Comments by "King Orange" (@kingorange7739) on "" video.

@travisdozier1357 firstly I love how you people keep trying to use statistical anomalies as excuses to justify the overwhelming amount of cases not done for that reason. It’s honestly baffling. To answer both your questions though because unlike you, I am not intellectually dishonest. 1. Nowhere did I say someone’s right to life had to end for the sake of the child. If there is a situation where the pregnancy is actively putting a high medical risk to the mother’s life, then her life would be prioritized. Obviously, especially given that the child would be likely to die along side her anyways. Almost no pro lifer would disagree with this. However a pregnancy that is actively endangering their life or health is not the same as one that is an inconvenience to said mother. As for rape, once again statistical anomaly so it’s not even intellectually honest, but let’s play with it. Do i believe rape is bad? Yes. Do i believe the rapist should be castrated? Assuming it can be reasonably proven without a shadow of doubt, yes. Do i believe a child should receive the death sentence for the crime of his or her father? No. So no I would be against abortion even in rape cases, as it’s not the fault of the child. Also let’s just say rape was made an exception, how would that even be deducted and confirmed? Would we just take her at her word, or would there have to be some kind of investigation? So even taking away the practical issues and intellectually dishonest semantics, no. A child being killed to pay for the crime of his or her father is not morally right either. You punish the perpetrator, not a victim. And a child is victim of that like a mother is
5
@travisdozier1357 no it’s not her life, it’s the child’s. The child didn’t choose death, as such the termination of said child is murder. The mother made her choice from the moment she spread her legs and let someone finish in her. Not to mention the plan b option. She made her choices, once that child is conceived it is no longer her choice to make as it is not her life most significantly affected by it.
4
Amazing how much you said was wrong
2
@Nick V we are also a bunch of cells. Also pain doesn’t constitute life
1
@justmeandi8256 a bold statement except that given that it is the actions of the mother is what directly led to the creation of said child, I would argue it was consented to. Also it is intellectually dishonest to act like abortion is simply severing support. It isn’t. It is deliberately killing the child. If this was simply about severing use, a procedure would occur to do everything in its power to save both concerned parties.
1
@justmeandi8256 person a may hold the right to refuse technically, but they are still held responsible for person’s B death. So by that line of thinking a mother can still be held legally responsible for the death of her child. As such a charge of murder or manslaughter could apply
1
@justmeandi8256 getting pregnant isn’t a crime no, but directly harming another is. Think of it this way, if you did an action like getting drunk. That isn’t a crime, but harming someone else because you were drunk is. Pregnancy isn’t a crime, but it is an irresponsible act that if applied to harm someone else to undo it could be considered as one
1
@justmeandi8256 which again is dishonest to what an abortion procedure does. A c section also ends a pregnancy yet is done without the deliberate termination of the child. Also to note that while body autonomy has been important it has almost never extended to a right to directly harm another innocent human being. The right with my fist ends at your face. And as you admitted, an individual can be held responsible when they were the ones that caused the circumstances. To use your car accident example. Person A choosing not to help may help within their rights, but it also determines the difference if they are charged for injuries or prosecuted for manslaughter.
1
@justmeandi8256 um ignoring that breast feeding and using action is still using a body. Once again, I have never recalled a C Section being more risky than an abortion. As such, it makes no sense to favor abortion over a C Section unless there is a motive beyond simply ending the pregnancy but rather deliberately terminating the child. And it’s not a right to kill another human being to undo a mistake of one’s own actions either. Again car accident example. If person B dies, person A will be charged for manslaughter. So why should the same not be true when the mother is directly responsible for both the child’s condition in the pregnancy and if the mother chooses to do an abortion is directly responsible over the child’s death.
1
@justmeandi8256 1. Breast feeding has substitution now, but that was not a luxury that always existed and I doubt you’d advocate allowing a newborn to starve to death over it. 2. Yes I did acknowledge she had a right to C Section. I’m saying when that option exists, why would we allow an abortion when the key difference is one takes an effort to preserve the life of the child while the other deliberately kills him or her. 3. Again it is comparable. Also you are aware that technically a mother also recieves health benefits from the child including the use of stem cells from him or her. Yet I doubt we would advocate the death sentence of the mother over that. Also again, even if I were to agree to a right to sever such a symbiotic relationship, it does not extend to a right to deliberately kill said child especially when options exist to allow the child to live. Like canceling a blood transfusion is not the same as stabbing someone over it. It’s Intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise
1
@justmeandi8256 1. Once again alternatives to those scales were not always available. And when they weren’t it was made clear even through common sense that preservation of the child’s life came first. 2. Both a C Section and Abortion are invasive procedures. So that line of thinking isn’t even consistent. Once again what sense does it make to allow the procedure that deliberately kills the child when an alternate exists that would at least give the child a chance of living. Not to mention is all but guaranteed after 20 weeks.
1
@justmeandi8256 a c section is cancelling access. An abortion is stabbing the other person
1
@justmeandi8256 it is a simple choice in the presence of alternatives. Also to note, that it is no potential. We are dealing with an already existing child and mother. And you can go about all you want on how “invasive” it is. Doesn’t change that an abortion is still invasive by the same logic and far more invasive when considering the well being of the child.
1
@justmeandi8256 once again not when it concerns the general well-being of the child. That would be the equivalent of saying it is ok to stab a guy having sex with her without her even asking him to stop because it is “her choice what alternatives she uses.” And I would simply argue no, it is not her choice when it is deliberately killing another human being even when they hold the capacity to survive on their own. At that point especially, when the baby becomes viable, abortion isn’t about her but the child. The only reason you would think otherwise is that you would believe that a procedure being more “convenient” even when it achieves the same goal is more important than the life of another human being. But at that point I could stab a woman I’m having sex with because to me that was a better option to get her off my body than simply asking her to do so or even removing her in a way that doesn’t kill her.
1
I love your attempts at Intellectual dishonesty. Also there is already a contradiction to that statement. Simple commandment Thou shall not murder. Murder is the premeditated killing of another human being.
1
@xLanzer Not even slightly, but thanks for trying to gaslight. Really shows the left’s true nature even more
1
@zoplatinum name one thing of what?
1
@zoplatinum Trying to equite the literal killing of a child to a “resource needed.” Or you’re only giving an unwanted opinion and nothing more. Also clearly other people do care otherwise this still wouldn’t be such a large debate.
1
@eymed2023 If you compare a third world nation to a first world then of course you’ll fall into that conclusion. And basic common sense would show clearly that wouldn’t be the case.
1
@eymed2023 Also nice at resorting to insult of the pro life movement. And no, it is killing a child. I don’t recall what atrocities you think we support
1
I am Christian and not pro choice. Did you forget that the Bible was written by men? And that there can be mistakes in both its writing and translation?
1
Which is contradicted by biology. Also to note that the Bible was written by men at a time abortion wasn’t even a true concept.
1