Comments by "King Orange" (@kingorange7739) on "In the Crossfire: Abortion exception for rape?" video.

  1. Dan Norton premeditated killing of another innocent human being. That is why
    3
  2. Just Saying we’re all a bunch of cells. I love your attempts to dehumanize it even though you can’t scientifically prove that it isn’t human. I can prove that it is scientifically human. That’s what conception is for. Called clump of cells if you want it doesn’t change what it is.
    3
  3. Just Saying trying to direct me to a different problem doesn’t change the current problem. Also we aren’t just having 3 weeks being aborted. We have full 8 to 9 months being aborted. So that holds no validation. Also my girlfriend went through a false alarm thinking she was pregnant and even then we agreed not to do an abortion. Once when a pregnancy happens, it’s not just about the mother anymore. It ain’t interfering with anything. When doctors profit out of it, u could literally use the commerce argument to illegalize it
    2
  4.  @rollmops3113  Thank you
    2
  5. Dan Norton gaining consciousness is not tied to purely sleep. Ur logic is failing. Get ur facts straight or stfu.
    2
  6. Just Saying no u do have other choices. There is 4. 2 made before pregnancy and 2 made after. Contraceptions, abstinence, motherhood, and adoption. I’m only against the choice that involves intentionally killing a human life. I’m just going to ask, at what point would an abortion not be ok. What constitutes human life to u?
    1
  7. Just Saying OK but the problem is those rules aren’t solidified. You may think that abortion up to 12 weeks is the only acceptable option however many you would be OK with it all the way till birth the problem with your argument is regardless of what I deal or not it’s not a consistent logical line because there’s no factual basis to back it biologically speaking the beginning of a new human life is conception and as such is the only consistent line that can be drawn
    1
  8. Just Saying how so?
    1
  9. Dan Norton and I asked time and time again why yet u never gave a valid answer
    1
  10. teatime won’t change either way
    1
  11.  @ankmamma688  not when u chose to put them there. If u donate blood to someone u cannot stab them during a transfusion
    1
  12.  @ankmamma688  Its not a matter of waking up. You chose to be in that spot. Unless you're referring to rape victims, the risk of pregnancy was completely the choice of the woman in question. They made their choice and they don't get to kill someone to undo it.
    1
  13.  @ankmamma688  elaborate
    1
  14.  @ankmamma688  assuming that I am responsible for putting them in that life threatening condition? Then I should be held legally accountable if he dies. The same way a mother should be held legally accountable if she attempts an abortion.
    1
  15.  @ankmamma688  so indirectly, yes.
    1
  16.  @ankmamma688  No one person would ever be purely responsible I expect ur arguments to be grounded in reality
    1
  17.  @ankmamma688  no i think it should be illegal due to the deliberate termination of another innocent human being. The woman being at fault is simply stating their accountability so they understand they’re not victims in this
    1
  18.  @ankmamma688  that’s not an abortion then. That’s a c section based removal or a premature birth. An abortion is deliberately trying to kill the child. So if the child could be removed without killing him or her then yes I’d be fine with it
    1
  19.  @ankmamma688  really, so now ur just making judgements then? I already stated if the child can be removed without killing him or her then I’d be fine. What part of that is complicated? Do u pro choice people always just give up the minute it’s an actual struggle to convince someone?
    1
  20. Why is that?
    1
  21. Sashiyaki ok. And?
    1
  22. Sashiyaki ok before we continue, would u agree then, that any majority case outside of rape should be illegal. Such as killing for pure lifestyle convenience. Can we every other reason of abortion except for rape and life threatening instances should be illegal?
    1
  23. Sashiyaki also adoption is an option
    1
  24.  @sashiyaki9362  I do, I'm saying the cost does not equal the destruction of a human life.
    1
  25.  @sashiyaki9362  I can agree with that as a problem that needs to be solved and I intend to spend much of my adulthood working to solve those problems.
    1
  26. Sashiyaki no because now ur attempting to kill base on income which is classist, and also by prediction which holds merit against the child considering u r saying what might happen versus what more than likely will happen. Also again it’s not consistent. Adoption is still an option, no one is forcing her to raise the kid, not to mention that again whether or not a baby is hard is once again a logic u can apply to babies after birth. Meaning it’s not consistent.
    1
  27. stacey gewin I do consider it. But people confuse consideration to needing to bow down which I won’t. I’m sorry, a human being is worth more than the cost of a c section.
    1
  28.  stacey gewin  I do agree with that.
    1
  29.  stacey gewin  So r we now just talking about rape cases?
    1
  30. Bubba Tao r u a fucking joke? No u fucking idiot. U r not doing the kid a favor by killing it. U are still depriving it of the life it can live. Also not everyone believes in religion u dumb fuck. U think so little of life, then start with ur self before think of depriving anyone else of their life.
    1
  31.  @blooberryproductions904  No I wouldn't. And neither would most pro life members. Obviously in the case of life threatening. The right of life for the mother does not end for the child. Obviously the mother comes first, especially when likely the child would die alongside the mother anyways. However there is a major difference between something being an active threat to your life vs something being inconvenienced for your life. And I find it most humorous that in literally every abortion argument I enter, pro choice members always try to pull the most extreme examples to rationalize their logic, despite it being a severe minority, meaning that even if that isolated circumstance could be acceptable (Which most I still don't), that it would somehow justify the 98% being done for pure lifestyle convenience.
    1
  32.  @blooberryproductions904  It is when your weighing it against the life of a human being. I agree no one should go through that, but by the same token no one should be killed just because they are considered dreadful to someone else. Also no one is forcing anything. That is what is failed to understand. Force requires one to do something that would not already be done. It is a prohibition. A woman is weighed with 5 options rn. Abstinence, Contraception, Motherhood, Adoption, and for rn abortion. Pro life is against the 5th because of it involving the deliberate destruction of another human being. Does not change that those other 4 options exist. Also child support does exist and I will agree requires greater enforcement. So the idea of "getting no help from the husband" would not apply here. Instead pro life wants both the mother and father to be held accountable for the child.
    1
  33.  @blooberryproductions904  ok and as mentioned before there are alternatives. And also as mentioned before this is an extreme case. So I’ll ask would u concede that Abortion for those above 18 if it isn’t a life threatening case should be illegal?
    1
  34.  @blooberryproductions904  can be better but they exist. Also they are far better than abortion ever would be.
    1
  35.  @blooberryproductions904  ok why is that?
    1
  36.  @blooberryproductions904  ok and wouldn’t the solution be to improve those systems rather than using their faults as an excuse to kill the kids instead?
    1
  37.  @blooberryproductions904  ok once again, the solution is to do better not use it as an excuse. Also let’s apply that logic then. If a mother feels it’s in the best interest should she be allowed to kill her newborn?
    1
  38.  @blooberryproductions904  it’s not stupid when u realize that’s the equivalence. Ur adding to my point. Why is it killing newborns is so bad yet killing unborns is seen as a right. Murder isn’t a right
    1
  39.  @blooberryproductions904  unless ur referring to an individual under a major medical risk from the child, then yes. They can do it
    1
  40.  @blooberryproductions904  Also I never said it was right morally. Unless ur a sociopath anyone knows it’s morally wrong. The problem is they see it as a right to be done. And that brings the logical gaps
    1
  41. which is why rapists need to be castrated or killed. Not have punishment directed at the baby. We are all a "clump of cells" Such an outdated term.
    1
  42. That kidd because it’s doesn’t change what ur killing. We are still clump of cells
    1
  43. That kidd a newborn baby doesn’t know it’s existence either. Also scientists have concluded instances where the fetus can feel pain as early as 8 weeks. So that’s not really a point.
    1
  44. That kidd no i didn’t. No I’m asking r u saying a woman can’t have it after 8 weeks.
    1
  45. That kidd that’s actually incorrect brain activity begins by the sixth week in many cases. And it’s like I said before pain does not constitute livelihood
    1
  46. That kidd conception constitutes it. Because everything else is a development that comes after that point. It’s when a new dna strand and genetic code is formed. It’s when they begin full development.
    1
  47. Dan Norton which is the fucking problem. U know perhaps u should explain why a zygote should not have the same rights as any other given human being if u think ur so smart. So go on.
    1