People have the conviction that "life is sacred" but life...the biological definition of life...is not. Unchecked growth for the sake of growth is cancer, by definition in an individual, and we see populations explode until resource scarcity hits and then they plunge back down. That kind of life is not all that great.
There are thousands of people hooked up to ventilators and other machines in hospitals right now that are "alive" yet these people have no chance for recovery. They are being kept alive for their family's sake so that they can have closure seeing them one last time, or to keep them alive to later harvest their organs for transplant. And when those organs do get transplanted, we never put them into old decrepit bodies that have no chance of leaving a hospital or being healthy again. We put them into people that have a chance to experience the world and make use of it.
Life is beautiful and precious. But it's the kind of life that can feel, can think, can sing and dance, play and experience. Simply existing is not the life we hold sacred, but the two get mixed up all the time. So while it can be sad for a potential life to never happen (as in the case of an abortion), it's not as sad as an actual life ending prematurely (like the NC boy who was shot by his neighbor).
I'll put a challenge to any pro-lifer out there, that if they had to choose between me dumping a zygote from a test tube into a trash can, or smashing a 5 year old boy's head in with a hammer (you have to pick one in this hypothetical or I'll just do both cause I'm crazy(!))...I know which one they are going to rather me "kill". It is not the same. Nowhere close. Destroying a life that cannot feel, think, experience, has no memory...just because it's "alive" doesn't make it equal to a living, breathing, conscious being with actual thoughts and autonomy.
It is a difficult problem because there is no clear delineation. Because of this, I don't support late term abortions or even midterm, but early term I do. When it is literally "a clump of cells" it is just not important to me. I don't value it the way I do a born person and I see nothing wrong with it.
What/if a fetus feels things is knowledge that is impossible to have.
A quora post is about the worst source you can bring. Its just a random persons opinion.
And you are clearly being deceptive, as how old does the fetus have to be? Please answer in detail. Does a 7 week old fetus have feelings? And if not, do you now agree with me? Somehow, I don't think you would.
I don't know if you missed it, but I said I was against late term abortions. So are you really trying to claim embryos can feel?
I’d kill you because you clearly have no respect for the transcendent sanctity of life that our society is based on. What a half-assed argument to base your view of human worth on. Seriously in what anarcho-communist phase of your life did you concoct that addle-brained worldview? The moment you dehumanize you lose everything. Everything. Gas chambers are the end game. Seriously cauterize the edgy teen from your personality and re-approach the argument from square one.
You are either extremely bad at defending your principles, incapable of discourse or a troll. I’m leaning the latter. If you can’t see that you are using classic fallacies to support your truth you are an idiot. You went train track/joker fallacy into straw man.
You leveled a retarded “challenge”. Inserted your crazy behind into it. You credibly (or else the argument doesn’t work) threatened to kill one or more people in a crazed state. And asked how I a pro-lifer would respond. The answer is snuff you or anyone else that would do that right out. Amazing that you can can justify killing what we can at least agree is a potential for life but me taking yours in order to save lives is considered “dehumanizing”. How can you possibly make those to things add up in your wise secular mind. Nice jump to assuming that my disagreement with you over this is indicative of my disagreements with literally anyone else in my life. If you want bedrock principle to lay your preference for killing humans on pick a better one or deal with being called an imbecile.
You are either extremely bad at defending your principles, incapable of discourse or a troll. I’m leaning the latter.
Considering 12 people upvoted me in a place like this is a win, in my opinion. It seems some people were able to not jump to conclusions are understand what I was saying. I expected downvotes and disagreement (I didn't expect a positive ratio) but I chose to post my thoughts anyways, but I did not expect as much positive response.
If you can’t see that you are using classic fallacies to support your truth you are an idiot. You went train track/joker fallacy into straw man.
I also explained how I think the definition of "life" is not important as most people think, that there are certain properties contained within life that are actually what's important. Now I may be wrong about what others think but I do think that way myself. I tried to show that with an example in addition to other arguments. Your response has shown me you don't understand what I'm saying, and that's fine. Hell even if you did, you'd still have the right to disagree. But apparently my thoughts are so wrong you think killing me is okay.
You credibly (or else the argument doesn’t work) threatened to kill
If you cannot entertain a hypothetical, this level of discussion is impossible. I could have just as easily replace myself (as crazy!) with a fictional, hypothetical crazy person. In no universe would I ever threaten a 5 year old boy, and my whole argument lays out why I think it's wrong. The fact that you think I am "credibly threatening" a hypothetical person shows me you don't have any understanding of what is being said.
That has more to do with immediate perceptions of life. If you were tasked with saving either a plate of fertilized zygotes or a box of crickets, most people would save the zygotes.
A born human "appears" more alive than an unborn one, but that doesn't make an unborn child not alive and human in the same sense as a born one. I imagine you agree with this because you likely have some issues with killing an unborn child that is one day away from being born.
I just want to be clear: A baby is already a life worth preserving.
To me a zygote, an embryo, and early development fetuses are not.
You are under the assumption that there is a specific point. But that point does not exist. That's why I err on the side of caution and am against late term abortions.
But there is a large difference between a 38 week fetus and a 7 week one. It is dishonest to equate the two.
More importantly, why are conservatives pushing for prolife so hard even in Dem majority areas?
Let their population reduce, I know you're trying to take the high road with every life is precious and equal, but after seeing what brainwashed people are capable of, there might actually be less suffering if you nip it in the bud.
I'm not sticking up for abortion, if that's what you're getting at. My point is that conservatives were losing the 'optics' of the abortion debate when the leftists were making actual arguments for early abortions- in rape cases etc- making the lie that we're misogynists who don't care about female autonomy.
When they kept pushing the envelope- abort if you feel like it, abort if you change your mind mid pregnancy, it all got pushed through easily since the conservatives were the 'misogynists that hate womens' rights'.
Now that we're finally at the point of full term abortions, even some leftists are wondering about the morality of it- we could have reached this point even earlier if the conservative side hadn't pushed back early, probably leading to a quicker resolution of this whole business, probably saving more lives. Leftists were always going to get abortions and nothing conservatives said would have changed it. Letting them slide down the slippery slope unchecked until even they go "WTF" might have been the better call.
You murder the future when you do that. That's why. One mother from a shitty place can give birth to the next great genius of our time who revolutionises the world for the better.
You're gambling on the off chance that you get something good out of allowing people who don't want children(really not the best parents) while it's more likely that it's going to lead to more broken families, single parents, and childhood trauma, with the obligatory welfare to support them, leading to the next generation of the same stuff. And who do they vote for?
It's arrogant, short sighted, and inhumane to presume you know enough to kill the future for one innocent life.
Look at it this way: let's say 99.99% of children who get in Hollywood are sexually molested. The 00.01% of them become great stars and bring joy to the world. Would you keep sending kids there?
Maybe I'm completely off on the numbers regarding whether people who were forced to have a baby are good parents, I'd love to see some sources.
That's what people don't understand. And we ceded this battle for too long. That's how we have full-term abortion and even the idea of post-birth abortion.
I'm not very old, but I'm old enough to remember when the argument for abortion was for early-term based on the formation of the fetus and the (I believe erroneous) belief that it wasn't yet a person until X time. That's all out the window now. It's contempt for innocence, contempt for children, contempt for humankind. It's sick and evil.
That's what people don't understand. And we ceded this battle for too long. That's how we have full-term abortion and even the idea of post-birth abortion.
No, the vehement opposition for the acceptable cases of abortion(rape being one of them) made people think that conservatives are misogynistic women haters who get off on controlling women. This lead to every next step on the slippery slope being an autowin for the dems since hurr durr conservative bad. Now that they're at full term/post birth abortions, maybe the normies will wake up and say "WTF".
They would have reached that point regardless of how much opposition you put up, but maybe if they reached it faster, more lives could have been saved.
When you're trying to save the children of people who are trying(and succeeding) in destroying your world with their moronic views, leading to your side being demonised for 'misogyny' and 'anti-women' stances, I really don't see the value in that.
No one is forced to raise their unwanted child. Adoption and foster homes exist. It’s not the best thing a parent can do, but it sure is better than being murdered by your parents.
Don’t think that it’s always kids of left that become so staunch. It’s very very often kids of very conservative people and they’re either rebelling or indoctrinated at school. School is the problem not left breeding. Welfare breeding is a problem and I’d be in favour of forced birth control for serial welfare cases. However not abortions. Abortions just let people get pregnant thirty times. It’s not a proper solution. It’s a very grotesque and inhumane answer to the problem and really we can do better.
Agree completely, birth control should be the most important step. However when you pay welfare based on the number of kids you have, that kinda goes out the window.
People have the conviction that "life is sacred" but life...the biological definition of life...is not. Unchecked growth for the sake of growth is cancer, by definition in an individual, and we see populations explode until resource scarcity hits and then they plunge back down. That kind of life is not all that great.
There are thousands of people hooked up to ventilators and other machines in hospitals right now that are "alive" yet these people have no chance for recovery. They are being kept alive for their family's sake so that they can have closure seeing them one last time, or to keep them alive to later harvest their organs for transplant. And when those organs do get transplanted, we never put them into old decrepit bodies that have no chance of leaving a hospital or being healthy again. We put them into people that have a chance to experience the world and make use of it.
Life is beautiful and precious. But it's the kind of life that can feel, can think, can sing and dance, play and experience. Simply existing is not the life we hold sacred, but the two get mixed up all the time. So while it can be sad for a potential life to never happen (as in the case of an abortion), it's not as sad as an actual life ending prematurely (like the NC boy who was shot by his neighbor).
I'll put a challenge to any pro-lifer out there, that if they had to choose between me dumping a zygote from a test tube into a trash can, or smashing a 5 year old boy's head in with a hammer (you have to pick one in this hypothetical or I'll just do both cause I'm crazy(!))...I know which one they are going to rather me "kill". It is not the same. Nowhere close. Destroying a life that cannot feel, think, experience, has no memory...just because it's "alive" doesn't make it equal to a living, breathing, conscious being with actual thoughts and autonomy.
It is a difficult problem because there is no clear delineation. Because of this, I don't support late term abortions or even midterm, but early term I do. When it is literally "a clump of cells" it is just not important to me. I don't value it the way I do a born person and I see nothing wrong with it.
The fetus has emotions and can feel what the mother is feeling. https://www.quora.com/What-emotions-can-a-baby-feel-when-inside-the-womb?share=1
What/if a fetus feels things is knowledge that is impossible to have.
A quora post is about the worst source you can bring. Its just a random persons opinion.
And you are clearly being deceptive, as how old does the fetus have to be? Please answer in detail. Does a 7 week old fetus have feelings? And if not, do you now agree with me? Somehow, I don't think you would.
I don't know if you missed it, but I said I was against late term abortions. So are you really trying to claim embryos can feel?
Maybe you should research it yourself. https://www.lifenews.com/2020/01/20/scientist-confirms-unborn-children-feel-pain-during-abortions-as-early-as-12-weeks/
https://www.boldsky.com/pregnancy-parenting/prenatal/2018/what-are-the-emotions-that-your-baby-can-feel-in-the-womb-124341.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199809/fetal-psychology
https://www.romper.com/p/can-babies-feel-your-emotions-in-the-womb-they-experieince-more-than-you-think-25741
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111110142352.htm
https://www.hellomotherhood.com/the-emotional-development-of-the-baby-in-the-womb-12212638.html
So before 12 weeks is fine then?
I’d kill you because you clearly have no respect for the transcendent sanctity of life that our society is based on. What a half-assed argument to base your view of human worth on. Seriously in what anarcho-communist phase of your life did you concoct that addle-brained worldview? The moment you dehumanize you lose everything. Everything. Gas chambers are the end game. Seriously cauterize the edgy teen from your personality and re-approach the argument from square one.
It sounds like you have no problems dehumanizing anyone that disagrees with you.
Pot, meet kettle.
You are either extremely bad at defending your principles, incapable of discourse or a troll. I’m leaning the latter. If you can’t see that you are using classic fallacies to support your truth you are an idiot. You went train track/joker fallacy into straw man.
You leveled a retarded “challenge”. Inserted your crazy behind into it. You credibly (or else the argument doesn’t work) threatened to kill one or more people in a crazed state. And asked how I a pro-lifer would respond. The answer is snuff you or anyone else that would do that right out. Amazing that you can can justify killing what we can at least agree is a potential for life but me taking yours in order to save lives is considered “dehumanizing”. How can you possibly make those to things add up in your wise secular mind. Nice jump to assuming that my disagreement with you over this is indicative of my disagreements with literally anyone else in my life. If you want bedrock principle to lay your preference for killing humans on pick a better one or deal with being called an imbecile.
Deport.
Considering 12 people upvoted me in a place like this is a win, in my opinion. It seems some people were able to not jump to conclusions are understand what I was saying. I expected downvotes and disagreement (I didn't expect a positive ratio) but I chose to post my thoughts anyways, but I did not expect as much positive response.
I also explained how I think the definition of "life" is not important as most people think, that there are certain properties contained within life that are actually what's important. Now I may be wrong about what others think but I do think that way myself. I tried to show that with an example in addition to other arguments. Your response has shown me you don't understand what I'm saying, and that's fine. Hell even if you did, you'd still have the right to disagree. But apparently my thoughts are so wrong you think killing me is okay.
If you cannot entertain a hypothetical, this level of discussion is impossible. I could have just as easily replace myself (as crazy!) with a fictional, hypothetical crazy person. In no universe would I ever threaten a 5 year old boy, and my whole argument lays out why I think it's wrong. The fact that you think I am "credibly threatening" a hypothetical person shows me you don't have any understanding of what is being said.
?
That has more to do with immediate perceptions of life. If you were tasked with saving either a plate of fertilized zygotes or a box of crickets, most people would save the zygotes.
A born human "appears" more alive than an unborn one, but that doesn't make an unborn child not alive and human in the same sense as a born one. I imagine you agree with this because you likely have some issues with killing an unborn child that is one day away from being born.
I straight up said I dont agree with late term abortion. Did you miss that part?
That simply reinforces my point.
At what point does the baby go from "human life worth preserving because it has human experiences" to "just a clump of cells, no loss if it dies"?
I just want to be clear: A baby is already a life worth preserving.
To me a zygote, an embryo, and early development fetuses are not.
You are under the assumption that there is a specific point. But that point does not exist. That's why I err on the side of caution and am against late term abortions.
But there is a large difference between a 38 week fetus and a 7 week one. It is dishonest to equate the two.
More importantly, why are conservatives pushing for prolife so hard even in Dem majority areas?
Let their population reduce, I know you're trying to take the high road with every life is precious and equal, but after seeing what brainwashed people are capable of, there might actually be less suffering if you nip it in the bud.
I'm not sticking up for abortion, if that's what you're getting at. My point is that conservatives were losing the 'optics' of the abortion debate when the leftists were making actual arguments for early abortions- in rape cases etc- making the lie that we're misogynists who don't care about female autonomy.
When they kept pushing the envelope- abort if you feel like it, abort if you change your mind mid pregnancy, it all got pushed through easily since the conservatives were the 'misogynists that hate womens' rights'.
Now that we're finally at the point of full term abortions, even some leftists are wondering about the morality of it- we could have reached this point even earlier if the conservative side hadn't pushed back early, probably leading to a quicker resolution of this whole business, probably saving more lives. Leftists were always going to get abortions and nothing conservatives said would have changed it. Letting them slide down the slippery slope unchecked until even they go "WTF" might have been the better call.
You're gambling on the off chance that you get something good out of allowing people who don't want children(really not the best parents) while it's more likely that it's going to lead to more broken families, single parents, and childhood trauma, with the obligatory welfare to support them, leading to the next generation of the same stuff. And who do they vote for?
Look at it this way: let's say 99.99% of children who get in Hollywood are sexually molested. The 00.01% of them become great stars and bring joy to the world. Would you keep sending kids there?
Maybe I'm completely off on the numbers regarding whether people who were forced to have a baby are good parents, I'd love to see some sources.
Because they actually believe that it is murder.
Shouldn't people be opposed to murder, no matter what?
That's what people don't understand. And we ceded this battle for too long. That's how we have full-term abortion and even the idea of post-birth abortion.
I'm not very old, but I'm old enough to remember when the argument for abortion was for early-term based on the formation of the fetus and the (I believe erroneous) belief that it wasn't yet a person until X time. That's all out the window now. It's contempt for innocence, contempt for children, contempt for humankind. It's sick and evil.
No, the vehement opposition for the acceptable cases of abortion(rape being one of them) made people think that conservatives are misogynistic women haters who get off on controlling women. This lead to every next step on the slippery slope being an autowin for the dems since hurr durr conservative bad. Now that they're at full term/post birth abortions, maybe the normies will wake up and say "WTF".
They would have reached that point regardless of how much opposition you put up, but maybe if they reached it faster, more lives could have been saved.
When you're trying to save the children of people who are trying(and succeeding) in destroying your world with their moronic views, leading to your side being demonised for 'misogyny' and 'anti-women' stances, I really don't see the value in that.
You do realize that Trump was born in a city right?
Was he an unwanted child who was forced upon his parents by the lack of abortion services?
I'd say he would have turned out way worse if his parents didn't want him and were forced to raise him.
No one is forced to raise their unwanted child. Adoption and foster homes exist. It’s not the best thing a parent can do, but it sure is better than being murdered by your parents.
Don’t think that it’s always kids of left that become so staunch. It’s very very often kids of very conservative people and they’re either rebelling or indoctrinated at school. School is the problem not left breeding. Welfare breeding is a problem and I’d be in favour of forced birth control for serial welfare cases. However not abortions. Abortions just let people get pregnant thirty times. It’s not a proper solution. It’s a very grotesque and inhumane answer to the problem and really we can do better.
Agree completely, birth control should be the most important step. However when you pay welfare based on the number of kids you have, that kinda goes out the window.
Regarding the schooling system 100% agree.