The debate "Agree or disagree with abortion" was started by
March 7, 2017, 4:25 pm.
111 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 196 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Suco_169 posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 7 arguments, Pugsly posted 1 argument, SalonY posted 1 argument, diecinueve posted 11 arguments, Nemiroff posted 5 arguments, RadicalBrain posted 1 argument, Impossible posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
mmjd14 posted 19 arguments, neveralone posted 14 arguments, blue_rayy posted 5 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, Delta_Force01 posted 2 arguments, benmiller posted 1 argument, jrardin12 posted 17 arguments, benmiller123 posted 1 argument, alemanchris posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Pugsly, Mr_Beuller, SalonY, Argument_fightme, Persephone, emzy101, diecinueve, RadicalBrain, hailey123, Bnice80, Entropyrose, Helloguys, bitchimaqueen, eva_pet35, Impossible, Madler, Khumo, akashmeka, Dazed_Confused, debater_69 and 91 visitors agree.
blue_rayy, Your_dad, syed_01, thereal, Ematio, tanvi12padalia, neveralone, UnderdogMike, CHuss34, Maxshe88, redstar, makson, hollieg, Delta_Force01, YEET, lolopopo, ProDavid, Shrivali_16, chelrasonjohn, benmiller, kbrown91, devinmungo, Sparkytusk, VagnerNGC, Unaluhabe, Oheythere, wolf, Light, pompom, jrardin12, crazy_troglodyte, alemanchris, archnemesis, AnarchoCommunist, Kp, tyler0300, samegar08, LittlePrincess, pavan9062, sbwinner and 156 visitors disagree.
as with the case in this app/site, all should be welcome to come and participate even if their beliefs are weird... but if they prove to be trolls seeking to intentionally derail or mock the discussion rather then to add to it, im not for censorship, but i am for peer callouts and counter trolling.
it is one thing to have a religious person state they have certain beliefs, it is another to make the nonsense claim that creationists take the *same* scientific evidence and interpret it differently, claiming the difference is all "worldview" with zero objectivity. when pressed jrardin claimed they used stars, planets, and fossils to date the earth at 6000 years, the same evidence old earth proponents use to claim billions of years. old earth does not use stars, planets, or fossils to age the earth, and creationists dont use anything but the bible. these were knowingly false claims that deserve to be called out as the nonsense they are.
>blanket dismissals with no alternatives are not (welcome)
While I agree that just saying "no" is not a valid scientific cristisim, it's very important to publish negative claims if you discover them even if you have no alternative or explanation, otherwise science is just a confirmation bias circle jerk.
Eg Negative claims are rarely published in social sciences and that hurts the legitimacy of future work and meta analyses.
I'm not going to be an arbiter of whether creation science is valid science. It's up to the scientific community to grade their cristisims. I just believe they should be allowed to engage with them, instead of feel isolated, even if they arent experts and base their cristisims on misconceptions. I don't want a science vs religion issue, I want science to be everyone's language.
only if the criticisms are senisble. its one thing to say something may be uncertain, its another to claim something with any uncertainty should be ignored in favor of a blind faith alternative. criticisms are certainly welcome, but blanket dismissals with no alternatives are not. can you demonstrate legitamete creationist criticisms of science?
flat earthers dismiss certain claims, but then try to replace it with models, and then try to prove those models. i consider flat earthers foolish and misguided, but professional creationists are simply propaganda liars.
p.s. there is a strong religious and creationist subsection of flat earthers that simply use biblical verses to justify a flat earth. when i put flat earthers above creationists, it is only the flat earthers that try to use empirical, or at least mundane, evidence for their theories.
Abortion is good. Sometimes protection does not work.
Yeah I briefly tried finding some science for the early earth claim but it turns out that's purely biblical. I wouldn't say none of what they do is science though. Cristisim of imperfect techniques can still be scientific, and our processes, while they're the best we have, are not perfect.
i rest my case.
if creationists are scientists, show me a single procreation argument they make that isnt just a version of Anslem or Aquinas's thousand year old arguments?
im not sure what definition of scientist you are using but i don't see the connection. i would give more credit to flat earthers tbh.
I mean, you're not technically wrong. But a common issue with creationists is they interpret evidence through a pre-existing belief. Their interpretation of the Bible is threatened by evidence that suggests a world is older than 6,000 years so they apply a top down approach to truth seeking. They have their truth at the top and they select the pieces of evidence and theories at the bottom that confirm it.
A lot of scientists use that approach too. It's not inherently bad. It's efficient to agree with the body of work that precedes you. A theoretical physicist doesn't need to understand all of computer science to simulate a mid for their paper. It's also a part of generalising a theory to new areas, and informs future testing, plus we're all just prone to confirmation bias. It's especially a problem in psychology.
But when you have a hypothesis, like the earth being flat or 6000 years old, you need to test it on the entire body of evidence available, not just the ones that seem to prove you right. Flat Earthers are scientists because they test their theory on the body of evidence they can access. That's great. But it's also not going to change the scientific consensus that the world is not flat because there's just so much more evidence that it's spherical.
The same goes for evolution Vs creationism. Yes creationists are scientists, but they're as respected as flat earthers by scientific peers because most of their theories are based on misunderstandings of the evidence.
they have life but no conscience, so they cannot like living, therefore killing them is not bad
Ok. Let me work on it.
i want you to show me how the plansts, the stars, and the fossils get you to 6000 years old.
You just wanted to know what evidence Creationists use and I told you what evidence. There is a difference between evidence and interpretation of evidence. What you want right now is for me to interpret the evidence. However, I already told you that both sides have the same evidence they just interpret it according to their worldview.
saying the earth is 6000 years old doesnt explain how you got that number.
saying the stars are in the sky also doesnt explain where you got 6000 years old from.
nothing you have said has had any useful information at all. your wasting everyones time. aka trolling.
god i hate trolls
You said you didn't want conclusions.
your playing dumb. what about the stars, earth, or fossils point to 6000 years old?
why not 7000, or 10000, or billions? you saying "stars are in the sky" says absolutely nothing about the age of the earth. this is idiotic.
Fossils are everywhere, the stars are in space, the rock layers can be found in the Grand Canyon.
I already gave the evidence. The evidence and conclusion are two separate things
we were clearly talking about seeing the same evidence differently. i was clearly asking about the evidence, not your conclusion. your trolling again instead of trying to debate.
i asked for the evidence, not the conclusion. how do planets, stars, and fossils get you to 6000 years old?
That the earth is 6,000 years old.
what do you see in fossils, stars, and planets regarding the age of the earth?
The Grand Canyon, different sedimentary layers in the rock, fossils, stars, planets. Same evidence, different conclusion. Why? Because of different worldviews.
and what evidence do the creationists see?
Because the Evolutionists and the Creationists look at the same evidence, but have different conclusions based on their worldview.
that makes no sense. forensic evidence follows the same laws of physics and chemistry as the rest of the universe.
how is the age of the earth a matter of world view?
as usual, you make zero sense.
Unfortunately, science is not like solving a murder, why? Because there are laws in nature that are constant. The way a murder is done is not always the same. However, with regards to the Age of the Earth it is a matter of worldview, not science.
a detective cant observe or experiment on a murder. should we eliminate detectives and criminal prosecutions.
they can examine the aftermath and observe the evidence it presents, just like scientists does. except detectives require a lower standard of evidence, and no peer review of their results.
You're right, but you're also not telling the whole story. You're right that science is empirical. It uses observations and experiments to find truths. But science is also rational. We take what we observe and generalise it into theories that have powerfully accurate predictive potential. It's how we designed machines that started the industrial revolution.
It's the result of almost three thousand years of many many philosophers, even CS Lewis, arguing over how to find truth. Senses (empiricism) or thoughts (rationalism). Both are right, both are wrong. There's just weaknesses to both that a synthesis of the two helps solve. Science is what's called a dialectic approach to truth seeking.
Without senses you can never validate a theory, but without theory you can never move past the object you're observing. So you theorise based on observations, but if an observation contradicts a theory you amend your theory to include the observation, you don't just assume all theories are wrong and call it a day.
3000 people had a virus and 30 people died? Okay there's a 1% death rate. But now we survey a sample of people and only about 20% of cases were severe enough to get tested? Okay there was actually a 0.2% death rate. Test, theorise, test, theorise.
You're focus on the weakness of empiricism used to be very popular in old philosophers. Even some of the famous Greek philosophers like Plato thought reality was just a shadow of the truth that only the mind can discover.
The issue you brought up elsewhere of presuming the laws we observe now won't drastically change tomorrow is even something David Hume discussed. He said we only think the cause and effect of tomorrow will be the same as today because it was the same yesterday.
There's no proof that the universe is consistent other than our observed consistency. There's no rational rules proving it. We can't use only the universe to prove something about the universe. But he also said only a madman would question the authority of empirical evidence. Godel proved the same weakness in the universe of mathematics. You must assume axioms as building blocks before you can prove anything. You can't use those axioms to prove themselves. There will always be at least 1 axiom left unproven in any system. In maths it's the set.
The scientific method is based on observation and experimentation. You can not observe or experiment the age of the earth. Also, we as Creationists see the same evidence and come to a different conclusion by research
same way we know whats inside the earth or about distant stars. research and evidence.
how does a detective uncover a murder he never witnessed? same principle.
Billions of years? I didn't know you were that old. How can anyone know what was going on billions of years ago?
how about before conception? are the egg and the sperm dead? life doesnt start at conception, there is no point at which any involved pieces were not alive going back billions of years.
according to embriology and a research of the magazine the nature, since conception humans have life.
which week is the difficult question. the science is out.
then abortion should be legal up to a certain number of weeks
i think we can agree that a 1 week old fetus does not have consciousness but an 8 month old fetus does. therefore your statment depends on the stage of fetal development.
I think that killing a person is bad for two reasons: because people like to live and because people like to be alive people with whom they feel affection.
Fetuses have no conscience, so they can't like to live.
And they do not interact with others, so no one feels affection for them, the only ones who can feel affection for them are their parents, but if they decide to abort it it is because they do not feel it, therefore it is not bad
Wow! Nice to have you back @benmiller.
Abortion is wrong because you're basically killing a person who is still in the womb. "But what if the parents can't afford having a child"? What do you think adoptions are for? If you don't want the child put it up for an adoption. Having an abortion is basically saying "This unborn baby will be killed so I can live life the way I want to". I mean that is just wrong. Also you're basically saying that the baby doesn't deserve to live. End of Story!
i did say that the list was off the top of my head. i will retract political, or meld it in with social.
yes we are snuffing out potential life, which is in no way a good thing; but preventing is not the same as killing.
to elaborate, not all brain structures are equal. i can name a few all star spots but to play it safe when the cerebrum is activated (not just formed, the literal spark of life), then it is a person. all the lower structures do is regulate your equilibrium, thats still not you. i would consider a midbrain transplant, assuming its not dangerous.
also pain is weird. how does one differentiate pain to simply reacting to a negative stimuli like most bacteria can do. pain is subjective, personal, not a good marker.
What was your political dimension if you disagree with institutional power as being a part of personhood? I agree it's not too relevant to the abortion debate, but it is a part of personhood according to some. It helps companies identity as persons
When I said "that that brain structure" I was trying to point out that it was a specific brain structure we value. One capable of feeling pain. Not anything more primitive than that. If it was just brain structure we cared about we'd have laws protecting 5 week old fetuses.
But my main point of concern is however you define a person we're still stopping one from developing by killing its antecedents.
i am one of those who claims only the brain structures matter.
all the parts of your body have incredibly simple functions. a pump, a filter, an acid bath; its less you, and more like your mech suit.
im sure we are all down for an any organ transplant if needed... but not any. would you be willing to get a brain transplant? someone else's brain in your body? id rather go the otherway around assuming stronger/younger/maybe high tech. you are your brain, the rest of the guts dont matter.
i dont recall the definition of person including institutional power. are those without power not people? defining personhood is certainly difficult, but it is not arbitrary. the difference in how one would treat a person and a ball of cells is not arbitrary, where that distinction happens is of utmost importance, even if it is currently scientifically infeasible.
what is arbitrary is life due to everything in play always being alive. after conception, during conception, before conception. it would be very freaky and unnatural if any this involved things that are not alive.
we also dont care about chicken abortions, so human is also a given in this context. everything involved is human, everything is alive. arbitrary information.
Yeah, well I guess it was obvious why I was asking. Defining when a baby human becomes a person is arbitrary. Generally a person is defined as exhibiting a predefined level of intrapersonal capacity, interpersonal capacity, and institutional power. It's generally agreed upon that a baby human becomes a person at some point in the womb. It's defining when that is arbitrary.
Is enough intrapersonal capacity just any sort of psychological capacity? Is sentience the standard for that capacity? Is experiencing pain enough to show sentience? Is developing the regions of the brain that experience pain enough to prove pain can be felt? Yes? Should we err on the side of caution? 22 weeks? That's one possible route.
Where I struggle with abortion is we justify killing with an arbitrary marker. It's not a concern of inflicting pain, but a philosophical stance that that brain structure is worth protecting but earlier stages are not. What's more, each time an earlier stage is killed, there's the reality that it would have become this later stage that we see as worth protecting. It's a disturbing and contradictory way to defend abortion.
I am for abortion because I believe it adds more value than it takes away. But it's borderline eugenics-level disturbing. Does long-term social benefit really outweigh the cost of killing innocents? I'd say yes, but eugenics hasn't proven it'd actually create more value than it costs. I do feel like I understand the view Germans had when Jews were extracted from their society though.
i am not dodging, i stated from the beginning that the difference depends on one's definition of these terms and these terms do not have universally agreed upon definitions.
i agree with your definition of human life (living human dna), and have stated that human life as defined by us, is utterly irrelevant to this debate. your criteria can be fulfilled by some human liver cells in a petri dish, a point it seems that you are ignoring.
what i did ignore is elaborating on multidimensional aspect of personhood because 1) its kinda obvious, but more importantly 2) we are not up to that as i am still trying to show you how irrelevant the quality of "life" is.
if you are curious the other dimentions of personhood are: social, political, interpersonal, and personal dimentions, in addition to biological. this is not a complete list, just off the top of my head. human life on the other hand is a strictly biological aspect.
What is personhood? What is a person? Why are you ignoring that question?
I'll make this quick. I am not a parent though I know a few who, let's just say I wouldn't give them a lawn chair much less a human little human or not. So in conclusion I agree with abortions because people don't exactly have any answers for when they f*** up so a Ctrl+Alt+Del isn't exactly a bad option when your only others are abandonment, future jail time, another "unwanted" pregnancy and a death of a child due to neglect, negligence, cruelty or just a dumbass who for some reason decides his TV or whatever is more important than the kid and he needed to make them "cease" their crying because the wheel of fortune was on and they figured out how to spell "Think" for the first time. Look people are stupid in fact it's a wonder our species has survived this long we have 7.8 or so BILLION reasons why it's not necessary to have ten kids for every lady who wants a kid or doesn't need to be having said children bc Facebook and HER freedom is more important. Only one question needs to be asked is it more cruel to terminate a life before or after what we would call memory have gained a foothold on the conscience of a child or after when would it be "humane" all you need is to think of isn't yourself think of that kid. Oh and the whole free will thing there's an amendment for that it's the first one I do believe oh and in Genesis something about a tree it's a hoot to read.
a petri dish of liver cells meets your criteria for human life. it doesnt however meet any definition of personhood.
it's not a strawman to point out your definition is inadequate. its an argument to absurdity.
Yes but a detached finger is the straw man that is not human life. That's not really important, what's important and central to the abortion debate is defining the distinction between human life and person, and justifying why the identity of a person is the standard for giving an entity the right to live.
i already covered why the quality of "life" is irrelevant. nothing involved was ever dead, even before conception.
What are the dimensions though?
Thus life was included, not just dna
well if you use the definition of homosapien dna as your criteria, a detached finger is a person. your criteria can be filled in a petri dish.
human life is a strictly biological definition. Petersonhood is multidimensional. it will also function perfectly fine post discovery of non human intelligence.
I asked you what a person was and why it's a better standard than a human life... Did you miss that?
I only added the life part only because I didn't want a stupid strawman made.
But those thoughts don't exist yet, so if you kill the fetus, no thoughts are lost.
Why is it wrong for you to kill a person?
that's why abortion should only be legal up to a certain number of weeks
the "life" part is the most irrelevant. a tumor is life. the fetus is certainly alive, as was the individual sperm and egg. the word life is meaningless in this context. it is all always life.
Well a human life is more than just having DNA. There's the "life" part too. But lets use the definition of living homo sapien DNA as the definition for human life. What is "person" and why is it a better standard for judging if someone has the right to live?
it all depends on your definition of human. if the definition of human is simply having human dna, then there is a great distinction.
also, a death row convinct is a person without a right to life.
"will continue to have [thoughts] when he wakes up."
the fetus will have thoughts and memories after it wakes up too. Lacking the love of family or friends or lacking prior consciousness doesn't make a human life lose the right to live. If you're pro-choice I'm glad because I am too, but to argue only some human life is valuable and worth protecting is wrong.
@Nemiroff. What's the difference between a human and a person? Isn't the definition of a person an arbitrary cutoff point for declaring what is type of human life has the right to live?
i agree with your logic, however it.paints fetuses with a broad brush. im sure an 8 month old fetus has thoughts, so does a 7 month, maybe even a 6 month or younger. its hard to tell.
a ball of cells is clearly not a person, but where the exact border is is hard to define. in such cases wouldnt the wise thing to do be to overestimate and play it safe? within reason.
A person before sleep has thoughts that he will continue to have when he wakes up. His family and friends like those thoughts. If you kill a person, those thoughts will be lost forever, therefore, his family and friends will feel very bad. That's why it's bad to kill peraonas.
A fetus has no thoughts, so it is not bad to kill them
A fetus isn't afraid in the same way you're not afraid when you're asleep. It's when you awake that you'd feel the fear of falling asleep if it was legal to kill someone in their sleep. If it was legal, it would make people protect those they care about. The same applies to fetuses. Many people try protecting the rights of a fetus because they care about them. They may not feel in their current state, but they will when they 'wake up'. Killing them before they 'wake up' is still killing a human life, and to many that's worth protecting.
To me it's up to the mother. I don't think human life has any inherent value so the mother can do what she wants until the baby can survive independently of her. I am all for choice it's needed for economic growth and freedom. It's still cruel and slightly disturbing though.
If it were legal to kill someone asleep, everyone would live in fear of being killed while they sleep. Instead, fetuses cannot be afraid of being killed, so it should be legal to kill them.
Do you realise you're alive when you're asleep?
I think it is not good when the festus has developed but you can still do it when it is not yet a living thing. You can do it when it begins feelings and eating.
I think it is not good when the festus has developed but you can still do it when it is not yet a living thing. You can do it when it begins feelings and eating.
I did not say that something that does not realize that it is alive is not alive. I said it is not wrong to kill something that does not realize that it is alive
There are diseases were people don't realize they are alive. Ever. Other people have diseases were they cannot feel. Are they persons?
And why does knowing your alive and feeling pain mean you are a life?
Babies know they are alive, they can feel and think.
And a fetus can't feel pain before week 20
fetuses can feel pain. That is why they move away from black catheter when they are in the womb.
when you were a baby at 5 months old I bet you didn't know you were alive.
because fetuses are not yet aware that they are alive or feel pain
killing a fetus has nothing wrong
Abortions is basically murder of an unborn baby and is saying that the baby doesn't deserve to live. What do you think adoptions are for? If you don't want the baby put it up for an adoption.
Define the poor.
how is it torture on the mom's part? she should never have done it in the first place. it should be illegal to have sex before marriage.
Well...I am not completely agree or disagree with it...When it is urgently needed it should be done but not unnecessarily...
why do you think that? Obamacare has flaws, no one denies that. but it helped 10s of millions of people get health care. there are many worse things than that. repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. it just shows you don't actually think about the issue, you just repeat things pundits say on Fox.
well there is actually 2 new healthcare plans and anything can be better than obamacare
that article does nothing to compare it to the new plan... you can hate Obamacare or love it, but when you compare it to the new plan, Obamacare wins hands down.
why don't you try actually comparing the 2?
I think abortion is fine when it's regulated; this would be how long you can wait until the abortion, health, and doing it safely.
i dont think so
every medical group, doctors association, and economist disagrees with you.
do you have any reasons for your stance or is that just blind partisan talk?
well cant be worse than obamacare
pretty well everyone thinks this is worse. Republicans don't like it, Democrats don't like it.
unless you are a trump or Paul Ryan loyalist, this bill is terrible.
okay last time im gonna say it theyre making a new health care thats what they're fight right now about which one to pick quite frankly anyone would be better then obamacare
no one is claiming Obamacare is perfect. it has problems, in large part because of Republican obstruction, but that is not the issue.
the Republican solution to the issues is just to take health care away from poor people. this is no way an improvement. Trump is stuck between improving Obamacare, as the Democrats want, and saying screw you poor people and just repealing it, as the Republicans want.
theyre making new health care do you not get that?
give what a chance exactly? they are taking health care away from potentially millions of people. why would anyone give that a chance?
if someone put a gun to your head and said they were going to pull the trigger would you say give them a chance?
this bill is very flawed. there is no reason to "give it a chance".
why don't you give it a chance obamacare was failing they needed new healthcare
in what way is that healthcare that works?
they are taking health care from poor people and rewarding the rich and health insurance CEOs. I wish that were surprising, but rewarding the rich is what the Republican party is all about these days.
they're making a newer health care that actually will work
generally but not always. I will say some are poor that take advantage of the system.idk on them but I also know there are some who need it so it is a rock and a hard place with how it's setup right now.
Republican standing policy is to reduce social spending as much as they can. look at the what they are trying to do right now. they are trying to remove health care coverage from millions of Americans.
the people who want to prevent abortions are the same people who won't pay to support the poor.
to the ones that need it definitely. idk about the ones I've seen as a majority. still trying to find an answer on them.
so you want the government to fund large-scale increases to social programs?
good question. teach that a child is precious and should be considered. also that getting help is okay. change government to help parents with kids more.
How would you change society?
so u change how society thinks.
very easy solution. offer proper social support for children outside of the womb. and then we can bring more unwanted children into this world. some QUALITY community child care will also help younger and low income choose to KEEP their kids and not choose between an unborn child and their job or education.
big papa, its illegal to kill unwanted children outside womb but legal inside womb?
my main reasons to be pro abortion are the highly dangerous illegal abortions that take place in every place it is banned and the societal effects of the tsunami of unwanted children and an already underfunded orphan system.
or it can be the other way around and the baby can be successful
99% of the time it doesnt
abortion is banned in El Salvador , Chile , Nicargua , Dominican Republic and other 13 countries. I guess all the 193 nations should be on the list.
Abortion is bad.
well "protected" sex doesn't always work. stuff can get ripped
thank you someone who actually watched an abortion video
why do people dont have protected sex instead? Unprotected sex shouldnt result in the death of the baby. abortion is bad. bad. bad.
For rape, i guess......... it depends on the victim
For medical conditions where the mother might die, The doctor should try his/her best.
i changed my mind. abortion is bad. it should be abolished. The foetus does feel pain. It has senses.
If you feel abortion is alright, watch it.
im not forcing anything on anyone thats just what i believe in. im trying to change minds to save lives. pregnancy is a gift and you people destroy it. nice analogy by the way a muslim lol would of been better if you said a pacifist lol.
who is this directed at?
I would love for my money to go to such research. but I have not heard of any attempts nor do I have the know-how to do it.
if it sounded like I was meaning to be insulting I would like to say that wasn't my intention.
2%of the time its due to rape and incest the other 98% is inconvenience so i do study. and i believe that but 2/3 of abortions are happening at 8 weeks the baby has a brain a heart beat two legs two arms a spine its own dna so yes thats a person not a fetus unless you consider yourself a fetus right now
I'm claiming that science at this moment can't definitely say when consciousness starts. so why take the chance?
i dont agree or diagree with abortion. Medical Science should advance so that both lives could be saved. i'm pro life.
Also, feel free to find a better solution. If you aren't satisfied, find a better way. You can't insult anyone who is not actively looking for a new technology to avoid abortions being necessary unless you are doing so. Unless you are actually satisfied with murder.
you cannot make laws restricting people's rights based on your religious beliefs. that's like a Muslim person demanding America ban alcohol because it is against their religious beliefs. you can't force your views on others. and just FYI I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic.
Are you claiming that consciousness exists before the brain has formed? That seems rather intellectually dishonest.
Right. Because all pregnancies are due to women being irresponsible. No one is ever raped.
Instead of being judgemental, how about you spend some time learning about the subject.
have u read "the giver"?
this is proof to me but we are debating with atheist so we must understand they won't accept anything the Bible says.
yes. I do.
okay tell me what a baby has at 8 weeks and tell me tge difference between you two
well do you believe in the bible
how do u know? we can't even define consciousness correctly. to say u definitely know it starts at point x is being intellectually dishonest. I would rather find a way to save a child than even having a chance to murder one.
maybe she should of thought about the consequences. oh yeah she still makes the baby pay for her mistakes an innocent human being. yeah women rights my a** what about the babies right
we aren't choosing who lives and who dies as there is only one person in this equation. there is a woman with a fetus in her. she is the only person here. and her rights trump those of a cluster of unaware cells.
why would someone ever get the right to choose who lives and dies let alone someone who is hormonal? not trying to sound rude but pregnant women arnt known for their rational thinking.
I wish there was a dif. way than that. that we could take the child without pain to the women(which each one I've talked to said it was worth it). are we even trying to find a different way? or does murder satisfy us?
and the other option is death and possible extreme regret sometimes to the point of suicide.
Look up some of the complications that can come with pregnancy and yell me that forcing someone to experience them isn't torturous. Hours of excruciating pain, potentially permanent damage, and possible lifelong complications from things like diabetes are all relatively common.
If you want a child, all of these things are more than worth it. If someone raped you, going through all this is just adding extra trauma.
it's an analogy. you are taking someone's rights to give rights to a cluster of cells that isn't even a person. and childbirth certainly is a painful experience, and could certainly qualify as torture if you are forcing it on them.
torture? a child isn't torture. it's a gift.
so if you had to torture someone horribly in order to save someone else, is that justified?
you are making a "the ends justify the means" kind of argument. you want to rob women of their rights because you believe that a cluster of cells has more rights than she does.
yeah but i bet one day they would really be glad to be alive rather then moms to end lives that are just beginning
and Republicans don't value a woman's right to control her own body. they would rather give rights to a cluster of cells that have no idea they're alive.
im honestly sick of arguing about this. people have no morals and obviously dont value life just lile almost all Democrats
why are you agree or disagree with abortion?