choice. No one gets to decide if that life is worth living or not than the individual in question. Plain and simple.
    1
  67.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  Such as? What biological terminology r we ignoring?
    1
  68.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  Again not really. No one is denying the stage of development that human being is in.
    1
  69.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  "Again not really. No one is denying the stage of development that human being is in." -Again, they are. Almost no Pro-lifers use the most accurate terminology, and they omit it on purpose, for the purpose of falsely equating insentient fetuses with sentient people, so they can appeal to your emotions, which are logical fallacies, but again, I wouldn't expect an ignorant Pro-lifer like you, to actually know anything about Logic..." - Again what logic am I missing? U are literally cherrypicking when it is ok to kill another human being. Yet u aren't giving a logical reason that actually is consistent.
    1
  70. According to what?
    1
  71. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg wow. So because he has an opinion against abortion, that means he should get fucked? I thought the left was meant to be tolerant and inclusive.
    1
  72. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg hmmmm. Not always. There are some simple concepts like murder should not be allowed that are objective since the foundation of society would collapse without
    1
  73.  @melpug4817  Ok well this requires a proper response to ur line of thinking. The first one is while ur points are understandable they are not consistent. None of these points would validate the killing of someone after birth so why should it beforehand? Your logic also falls under an appeasement problem. U don't bend to evil. Could something worse happen? Of course it could, which is why the solution is to double down not appease mentally deranged people that would go after their kids for revenge or purposely abuse them. A society that does not work to combat evil only serves to legitimize it.
    1
  74.  @melpug4817  Understandable but remember that life threatening pregnancies is only at 0.02% in the United States. So to use a 0.02% to justify the other 99.98% is intellectually dishonest. Also most pro life members do allow exceptions in the case of the mother's life being in danger.
    1
  75.  @melpug4817  Of course. But I have to ask u what the core of the argument is. Now the basis of a woman having a right to choose is doing so by quite literally killing the child. So there is two question I have to ask, one is, what constitutes them having that right in ur view and the second is there any point in pregnancy where u would deem abortion un acceptable?
    1
  76.  @melpug4817  Ok to answer ur first response. No it isn't their body. It is not their body they are making the choice for. They are making the choice for the child's body. Also since when is deciding whether or not ur ready to be a parent extend to the right to kill your own child. Not to sound cold but maybe they should of thought of that before sleeping with someone. No as for ur second response, how would that be determined, rn abortion is available on demand and even if u regulated it by circumstance, many would just lie about it.
    1
  77. A. Vulcan how would it cost them their lives? It ain’t killing anyone.
    1
  78. A. Vulcan statistics already show only 1/3500 women die in childbirth within the US, Canada, and UK combined.
    1
  79. Mel Pug what do u mean? Unless it was rape, they made that choice. Also they aren’t carrying cells, that’s before pregnancy. They are carrying a separate human being in the earliest stages of development.
    1
  80. A. Vulcan hundreds of women compared to the million unborn babies. So yeah. That’s a small price to pay. Also if they die for doing illegal abortions, that’s their problem.
    1
  81. A. Vulcan sentience has nothing to do with it. I don’t care how many disagree even though my statistics show that 51% of women are pro life. Goes to show u.
    1
  82. A. Vulcan according to what statistic.
    1
  83. A. Vulcan because they are human beings just as we are
    1
  84. A. Vulcan how have I pretending anything. I am yet to here any real counter arguments. All I’m doing is holding all human beings to the same standard.
    1
  85. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg also how about u state then when they do become sentient. So go ahead and tell me the cut off point.
    1
  86. A. Vulcan actual statistics? U didn’t show any links to ur sources either. We are both equally hypocrites in that arena.
    1
  87. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg also why not let Vulcan fight his own battle.
    1
  88. A. Vulcan since when did I lie?
    1
  89. A. Vulcan which statistic do u think in even lying on?
    1
  90. A. Vulcan which part did I lie? The statistic is correct and at best sentience not having relevance is at worst an opinion.
    1
  91. A. Vulcan personhood is a legal term not a scientific one and as such as not relevant
    1
  92. A. Vulcan also I already answered why. I said that I defend them because they are human beings just as we are and it is at best hypocrisy when we say it’s ok to kill them over the stage of development.
    1
  93. A. Vulcan I get my statistics show that 51% of women were pro life OK if you have a statistic the counter said that’s fine that means you and I have two separate pieces of evidence and a third source would be required. That doesn’t mean I lie to try to automatically credit your source while saying mines full of garbage is intellectually dishonest at best
    1
  94. A. Vulcan have u?
    1
  95. A. Vulcan have u given a source?
    1
  96. boujee baby why?
    1
  97. Gail Spencer Choate true
    1
  98. Nobody You know not really. Our logic since the beginning has been consistent while pro choice has become forced to change their reasoning just to prevent their logic from completely falling apart.
    1
  99. Nobody You know also it’s not forcing them to go through anything it’s not allowing them to kill the baby.
    1
  100. Nobody You know yes u r. A fetus means baby. it literally translate to offspring or little one. Also it’s not again forcing someone would mean to make an action the core of the issue which it isn’t. Again the core isn’t about what a woman has to do but rather what she is not allowed to do. Again in a perfect world where a woman could remove her baby without killing it then we would have no problem with that. But that isn’t yet possible. And removal is not what abortion is. It terminating an innocent human being.
    1
  101. Nobody You know and again explain why a Fetus is not the same as a baby. Also explain how ur not killing anything when killing literally means taking the life of another human being. Please explain that.
    1
  102.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  Care to explain ur empty claim?
    1
  103. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg care to explain how he is ignorant?
    1
  104. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg no? Jee, r u sure ur not the ignorant one?
    1
  105. ProjectB no u don’t have to make exceptions.
    1
  106. ProjectB what r u talking about?
    1
  107. Wesley Heartland again it’s designed to be a punishment. Saying that u can’t commit a second wrong is not a punishment for the first wrong being done. That is just basic logic. It’s not designed to be a punishment. It’s designed to prevent the death of a baby that they are responsible for by creating it. Pregnancy is not forced. It is a state of body. Unless someone is making u have sex over and over until u get pregnant, there is not such thing as forced pregnancy. Again we aren’t forcing women to do anything. We are saying what they can’t do. By all means if they have a way to get the baby out without killing it then they can but otherwise it is killing a baby which should not be acceptable.
    1
  108. Wesley Heartland not really. Again punishing women is not even in my thought process. I honestly couldn’t care if they had sex. I’m saying though that they shouldn’t kill a baby over their mistakes.
    1
  109. Wesley Heartland also to add. U don’t even know if I’m religious so it would be wise not to even bring that up.
    1
  110. Wesley Heartland safe service? How is it safe when it literally kills someone? Makes no sense there.
    1
  111. Wesley Heartland how so? Again that’s not the point. Also he point is not allowing killing for convenience. Yes medical actions should be done to keep a woman as much as possible unless it involves killing someone else.
    1
  112. Wesley Heartland no I won’t
    1
  113. Wesley Heartland again I’m not using religion in my arguments. I could go the route of being a religious zealot but I don’t believe in preaching religion for debates. I use logic and reason for that.
    1
  114. Wesley Heartland so stop making such foolish accusations and actually provide a good argument.
    1
  115. Wesley Heartland what misogyny?
    1
  116. Wesley Heartland again are u seriously assuming I hate women because I’m against the killing of babies? Are u actually serious with me here?
    1
  117. Wesley Heartland also again stop bringing religion into this. I did not bring God nor did I attempt to use him in these arguments. I’ve been using science, statistics, logic, and common sense instead. But no ignore all the logical stuff I say because “oh he is religious” even though there are things in religion I disagree with and that everyone is bound by beliefs. Fool
    1
  118. Wesley Heartland also again since when did I say a woman’s rights disappear. By that logic any pregnant woman should just be allowed to be killed with no punishment. I value innocent human beings equally in terms of my morals. Whether male or female, black or white, gay or straight , religious or atheist, or rich and poor. Every human being who has done no wrong should not be punished for someone else’s mistakes. In 99% of cases a mother consented to sex, she consented to the risk that she might end up pregnant and it’s like I said before. I could not care less about what she does to her self as long as it does not infringe on the lives of others. Abortion infringes on the life of that baby by ending it’s existence, by taking away its chance to live, grow, love, learn, and make a difference. No one should ever take that away from another human being without consequence or a damn good reason which 99% of abortions don’t. The only ones that should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.
    1
  119. Wesley Heartland oh my gosh are you a darn idiot? Give me a real argument instead of ur fucking anti religious bs! I provided u actual real arguments and instead of giving me proper responses instead of ur dumb lectures! I made my intent clear to simply protect the life of an unborn baby. I’m sorry but if men were that desperate to control women, there would be so many easier ways to do it. But no, we don’t give a shit about controlling women. We give a shit about not punishing a baby for the mother and fathers mistakes. Stop viewing pregnancy as a god damn punishment when that’s not the core of issue. That’s like saying it’s a punishment not to allow a thief to steal. Last chance, give me a real argument or ur just wasting everyone’s time u dumb ass.
    1
  120.  @a.vulcan6282  And if they do, they will be condemned like all the others, maybe even more so since hypocrisy is disgusting in so many areas.
    1
  121. Um actually u pretty much do. Physically anyway. Also that does not change that they are killing a child so how about no.
    1
  122. The world is not overpopulated. That’s already been debunked
    1
  123. According to who? You?
    1
  124.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  Again, ur trying to defend someone who has not even given a real argument yet. Sorry u try to see ur self above everyone who disagrees with u. Narcissist.
    1
  125.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  They don't need to give a real argument, if I can give that argument for them... - Bullshit. Having a line of sheep just because one person has the potential to make sense is stupidity at its finest. "You are the pot calling the kettle black..." - What? "You're a shat psychologist" - according to u. Seriously stop wasting my time.
    1
  126. Really. Tell me what science is being ignored
    1
  127. Robert Hayes I don’t crave ownership over anything. Nor do I want the government to. This isn’t a matter of forcing the mother to do anything but forbidding her from killing the child. By all means, if she can end her pregnancy without harming the child, then I’m fine with that.
    1
  128.  @mondobear22  "You couldn't have helped me make my point any clearer. I left out the anti-science and anti-definition tactic of misusing words. A child is a sentient young person; the period right after "baby." Prior to baby is fetus and so on." - according to what definition? Child Definition: a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority. Fetus does fall under that. "If the anti-abortion people showed a modicum of interest in facts, science, or the accurate use of words (definitions) I'd eat my shoe."- Again kindly explain what science is being ignored. "P.S. Another thing I noticed is in debates anti-abortionists never read my comments, or appear to comprehend what I stated. It's as if your brains shut down whenever facts show up that are contrary to your magical thinking narrative." - Really, because I run into the same kind of pro choice people. So perhaps if we both do truly represent higher intellectuals then we can debate this properly. "I suspect humans will solve the problem of consciousness way before an anti-abortionist steps up and dares to refer to a fetus as a fetus." - Since when do pro life members deny it as a fetus? I don't. But a Fetus is still a human being. So, same principle.
    1
  129. Robert Hayes 1) according to what definition or source? 2) ability to feel pain, or persieve. Usually occurs at 6 months. Also what of it. Sentience isn’t what constitutes human being. 3) no wonder ur pro abortion since it seems u want humans to die anyway. Also define the basis of cruelty. Define our destructive nature. Humans have this because of capability, not by destructive nature. In fact we preserve a lot more than other species. Also ur being foolish. It’s not about animals. Seriously by ur logic, ur saying you’d rather kill a human than a fly. Nothing happens to them medically speaking. Lastly, they don’t have a higher status, they have an equal status. Also viability is not even relevant here. People on life support aren’t viable either yet we can’t just shoot them when we want. Seriously use some consistency. And seriously if ur basis is just viewing humanity as some pure evil thing that needs to be destroyed then don’t bother wasting my time.
    1
  130. Robert Hayes 1) I’m asking u where u got ur definition. What source? Because u don’t get to define it. Has to come from somewhere. 2) true. But that’s the good thing. A fetus gains sentience. Current sentience is not the only thing that matters. Otherwise killing people in comas would be perfectly fine. 3) yes seriously. Ur the one that said it.
    1
  131. Robert Hayes 4) again no, because again. Both lives in pro life are held to the same standard. It’s not taking ownership of anything. It’s upholding law the same way killing a child after birth would rightfully result in being charged for homocide. Also again I can’t speak for everyone but I don’t disregard women from the equation. By all means, I will gladly help in anyway that does not result in the death of the child. Also it’s no temporary ownership. This ain’t a slavery concept. Parents don’t own their children, they oversee them. If they can’t do that, then it’s their job to give it to someone who can. 4A) yes seriously. Like before, ur words not mine
    1
  132. Robert Hayes then I will cease to use it for the sake of this argument. But still human being none the less
    1
  133. That is a faulty logic because that can be used for anything. Murder, rape, theft.
    1
  134.  @ceceliachoi3976  Because from a medical standpoint it isn't. There is less than a 0.02% chance of dying in childbirth within first world nations.
    1
  135.  @ceceliachoi3976  Also there is a difference between a pregnant teen and a pregnant 30 year old woman. What is the cut off line? Ur not making that clear
    1
  136. Cecelia Choi which is why we r talking. I wouldn’t be talking to u if we had the same opinion. There would be no point. Im here for discussion. Believe me, I’m not here to guilt u. I’m here for us to understand each other’s logic. Will I try to change ur mind? Yes, but doesn’t mean I’m going to hate u if I don’t. Having an intellectual discussion or argument gains me a lot in it of itself. So unless u try to use petty insults then I’m not going to be angered.
    1
  137. Cecelia Choi so with that out of the want we can continue. I understand ur basis on being concerned on what a woman has to go through. But u r incorrect that I don’t understand it. I can’t empathize with it as I can never get pregnant needless to say but I can understand through my family and friends experience. Now u mentioned that it should be done before 6 weeks. R u saying this as a suggestion or r u saying that it should not be allowed after that point unless under extreme circumstances?(Rape, life endangerment).
    1
  138.  @ceceliachoi3976  Ok I can respect the basis of what ur saying but there are details ur missing or points ur leaving unclear. 1) would u agree for abortion to be outlawed after 6 weeks in the pregnancy unless under an extreme case such as rape or life threat? 2) Size is not a good measure for determining a human being. That is a slippery slope. Now as to ur animal argument. The problem with that is its two separate cases. ur comparing an exercise that humans have done to survive for thousands of years to something done for pure convenience which contradicts already existing laws, principles, and simple morals developed. Also that should not trigger u, the issues are seperate, the same way a pro choice vegan does not anger me. I will question their logic, but I won't be angered by them.
    1
  139.  @ceceliachoi3976  "I agree with your first point but you cannot tell me what triggers me and what doesn’t." - Good, then we have found some common ground which means the rest of the argument can work within the first 5 weeks or cases like rape or incest. Thanks for that btw. It means I can actually hear something new and try to develop new points since I rarely get to work with that much common ground in mind. "but you cannot tell me what triggers me and what doesn’t." - I didn't say I did. I just said it shouldn't. "We can stop talking on this comment section and put our own reasons out to the protests etc because I do not see the point on arguing on something we both do not agree on," - There is plenty of benefits for this. Mainly it expands the outlook on perspective. The thing is even if we fail to change each other's minds. We will understand another perspective and know some points we previously doesn't. And that actually helps us both within the protests or anywhere. "I tried to change your perspective on this situation and you did too but I can just imagine this continuing on for weeks and it will not do anything but waste both of our time, hope you understand." - I mean its like I said before there are things to gain through it. Especially when common ground is being found. I would agree with u if we found no common ground (If u were ok all the way till birth), but u stated ur perimeters which means up until that first 5 weeks, we are on the same side here. Which means much should be discussed to further understand each other. But if u do not wish to do that, I understand. In either case, it was nice to discuss this with someone who remained civil and actually worked to use intellectual and neat points. Overall, I am quite grateful that I was able to talk with you about this. Anyways if u want to continue this discussion then feel free to let me know, otherwise, cheers and take care. Be safe from Covid and good luck within the post Covid World.
    1
  140. Cecelia Choi thanks. U too
    1
  141. What?
    1
  142. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg again irrelevant. Agreement on values does not automatically associate ur self with a group
    1
  143.  @a.vulcan6282  Nah, I support what prevents the need for them, but if people are stupid enough to risk themselves to kill their child then I don't feel sorry.
    1
  144. How so? What’s selfish about saving a child?
    1
  145. Karen A. Why?
    1
  146. According to u? What good is anything like that when their right to live is not being enforced?
    1
  147.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  Reasoning does not compensate hypocrisy. I do not have to reason with someone who advocates the death of unborn children for their convenience. Also how am I an idiot for rightfully calling out the hypocrisy of a law pro choice people are upholding? Do u know what idiot means or is it just another empty insult in your limited vocab? You are not an arbiter of logic so stop pretending to be. U have not ever disproven how any of my arguments lack sense. U only try to label it as such because u are obsessed with pushing ur agenda. Which is ironic, because ur actions is what is going to push people away from pro choice. Keep up the great work.
    1
  148.  @crisscross3216  No one is forcing her to go though a pregnancy. I agree there. That is not what is happening.
    1
  149. Not really
    1
  150. mist the wolf dragon why it isn’t the baby’s fault. One evil doesn’t justify a greater evil.
    1
  151. She isn’t forced to do anything. She just shouldn’t be allowed to kill the child
    1
  152. Kiki14 Favorite14 yes u can
    1
  153. Kiki14 Favorite14 ok shoot
    1
  154. So what is that suppose to mean?
    1
  155. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg really how so?
    1
  156. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg that only applies to extremists but yes. I will give u that one
    1
  157. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg ok there is a better word for it. I’m trying to find the right word for it. Just over invested maybe.
    1
  158. The Adrien yes they are. Also we r all cells. What constitutes a human being then?
    1
  159. The Adrien what species is it then if not human?
    1
  160. The Adrien also what constitutes a human being?
    1
  161.  @theadrien1937  so let me get this straight. Being born is what constitutes a human being to u? Abortion up to 9 months is ok with u?
    1
  162.  @theadrien1937  as r we all. ur not helping ur point. Address it for what it is.
    1
  163.  @theadrien1937  That does not answer my question, do not try to change the subject. And do not bother trying to use an extreme case to justify urself when u literally just admitted that u r ok with normal abortion up to 9 months anyway. U do not give a damn about rape victims. It is irrelevant. Also ur logic makes no sense. Ur ok with abortion up to 9 months yet ur reason is a lack of a brain. Um, dude, a brain begins development at the 5th week of its existence. So I will ask again, what constitutes a human being?
    1
  164. Pro choice and pro abortion are the same thing dude. So yes it is
    1
  165. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg Pro choice definition: advocating legalized abortion. Pro Abortion definition: in favor of the availability of medically induced abortion as a means of ending a pregnancy. Do u ever bother looking up definitions? And I’m the ignorant one? Dude by definition they pretty much mean the same thing. By definition.
    1
  166. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg either ur being ignorant or ur being an idiot. I’ll let u choose.
    1
  167. Santiago de Compost Bin Pro abortion definition: in favor of the availability of medically induced abortion as a means of ending a pregnancy. Do research before commenting. Please
    1
  168. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg it doesn’t matter what they define themselves as. That is literal textbook definition. Also how is the joke on me? Ur the one literally denying textbook definition. Pro choice and pro abortion by definition mean the same thing. Idc if ur members don’t want to associate ur self with that word. It matches by definition. Ur literally being in denial. Also no. Ignorance is showing a clear lack of knowledge. Something that I am not doing as unlike u I’m actually relying on facts, definitions, and info. Ur speaking with feelings and not facts. U don’t get to cherry pick what info is and is not valid to u. Not without a source to counter it.
    1
  169. Santiago de Compost Bin ok. And what is the pro abortion definition according to sources? I never argued against the basis of what pro choice means. Again pretty much all of them outside of abortion I agree with. But again look up the definition of pro abortion.
    1
  170. Santiago de Compost Bin they mean the same thing.
    1
  171. Santiago de Compost Bin also u don’t get to throw my line back on me when I already sourced a definition. Seriously. Think.
    1
  172.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  "-Yes, it does, as you are misrepresenting them." - Then u better argue the same thing to people that call the "republic of North Korea", a dictatorship. Misrepresentation is trying to classify them as something they are factually not. "-That's just the simple definition. If you actually look at the expanded definition, it clearly says choice. You are ignorant." - That is not my responsibility. Counter my sources. Give me a source of ur own. It is not difficult. "Because you cherry picked a purposely vague definition, that doesn't go into detail of what pro-choice actually is." - Then tell me through a source what details I am missing. That is part of a debate. Interpreting evidence. So give me a piece of evidence. Otherwise ur only going by ur word. "No, I'm not. Practically all dictionaries include choice in their definitions." - "include choice"? What r u even talking about here? Also again, source me at least 2 dictionaries since u tell me basically all of them say it. It should not be hard for u. "Only in the minds of ignorant Pro-lifers like you." - No, only within the actual definitions. A definition u have no yet countered in an alternate source. So again, denial. Also again ur the one being ignorant, when u cannot so much as give me one piece of evidence. "No, I'm not." - then give me info to counter my evidence! Without sources to counter my current one, u r just dismissing my evidence out of hand. Something that u cannot do in a logical debate. "Which you are, as you are completely ignoring most other dictionaries, and the detailed definitions associated with the simple definition that you cherry picked." - Again, I did not cherry pick at all, I accessed the first few basic dictionary sources. That isn't ignorance. Give me a source to counter it! It is not hard. "You're projecting." - Projecting what? "I'm not. It is you that is doing that." - R u that stupid? U have not given me a source to deny even if I wanted to. Seriously. I have spend pretty much this entire reply simply asking for sources to support ur arguments because so far all u have done is just try to claim my sources are wrong or misrepresent without any evidence to back it. Seriously, ur doing a poor job in changing any reasonable mind.
    1
  173.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  Congratuations, u gave me sources. Thank u. I am happy. Shows me u have a brain. Only one problem, I did not disagree with the definition of pro choice. I said that pro choice and pro abortion mean the same thing through the context of pro abortion definition. So I mean thanks for trying at least. But u kinda missed the bullseye of the point I was making.
    1
  174. So ur happy that she had the option to kill u.
    1
  175.  @liaa2litt  "if it made her feel stable then yeah its not like im stable. In fact I've had suicidal attempts and depression.So, yes she's an amazing mother but yeah i wouldn't remorse her for it. I'd be in heaven with god, just a little earlier." - She wouldn't. Not without asking for forgiveness. Also not every child goes through that. Glad u can take one for ur mother, but most wouldn't. "You can think wut u want but u have no right opinionated on my mother's body choices." - Agreed. Problem is abortion is not her body choice, it is urs. "besides she had me at a risky age and time" - Define risky. "soo... yeah it could have gone any way. Im happy to be here with my BEAUTIFUL AMAZING mom, but I wouldn't be mad at her. I'd be watching her while in heaven. So yeah keep your judgments to yourself.." - It is not about judgement. Benefit of hindsight has nothing to do with it. I doubt God what want someone to destroy his creation simply to cover her own mistakes. "im happy to be here most of the time. But yeah...." - So let me get this straight, ur not disturbed at the fact, that the good life ur currently having could of been robbed from u.
    1
  176. Wesley Heartland no it isn’t
    1
  177. Jake answer is very simple. Firstly u can’t kill based on a prediction, secondly life begins at conception so technically the baby has already entered the world, third even if the child goes through a hard life, it is not our place to say whether they want to live based on that hardship. By that logic it shouldn’t matter to kill babies after birth or homeless people.
    1
  178. first off source? Secondly, killing an innocent human being is not a right.
    1
  179. How are they harassing them?
    1
  180. @A M for what? I’m asking a question, so no. I really won’t
    1
  181. It isn't sad, it is scary. How long before they claim our lives to have no value and that killing us should be legal? I may hate many pro choice people but I will still defend their right to exist. I do not expect them to have that same courtesy. Especially when they remark that we should of been aborted.
    1
  182.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  How is she ignorant? And why would using a condom be genocide exactly?
    1
  183.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  Ok what does that have to do with an abortion?
    1
  184. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg how does that make me an idiot? Why not actually answer a decent question dumbass
    1
  185. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg and? Ur in a comment section about abortion. Needless to say it would be expected for it to connect in some way. Of course u would know this if u weren’t so busy being a jackass
    1
  186.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  Again irrelevant. But whatever.
    1
  187.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  God ur so bad at making insults. grow up. Alright I asked a question under the assumption u had a point behind ur statement. Clearly not. So again, my bad. But its whatever. Asking honest questions does not make one an idiot. Seriously. Grow some wisdom in ur life.
    1
  188. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg again I already explained how definitions contradict that but even so. Fetus is literally just Latin for baby/offspring. So nice try. Also kindly explain how doesn’t negate any need for abortion.
    1
  189. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg dude that’s not how it works. I went by the majority of definitions. If I’m cherry-picking then ur trying to pretend the other definitions with ur own sources don’t exist.
    1
  190. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg again no I’m really not. I’m only saying Fetus is equalvelant to an unborn baby.
    1
  191. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg also can a definition I display be dishonest? Since when is using info considered lying? If u want to say that it is vague or countered with other evidence fine. But u clearly don’t know what a dishonest person actually is
    1
  192. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg again not really. Child would be the word I would turn to due to it being more generalized. But nice try.
    1
  193. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg also dishonesty implies I lied about something. So what would that be?
    1
  194.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  If I was refering to senitence, I would say it? A child does not have to be sentient. Also a Fetus gains sentience by week 12. So do tell me, are you advocating that abortion after that point should be illegal? Because if not it just shows me that u don't actually care if they are sentient or not.
    1
  195. Yeah and?
    1
  196. Joseph Stalin they already exist. They are already a human being. The only “choice” is whether or not to kill them.
    1
  197. Joseph Stalin Hahahahah. Research please. Also so what? What’s ur point? I know how the nutrients work.
    1
  198. Joseph Stalin they aren’t forced to do anything. They r simply forbidden from killing the child if abortion is outlawed
    1
  199. Joseph Stalin also if they don’t care about the child enough to kill it then it doesn’t matter as far as lingering for it
    1
  200.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  Fetus is a stage of development of a human being. Also it is still their child. In terminology. Also no they aren't. Abortion is not the only way to end a pregnancy, it is just the cheapest and most convient way to do so.
    1
  201.  @justsomerandombirdwithinte5896  So? I do not care if it is a lingering thought. If u care so little for the child to be willing to kill it, it's fate should not matter to u after that point.
    1
  202. You realize at that point, they could just double down and do travel bans during pregnancy. Or simply take abortion records from other country.
    1
  203. I use the interwebs r u seriously that pathetic? Also once when America starts pro life policy, the rest of the world would most likely follow. We could even economically strong arm them to do so.
    1
  204. I use the interwebs it’s not their bodies. If it was, they would be the ones dying. It’s the child’s body.
    1
  205. I use the interwebs also no it isn’t. Statistics show that 51% of Americans is pro life. 43% are pro choice, and 8% are undecided
    1
  206.  @a.vulcan6282  Except that isn't even true. Guess what, u don't use ur body to make food for ur 2 year old? U know what happens? Arrest for child neglect. U know what happens if u run over a guy, who then needs blood to live, and u refuse to give it to him and he dies as a result? Arrested for manslaughter.
    1
  207.  @MrDevil-jb1fl  According to ur opinion, I disagree. I believe ur responsible as soon as u get pregnant.
    1
  208.  @MrDevil-jb1fl  Ok, so? U chose to get pregnant. That is ur problem. Perhaps u should of kept it in the pants. But guess what, when ur pregnant. It ain't just ur life anymore, the life of both u and the child have to be protected. I am sorry. I will never condone the killing of an innocent human being because it ain't convenient enough for u. Stop acting like it is so hard. Women go through it everyday. And within USA the chances of it presenting any real medical danger is next to impossible. Also guess what, u already have the baby. It already exists. Now it is just deciding not to kill it.
    1
  209.  @MrDevil-jb1fl  No it ain't. It is a very accurate analogy. Prove otherwise before calling it stupid.
    1
  210.  @a.vulcan6282  How can you say that you understand the difference and then ignore it? - Because in the grand scheme of things it does not matter. "We make laws all the time legislating behavior and actions." - Ye, "Yet you are never legally required to let someone use your body for their purposes. Because you have a right to bodily autonomy." - Required? No. But u can be penalised depending on the circumstances. Also I could argue that because this is a basis of ur natural biology that involves surgical removal and not ur body being used by an external force that these basis do not apply. Once when ur body makes the biological choice to harbor that baby, then it made that choice. At that point, relying on companies to remove it falls under commerce especially when companies profit, meaning the government can regulate and or ban it as it pleases. Also like I said, unless in the case of rape, u chose the risk. U knew coming into it what could happen. Meaning the government is not obligated to bail u out.
    1
  211.  @a.vulcan6282  While it is certainly true that a woman’s body is greatly impacted by pregnancy, it is not true that abortion is simply a matter of her choosing to do something with her body. The fetus growing within her womb is a separate person with its own distinct genetic makeup. Abortion does not remove some part of the woman’s body; it destroys the body of a separate, unique individual. That said, the truth is that pro-lifers cannot “force” a woman to choose life for her baby. Abortion is legal, and even if it weren’t, illegal abortion would still be an option. That is why we seek instead to inform women about the consequences of abortion and do what we can to help her choose life for her unborn child.
    1
  212.  @a.vulcan6282  Ok. But by extension, the government is under no legal obligation to provide the ability to remove it. So we caught a paradox now.
    1
  213. I use the interwebs I guess murder by definition is the unlawful premeditated killing of another human being. Leaving out the unlawful part. Killing a fetus is from a biological standpoint the same as killing an adult
    1
  214. I use the interwebs well that’s your problem
    1
  215. Danniela u know why don’t u say why abortion is so good and how it’s not murder. We will be waiting to hear.
    1
  216. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg still a human being.
    1
  217. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg also again. Talk like an adult or go back to the playground. Good grief. U sound like a desperate 12 year old. Use rationale and facts. Because no one cares about ur feelings.
    1
  218.  @bt4190  we are all blob of cells. Try using a good argument if u have one
    1
  219. Really. Then tell me, do u have any limit that u would wish to put on abortion. Or r u going to argue that abortion up to 9 months is ok?
    1
  220. Why?
    1
  221. Jee. Apply that logic if ur neighbor gets murdered. It ain’t forcing anything. It is preventing the killing of their child
    1
  222. @XXXδ0NDƐRXXX r u just a troll?
    1
  223. Nope. Ur own rights does not extend to the right to infringe on the lives of others.
    1
  224. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg overpopulation is not going to kill humanity dude. Actually think. And seriously actually source facts and info before calling people ignorant. Dumbass
    1
  225.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  Does ur half dead brain know that ur capable of doing an argument without coming across as an edgy 12 year old? Yes I know what irrelevant means. Why don't u stop asking questions that are rhetorical. Also according to you.
    1
  226. Bullet Anarchy ok so r u suggesting that human value is dependent on degree of dependence?
    1
  227. Agreed
    1
  228.  @JR-nh7fc  true
    1
  229.  @acgraphics1139  ok tell that to a mother. Don’t decide what’s right for the child.
    1
  230. @XXXδ0NDƐRXXX um unless we are talking about rape cases, yes it is
    1
  231. asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg hey don’t let one person have u make judgment upon the entire religion as a whole.
    1
  232.  @a.vulcan6282  Killing an embryo is wrong because it is the killing of an innocent human being. Biologically the only key difference between them and adults is stage of development. As for women being submissive or equal to men. The basis is merit. So ultimately some will be submissive, others will be equal, and others will be dominate. As for legal answer. Legally they must be recognized as equals.
    1
  233.  @a.vulcan6282  "And why do you think human beings should generally not be killed? Is it because you think that they have value to you?" - I said innocent human beings, and yes. In my opinion every innocent human being has intrinsic value. To try to devalue one human without reason is to do the same against every human being. "What do you mean by merit in this context? In a marriage, for example?" - Yeah, based on contributions as well as the personality of the couple members usually determines which in the relationship is dominant.
    1
  234.  @a.vulcan6282  It is an objective fact that killing embryos is killing a human being. As for ur ladder question I didn't say if it should. I said what it was. I think u should treat partners equally overall, but one is going to have more of a say depending on the knowledge and merit. For example the one with a higher tier job is going to have more say on financial choices, the one watching the kids is going to have more of a say for what the kids should and shouldn't do.
    1
  235.  asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg  "hey don’t let one person have u make judgment upon the entire religion as a whole." -Oh, it's not just one person, all religious people are ignorant." - How presumptuous of u. So u in other words call over the US population ignorant. And let me ask, is it coincidence or do u view them as ignorant because they are religious. "Killing an embryo is wrong because it is the killing of an innocent human being." -Subjective." - ur right it is, however if u stand by the belief of killing innocent human beings is wrong then it would extend here in order to have the same logic. "Biologically the only key difference between them and adults is stage of development." -and at early stages of development, fetuses aren't sentient, thus there is no victim, and thus you can't objectively say it is wrong." - Victimhood does not mean anything. I could say the same for those in comas. "In my opinion every innocent human being has intrinsic value." -Your arbitrary opinion is not enough to restrict women's rights." - It being a women's rights is also an opinion. It is not a fundamental right. Rather it is one granted. "To try to devalue one human without reason is to do the same against every human being." -"Devaluing" assumes the human had value in the first place, and you are ignoring the fact that value is subjective. You might value the money in your pocket, but it's worthless to me." - Ok then would u argue killing any human is ok then? "It is an objective fact that killing embryos is killing a human being." -False. Embryos are not human beings. You clearly don't even know what 'being' means... a "being" is the nature or essence of a person, and a person is a being characterized by consciousness, rationality, and a moral sense, and traditionally thought of as consisting of both a body and a mind or soul. You are just demonstrating your ignorance with regards to the words you are using." - No I am really not Human Being Definition: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. An embryo is the child of a homo sapiens species meaning by definition it is a human being.
    1
  236.  @a.vulcan6282  What do u mean I ran away?
    1
  237.  @a.vulcan6282  What first question? the question if I have integrity? Was that it?
    1
  238.  @a.vulcan6282  How is my stance unfair to others. I stand against the killing of innocent human beings. Period. There is nothing unfair about that.
    1
  239.  @a.vulcan6282  Well, is it your private opinion that you want to force on others, or is it an objective claim that killing embryos devalues people - which you can demonstrate? - Ok the answer to this question basis is one I have no intention of forcing the basis but rather have the government enforce the protection of innocent human beings like they claim. Also it is my opinion that allowing abortion devalues human beings since it you know, kills human beings. I don't demonstrate either. I give my logic, my explanations and then u counter or interpret the logic. It is quite simple
    1
  240.  @a.vulcan6282  Oh so what do u think laws against anything do? Saying murder is wrong is an opinion, so is it forcing the opinion on others when the government does not allow murder? Is forbidding theft forcing opinion on other? What about social programs, or military funding? If my views are being forced on others through government so is literally every other policy. Objective explanation? Ok do u think killing of innocent human beings is wrong?
    1
  241. A. Vulcan ok. Well genocide could be viewed as unimportant to some. That’s not adding to any point.
    1
  242. A. Vulcan by ur logic no. Not if u applied an ends justify the means mentality.
    1
  243. How so?
    1
  244.  @a.vulcan6282  Of course u don't. Its easy to subject others to something u will never face.
    1
  245. Reasonable. Disagree, but reasonable.
    1
  246. Yeshua .Redeemed it’s not your body.
    1
  247. Well that starts with Abortion becoming illegal so we can set sights on elsewhere.
    1
  248.  @miname3936  What do u mean?
    1
  249.  @miname3936  After Abortion would be made illegal the first 2 steps that would come after is putting major capital punishment on rapists and altering the adoption system to make children more easy to adopt.
    1
  250.  @miname3936  After that more funding in sex ed can be applied, and if we can reallocate a little welfare budget. The government can use some money to support poorer mothers out there with raising their children if they decide to keep the children.
    1
  251. Wesley Heartland not really. Frozen embryos aren’t being killed.
    1
  252. Wesley Heartland also I already stated that making abortion illegal may not stop it completely but will significantly reduce it. Plus u don’t make laws for those that don’t follow them
    1
  253. mi name if we can agree to make abortion illegal in every case other than the mother’s life being threatened then I could agree to ur ideas
    1
  254. Wesley Heartland yes it would. It’s been proven that after Roe v. Wade became legal, abortion rates increased heavily also people tend to ignore this that abortions can also kill a mother even legal and ““ safe abortions can you do it so the assessment of the legalizing abortions were just cost woman lives is a falsehood. Yes some women are still going to try to do it but the statistic will be much lower than the woman they’re going to try when it’s legal. And at a certain point you need to understand that people need to take responsibility for themselves or if they want to do a illegal abortion knowing the risks on what can happen to them, then why should we feel bad if that thing happens to them. It would be equivalent to someone who’s driving while being drunk first off not only is that illegal but also yeah if you’re advising against it and he saying oh I’ll be fine but then gets in a car accident in heavily hurts himself or kills himself then why should you feel insanely bad about that?
    1
  255. Jake u thing pro life doesn’t want to make things better for women and babies? We just know that there is no excuse for the murder of babies.
    1
  256.  @a.vulcan6282  At week 6 it does.
    1
  257.  @a.vulcan6282  So? Does it not cause a father stress that the mother can kill their child at anytime before birth without his consent or even informing him?
    1
  258. Chris J age doesn’t change that. Education does
    1
  259. We already have. But again it doesn't matter. Even controls with insane healthcare and social safety nets like Sweden and Finland still have abortions. Making it illegal has to happen for it to truly stop.
    1
  260. I agree that a ban by itself would not do it, but it has to be factored in with everything else. Also banning abortion is effective depending on the nation, as abortion rates doubled after Roe v.wade.
    1