Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "How Down Syndrome Became a New Front in the Abortion Wars" video.
-
Mendoza Juan
You're asking me about my best argument, but won't respond to any of it.
Where in my post did I deny science? Neurons in fetuses develop at ~22 weeks. Nerves are what facilitate thoughts and feelings, so before ~22 weeks, they are physically incapable of feeling pain.
What is unscientific here? Please explain.
I'm saying your philosophy is subjective!!
You just repeated what you believe, you haven't added anything! What is the evidence that the sentence is true??
You need to define your terms, or you're just saying nothing. What specific criteria make something alive?
No, it's not. The fetus is not alive.
This is the problem, you're not explaining what specific things about the fetus make it "alive."
My point was- "alive" is subjective. Bacteria is alive, but nobody makes coughing illegal.
I gave you the biological reason a fetus is not considered alive.
By saying "neither should the mothers" you're already imposing your values. You think the mothers shouldn't be doing something- that is your belief... your value.
No one's asking for a special pass. Especially not "Stacy," who has to put up with your bullshit when she's forced to carry her rapist's baby to term.
I'm pathetic? Look in the mirror.
This is the world you want?
"How were you born?"
"My daddy raped my mommy, she didn't want me but the GOP said she has to!"
7
-
7
-
Mendoza Juan
Embryology and biology have not determined that is a human infant. The fact that you even used the term "infant" reveals how little you understand to begin with.
"Life" isn't a set thing; its exact boundaries are unclear. The Catholic Church believes that a zygote just after conception is equivalent to a human life, but doesn't explain on what basis it makes that claim.
Bacteria are "alive", are we all committing involuntary manslaughter by destroying millions of them every second, then?
No- it's about human life?
Okay, then what defines that? A cell with human DNA? What happens when in-vitro fertilization fails, should the doctor be sent to prison for involuntary manslaughter, too? Are the parents accomplices? Yes, no?
If yes, then people that can't naturally get pregnant are taking a huge gamble when deciding whether to have children, right?
If no, then what is human life?
You conservatives don't seem to understand- the things that seem obvious, upon close inspection, aren't at all. It's like your arm: look at it, touch it. Seems pretty real, right? Solid, even.
Look closer. It's full of pores, and dead skin cells constantly being recycled. Not so solid and your skin is constantly becoming 'another set' of skin.
Look even closer. It's made of molecules, none of which are 'skin', mostly water. Go even deeper, it's all atoms and nothing's even touching. 99% of atoms are empty space. So, how exactly is your arm solid and real, when only 1% of it is material?
Same with life. There is no set, objective definition. "Life" is a human label which generally works, but fails with specifics. So, we instead look at what's moral: if a thing cannot feel pain, then 'hurting' or 'killing' it is impossible. So, before the embryo's nerve cells develop at about 22 weeks, abortion is legal.
5
-
3