That's the biggest flaw of progressive ideologies; if you're actually given what you want, you have to find something new to champion or you become irrelevant. It's a forced march into clown world, because you can't ever have things stay the same.
Exactly. Science is always meant to be questioned and if we never questioned it, we would still be living in the Stone Age.
Of course it makes sense why scientists defend their findings, after all who wants someone to tell them their whole life’s work is false? But we have people online defending this work and refusing to listen to other opinions because they take the findings as absolute. I am certain it’s just stupid people who want to “believe” science so they can feel like they are smart or whatever. All I know is in science if you form an opinion, you actively try to prove it wrong because a good opinion won’t be proven wrong. But what do I know, I only have a chemical engineering degree.
Maybe I went to a less lefty university but in upper level science classes when we were discussing theory, the professors never said this is absolute or this is the fact, they just said “this is the generally accepted theory at this time”. Even had one hippy chemistry teacher who said there is no question earths CO2 levels are at worrying high levels, but we don’t have enough information as to claim if it’s man made or not.
Thing is, they twist anti-abortion as being a bad thing, because they consider abortion it's own category.
I'm not looking to play word games like they do, but it's good to have a phrase which most accurately describes your aim. When talking to a pro-murder fanatic: We're against abortion because we're anti-murder, do you mean to tell me you're pro-murder?
We basically agree, and I get what you're arguing.
But lets just say you represent, oh...
Level one. Frame the debate
Level two. Instigate protectionary legislation
I'm more level two. Yes, I get you're not a fan of my level two. But, again, I am. We could get into legal theory and history, but let's just say that is my informed opinion.
We have laws against stealing. We have laws against different types of stealing - burglary, petty theft, robbery, etc. Laws against abortion are against "murder," but a specific type of murder.
I have no problem with your level two. In fact I have a whole set of ideas on how anti-murder should be applied in pregnancy cases that I'd like to see turned into laws. But I don't think we get there without going through level one.
Abortion is not murder. Here's why: murder is a legal term with a specific corpus delicti which must be met to be true. Abortion is excluded from being murder legally and, even before Roe v Wade, abortion was generally prosecuted as manslaughter or merely providing illegal abortions - and not murder.
I am curious how "pro-lifers" get around the idea that most life on this planet involves no conception.
First, most life on this planet is produced asexually, from bacteria to plants to fungi.
Second, there's the problem of parthenogenesis, where embryos are fertilized without sperm. Some fish, amphibians, scorpions, and bees reproduce this way. Could a "pro-lifer" seriously look at a fish or bee and say "it's not alive because it wasn't conceived".
Third, a definition of life beginnings would need to include all life, not just humans. So "life begins at conception" is not a scientific belief, but a theocratic one.
Get bent loser. I only have one political opinion that is based on my faith and it isn’t abortion. Anyone with proper reasoning will come to the conclusion that if it is evil to murder a human being then it is evil to hire a doctor to murder a new human being that you have created inside of you.
Anyone with proper reasoning will come to the conclusion that if it is evil to murder a human being...
Is this true? Do you mourn for people executed for capital crimes, jihadists killed fighting U.S. troops, or criminals killed in self-defense? Or are you bending your definition of "murder" to include deaths you personally dislike committed by people you dislike?
Helpful hint: "Murder" is a legal term. It has a specific set of elements which need to be satisfied by law for someone to be termed a murderer. Abortion is specifically excluded in these definitions nationwide and therefore is not murder.
If you want to use "murder" in a moral or theological context, then that's a mere personal opinion which nobody is obligated to believe and "proper reasoning" does not apply.
I can't imagine living a life where my brain shuts down because a theocrat has told me what to think already, especially a theocrat who may have been dead for hundreds or thousands of years. Yet, somehow, this behavior is viewed as "moral" or "virtuous".
Third, a definition of life beginnings would need to include all life, not just humans. So "life begins at conception" is not a scientific belief, but a theocratic one.
Exactly. The sperm and egg came from living bodies that created them. Life begins from life. Life doesn't not begin at conception, it continues at conception. If life "beings' at conception, then that must be there was no life before it. So were the father/mother not alive?
It's an argument via "I like my definition", definitional arguments are not science, they are moral arguments. There are good reasons to be prolife, but this is not one of them.
We mostly only care about human life and individual human life (we also very much care about entire species continuing to exist that we eat or that keep the ecosystem working). We don't feel bad for eating animals because we're the most evolved species and require animal nutrition for optimal health.
We are the only ones that will potentially be capable of deflecting the next asteroid. We should manage our resources more responsibly and expand out into space. Restricting our population or killing our own is contrary to that cause.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with life beginning at conception, but a belief in swelling human numbers. I was talking strictly about the anti-scientific belief of "life beginning at conception". That said, I can see some questionable logic in your reply.
Restricting our population may actually be beneficial for the ecosystem and managing resources, if that's your cause. This is the mainstream belief of environmentalists when asked.
Also, exactly how many people would be involved in deflecting an asteroid? Maybe a few hundred scientists and engineers and maybe several thousands to allocate resources and fabricate a giant missile? Earth having 10 billion people or six billion people isn't really relevant here. Surely you won't need anyone in Africa or Central America to do this. (Unless you believe in predestination at birth, where more people would be helpful.)
The life beginning at conception is explained by the fact that that's when the unique genetic code is created and doesn't ever fundamentally change through a person's life. There's no point after conception where you can say that it isn't a human being.
Pro-life people generally don't follow the belief that liberals tend to have that all life is precious and must be prolonged regardless of any other considerations. Liberals tend to think the life of a pedophile is equal to that of a normal law abiding citizen while somehow also considering an unborn baby to be nothing but a clump of cells.
My point of managing resources more responsibly has a hell of a lot to be unpacked:
1. Education.
Your statement about not needing people from Africa and
Central America makes me think that you think that they are somehow
genetically irredeemable. The truth is that we all have the same fundamental
brain capacity, placidity and have the same fundamental spiritual nature
(though you may not believe that part). The only thing actually wrong here
stems from the subject of education, bad education or lack of education.
2. Energy.
We can support the energy needs of a far higher population once we switch
over to mostly nuclear and fusion power and use electric vehicles that are
charged by those energy sources.
3. Food.
We can switch to sustainable methods of farming instead of monocrops that
deplete the soil and crappy grain-fed feedlot meat that have negative
effects on the environment and are inhumane and unhealthy. The are
methods of greening desert land so that it can hold moisture and support
life for growing food.
4. Other resources.
Space technology is important so that we can extract resources from
space.
Maybe a few hundred scientists and engineers and maybe several thousands > to allocate resources and fabricate a giant missile?
You need all the other jobs to support the lives of the people working on that and there's the gradual development of technology that came before just to even have any hope of having the technology of deflecting asteroids. You also need a large enough pool of people to select people that have aptitude for it and are passionate about it. Besides, there's not much point in preserving life if it can't be enjoyed.
I have never suggested equivalency or non-equivalency between one type of life or another. I also love a good medium rare steak, so no on both counts.
My original point was strictly about the dubious science behind a common theocratic definition of life's beginning. People who want to claim "life begins at conception" need to reconcile how the majority of living things were never conceived, including certain fish or insects which are plainly observable by the common person as living. You are welcome to believe otherwise, but are grossly mistaken to think your view is scientific.
Well if you can’t figure out that people obviously are referring to human life when they say “life begins at conception” then Idk what to tell you. It’s always used in the context of abortion and therefore is always meant in the context of human life.
You are obviously right that a lot of things produce asexually, but it is obvious that pro-lifers are not talking about those things. It shouldn’t be that hard for you to understand that.
So if your argument is that they are mostly asleep, why can’t we just give people we just put people that are a burden to their mothers into a medically induced coma and then murder them?
Me too, I'm pro-choice.
I do want R v W repealed because that's a travesty that the Left legislates from the bench, and I would limit it to the third trimester.
But in general: if ghetto joggers and feminists want to kill their own spawn, let them.
We'd be in concentration camps already if it wasn't for abortion.
That fetus has a full, complete human DNA sequence separate from and distinct from the mother's. From conception, that new human being meets all signs of life (made of one or more cells, uses energy, reacts to external stimuli, regulation between internal and external resources, grows and develops, potential for reproduction, and capability of movement). It is a whole, complete, separate human life, and the claim that anything beyond the point of conception is the mother's body is a denial of basic biological science. If you can provide me scientific proof that this is wrong, I will consider changing my views.
Do parents have a right to murder their teen-aged children? My house, my choice. They're just so expensive too. Could save so much money or headache my just aborting them at 200 months old. They aren't even adults yet.
If you wanted to argue in good faith, you'd understand the sole reason people are pro-life is the same reason people are anti-murder. But instead, you are arguing like a leftist.
Indeed. Telling a woman she can't get an abortion is equally as restrictive to "her own body" as telling that same woman she can't put a bullet in my brain.
It's actually the other way around, there are plenty of non-insane democrats that are being turned off by the extreme leftist stance on abortion. Tim Pool talked about this the other day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blNdMhj0_wc
It always pays off in the long run to stick to the truth and not try to pander to something you don't truly believe in, it's a slippery slope and it weakens you.
Why would you want to restrict Hitler's right to kill millions of jews? They're not real people after all. You must be a commie if you don't support it. /s
Killing human life is killing human life and you can't prove otherwise.
May I assume you are happy to support the welfare, AFDC, food stamps, rent subsidies, and the entire welfare state apparatus that is needed to provide for possibly millions of otherwise unwanted children? Or are you someone who believes that women who can't get abortions will somehow become industrious responsible mothers when forced to give birth?
Those babies would not be conceived if abortion is illegal. People treat sex like it is nothing because at the end of the day, if all other contraceptive measures fail, they will always be able to exterminate an unplanned baby without having to think much about it. If you take away that ultimate option, women will stop treating sex like a game, and they will only do it with men that they can actually trust.
I literally teach sex Ed lol. I know a thing or two about it. I also teach US history and there was a very clear change in sexual behavior starting around the time contraceptives began to be widely available. Things got 10x worse after Roe v. Wade. Before that it was always questionable whether contraceptives were going to work. After it, you knew that you could always get out of a pregnancy if you wanted to.
You are right, we are programmed to want sex. But that does not mean that we aren’t constantly refraining from giving into all of our sexual impulses. We do it all the time because we know that there are consequences to having sex whenever and with whatever we want to. That leads to a much better society where people are only having sexual when they are with someone they really trust.
Those things occurred as a result of sex having zero unintended consequences. If things have more risk, less people will do them. And with this we are talking the risk of going to an abortion clinic vs the risk of 9 months of pregnancy plus 18 years of raising a child. Suddenly sex would have a lot more risk and therefore would not be done as much.
Btw you can still see this in society today. Teenagers do not have sex nearly as much as college students despite arguably having more sexual desire. That is because teens realize that there is a huge risk in having sex including the risk of unplanned pregnancy due to lack of birth control at that age, social stigma, and disappointment from parents. This means that even teenagers who are famous for having lack of self control are still able to control themselves when the stakes are that high.
If someone isn't prepared to feed, clothe, house, educate, provide healthcare, and otherwise raise a thriving child, they should be encouraged to abort on their own dime. Otherwise, it's going to require incrementally more socialism the rest of us need to pay for.
I agree with all of this. My other replies in this thread reveal me to be pro-abortion...or a "soulless goddamn baby-killing nazi atheist murderer" in the words of the pro-lifers. Economically, there's no question that abortion is the sensible option to the welfare state. If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. If you can't afford 'em, you better abort 'em.
If you support abortion but also support enforcement of a mask wearing mandate than you are a hypocrite. Those two positions are contradictory. Change my mind.
First let me explain why I said "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice". If I had instead said pro-choice than my argument is already won because pro-choice means that getting the abortion procedure should be the women's choice and that contradicts with not allowing people to chose whether or not they wear a mask in public. For this conversation, the reason you support abortion is important as are what instances you would not. Because if the same reason you support abortion is overlooked when it comes to a mask mandate, than your logic is inconsistent and that reason is not genuine.
Before you go on telling me that these two situations are different because there is an innocent person who's bodily autonomy is being infringed, I'll need to tell you that these situations are strikingly similar. When the abortion procedure is performed, an innocent person's bodily autonomy is being infringed... an innocent person is being killed. So someone who refuses to wear a mask cannot be more selfish than someone who gets an abortion.
Which brings me to the next similarity: Convenience. While there are people who have medical conditions that prevent them from wearing a mask, the vast majority of mask-refusers do so for the sole purpose of convenience. Likewise, the vast majority of abortions are performed for the purpose of convenience (90%+ and more than half being repeat visitors). So why it is okay for someone to infringe on another persons rights when they inconvenience them in one situation but not the other?
If your argument is that the situations are not the same because you don't acknowledge the life of the baby, than you are going to have to convince me that the baby's life is either insignificant or imaginary. I'm pro-life and that position will not change unless someone provides me scientific evidence disproving it, which you won't because it is an undeniable scientific fact that the baby is a living human organism.
The difference is that you refusing to wear a mask harms another individual.
A mother deciding to abort her fetus is different if you don't consider the fetus to be an individual, or if you consider that individual's life to be dependent on the mother.
Guess what: people die from colds and the flu every year. Someone gave it to them. It's really not up until now that "harming other individuals" with disease became a justification to mask entire populations. That logic is completely bunk if we apply it to literally any other disease.
I believe life probably begins at conception, or very, very, very soon after-as in, usually by the time your pregnancy test would show positive. This is based on the magnesium explosion when the sperm hits the egg suggesting that's when it's forming a unique, individual human's DNA. I'm not sure if it's "life" yet, maybe it is in a few minutes, hours, or days, but I'd say the fetus is a live human early enough that any willful abortion is killing, different than fapping or cutting your nails.
Even as someone ultimately pro-choice I can accept this science. I think a mother has the right to essentially defend herself from an unwanted use of her body and resources, and from the chemical "assault" the fetus unleashes on her body during pregnancy. The only way to do this is to kill it, but it is still killing. It's also killing when it's a dangerous pregnancy, attaching to the filopian tubes or such and needs to happen for the life of the mother. It's all right to be sad and to weigh whether you're willing to kill or not, whether you feel responsible the situation having come to needing to kill. (If you were raped, hopefully you feel less responsible--though some still can't kill and carry a rapist's child to term. This is why it's CHOICE. If you were careless, well, leaving your door unlocked doesn't make it okay to rob you, but it's not wrong to feel bad about it.)
That said, I don't believe what I've read supports that COVID is such a pandemic as to require masks of the populace to contain it, nor that it would necessarily do so.
This old pro life logic have failed time and time again. You want to not FUND abortions, not BAN abortions. Why? cause no one likes BANS.
They can believe life begins at conception and still vote against a ban. Why? because no one likes BANS. However, no one likes to pay for a stupid mistake someone else did either, Trump use DEFUND PP for a reason.
Would I like to ban abortion, stop premarital sex and have world peace? heavenly yes, but that's not reality. People can't have stupid sex and easily vote for banning abortions. Mike Pence though obviously can, but most humans? Nah
The same goes for unwed cohabitation. Living as a couple prior to making a legal commitment with your current property and future earnings at stake is perfectly logical.
It used to be banned in the states in religious areas and it didn't work, it isn't reality, that's the point. The point is common sense is what bans things not laws.
The thing is persuading people over time is better than making a law that bans. There is a lot less visible slavery now, same with cannibalism. Sure there is a 'ban' but was it the law or the common sense that is really banning it? Wage slavery is very real still, did minimum wage help much at all?
Laws are great at gray areas, like you can have abortions before x weeks and not after. Laws are not great at bans, like lets ban murder, doesn't work? ban guns, doesn't work? ban aggressive males, doesn't work? etc but age of consent or drinking? great!
So to the point, telling pregnant mothers they are wonderful and it's gonna be great to have mini them running around the world, and you and many will help them raise the kid will work way better than laws.
Poor women in bad areas often have low self esteem and support which make abortion a very real choice. For example, if you think your kid is gonna be the next Trump, you'll die for that baby right? but if you think you are nothing the father won't be there and the kid is probably not far from the tree then...it's sad.
I don't necessarily disagree. In fact, I've made similar arguments over the years. Remember when the argument was "Well, abortion sucks, but it's necessary"? Yeah, that's went out the window now. "Let's celebrate our 19th abortion on Twitter! sponsored by Google! Yay women!"
I still think you're arguing semantics, though. But it's not an invalid approach, I guess.
You do you. If it works for you, you're doing God's work. Despite your well-reasoned argument, I would, myself, still consider any sort of abortion ban a success.
Think of it this way, if it is God's work, learn all the ways to communicate with someone. Learn all the semantics if needed.
My point is what is posted will not succeed in swaying people. Something like: Planned parenthood made 1.67 billions in 2017-2018 & 79% of their surgical abortion facilities were within walking distance of African American or Hispanic communities.
How do we feel about profiting off of abortions? what would Jesus say?
I found your reply here, which perhaps you meant for me?
I dislike the term pro-life because it's not what I support, at all. The moment you take this stance, you're asked how can you support the death penalty if you're pro-life?
Therefore, I define what I support as anti-murder, which includes some of these important points:
No murdering of innocent babies.
Don't let murderers live.
If someone attempts to murder someone else, killing in defense of others is fine when it's the best option available.
When a baby is going to murder its mother, we can protect the mother from being murdered by killing the baby.
A baby can't "murder" it's mother. (Murder is intent.)
But I understand your point.
I don't support the death penalty for one reason - if the state murders someone who didn't murder, then they committed murder. It's a catch 22. I'm not against the death penalty for moral reasons, but there have been far, far too many cases of people murdered by the state who were later exonerated. People on death row, too.
I know that's a digression. But I guess it's germane. So, at least I'm logically consistent.
The phrase anti-murder is derived from the Bible. Exodus and Deuteronomy have 10 statements, one of them being "Don't murder". Therefore, I am anti-murder.
Let's get rid on the "BAN" on killing people because you want their wallets too, then, because "nobody likes bans." Killing innocent human beings is OK to ban.
I kinda agree and kinda don't agree with you. How else do you make a point about inconsistencies in their logic and beliefs?
As in, if their argument for abortion is "its just a clump of cells" then you bring something up like this. They can be for abortion, but if your reasons are shit, are you really someone who knows wtf you are talking about?
That may be true in practice, and at least if the decision were made immediately. But if that was the standard rule, society would adept, and more clinics would open and the process streamlined (and it would be a helluva lot easier to perform the early term one than later term ones). Eventually you'd have the same number of abortions being performed before the deadline as you do now.
It may actually INCREASE the number, since mothers that aren't sure may get one anyways rather than wait on their decision (and then decide to keep it).
In your example, the cannibal only can eat so much, so the restriction almost guarantees reduction. But I guess it's possible he could just pig out and eat x7 on Tuesday.
In the real world, we could have just as many abortions done with a 5week limit as we could a 24 week limit. There's nothing logically stopping it.
I'm aware.
My outlook is if you fuck, then you pay the consequences. Only allow abortions for things like rape & it has to be before 4 weeks.
--
Again, I'm aware captain obvious. Until my brain was developed, I was just a literal lump of flesh. You don't seem to be capable of understanding the difference. Is your brain infected with jebus?
ScienTISM.
It's not science. It's the new priestly class. "OH, look! A white coat! Let's trust it!"
Now here is the hit tune “Sex Junk!” On repeat for eternity, welcome to hell
WEW LAD
That's the biggest flaw of progressive ideologies; if you're actually given what you want, you have to find something new to champion or you become irrelevant. It's a forced march into clown world, because you can't ever have things stay the same.
Ooh. I LOVE inside baseball. I hadn't even considered that about the trans push.
Nice insight, fren! Sounds just about right to me.
Exactly. Science is always meant to be questioned and if we never questioned it, we would still be living in the Stone Age.
Of course it makes sense why scientists defend their findings, after all who wants someone to tell them their whole life’s work is false? But we have people online defending this work and refusing to listen to other opinions because they take the findings as absolute. I am certain it’s just stupid people who want to “believe” science so they can feel like they are smart or whatever. All I know is in science if you form an opinion, you actively try to prove it wrong because a good opinion won’t be proven wrong. But what do I know, I only have a chemical engineering degree.
Maybe I went to a less lefty university but in upper level science classes when we were discussing theory, the professors never said this is absolute or this is the fact, they just said “this is the generally accepted theory at this time”. Even had one hippy chemistry teacher who said there is no question earths CO2 levels are at worrying high levels, but we don’t have enough information as to claim if it’s man made or not.
We could call it Scientology if the name wasn't already taken.
Left-Wing - "It's just a clump of non-living cells"
Right-Wing - "Well if it's non-living, you don't need to kill it then right?"
If you've ever seen those ridiculous signs, shirts or bumper stickers that start with "love is love" the last line is "water is life"
Water is somehow "life" but human cells are not.
I'm talking about water. That's what the sign says on it. Water. Lmao.
I love that this new MAGA party is so staunchly pro-life.
My only two real never back down positions - pro-life, and 2A.
Can we instead call it anti-murder?
Cal lit what you want. It is murder.
Agreed. But in order to convince others, I think taking an anti-murder stance is more compelling.
Maybe.
Maybe not. I've seen nothing about this. I think the principle isn't one of semantics. The left are the ones to typically play games with words -
Pro-choice
Anti-abortion (vs. pro-life.)
It's about do we support abortion as a policy or not.
Thing is, they twist anti-abortion as being a bad thing, because they consider abortion it's own category.
I'm not looking to play word games like they do, but it's good to have a phrase which most accurately describes your aim. When talking to a pro-murder fanatic: We're against abortion because we're anti-murder, do you mean to tell me you're pro-murder?
I understand your point.
We basically agree, and I get what you're arguing.
But lets just say you represent, oh...
Level one. Frame the debate
Level two. Instigate protectionary legislation
I'm more level two. Yes, I get you're not a fan of my level two. But, again, I am. We could get into legal theory and history, but let's just say that is my informed opinion.
We have laws against stealing. We have laws against different types of stealing - burglary, petty theft, robbery, etc. Laws against abortion are against "murder," but a specific type of murder.
I have no problem with your level two. In fact I have a whole set of ideas on how anti-murder should be applied in pregnancy cases that I'd like to see turned into laws. But I don't think we get there without going through level one.
Abortion is not murder. Here's why: murder is a legal term with a specific corpus delicti which must be met to be true. Abortion is excluded from being murder legally and, even before Roe v Wade, abortion was generally prosecuted as manslaughter or merely providing illegal abortions - and not murder.
Riddle me this: if abortion is not murder, why is killing a pregnant woman classified as double homicide?
No consent from the mother? Maybe people hate killers of pregnant women much more than certain other killers?
The fact that laws can be inconsistent in logic and application doesn't lend credence to any side of the abortion issue.
Dude. I have a feeling you are shilling...
Because sperms = a living being.
Seems legit.
Ad hominem, lol.
Sign of a winning argument!
Isn't there an Antifa riot you should be supporting?
Why the rush to get it done before birth? Why not let them be born, then just kill them off after a few years?
Let's say if it's not working out by kindergarden, at that point you poison them or dismember them.
I am curious how "pro-lifers" get around the idea that most life on this planet involves no conception.
First, most life on this planet is produced asexually, from bacteria to plants to fungi.
Second, there's the problem of parthenogenesis, where embryos are fertilized without sperm. Some fish, amphibians, scorpions, and bees reproduce this way. Could a "pro-lifer" seriously look at a fish or bee and say "it's not alive because it wasn't conceived".
Third, a definition of life beginnings would need to include all life, not just humans. So "life begins at conception" is not a scientific belief, but a theocratic one.
^^Wow check out this enlightened atheist!!
Get bent loser. I only have one political opinion that is based on my faith and it isn’t abortion. Anyone with proper reasoning will come to the conclusion that if it is evil to murder a human being then it is evil to hire a doctor to murder a new human being that you have created inside of you.
Seriously! Get these eugenicist fucks outta here!
Is this true? Do you mourn for people executed for capital crimes, jihadists killed fighting U.S. troops, or criminals killed in self-defense? Or are you bending your definition of "murder" to include deaths you personally dislike committed by people you dislike?
Helpful hint: "Murder" is a legal term. It has a specific set of elements which need to be satisfied by law for someone to be termed a murderer. Abortion is specifically excluded in these definitions nationwide and therefore is not murder.
If you want to use "murder" in a moral or theological context, then that's a mere personal opinion which nobody is obligated to believe and "proper reasoning" does not apply.
I can't imagine living a life where my brain shuts down because a theocrat has told me what to think already, especially a theocrat who may have been dead for hundreds or thousands of years. Yet, somehow, this behavior is viewed as "moral" or "virtuous".
Exactly. The sperm and egg came from living bodies that created them. Life begins from life. Life doesn't not begin at conception, it continues at conception. If life "beings' at conception, then that must be there was no life before it. So were the father/mother not alive?
It's an argument via "I like my definition", definitional arguments are not science, they are moral arguments. There are good reasons to be prolife, but this is not one of them.
We mostly only care about human life and individual human life (we also very much care about entire species continuing to exist that we eat or that keep the ecosystem working). We don't feel bad for eating animals because we're the most evolved species and require animal nutrition for optimal health.
We are the only ones that will potentially be capable of deflecting the next asteroid. We should manage our resources more responsibly and expand out into space. Restricting our population or killing our own is contrary to that cause.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with life beginning at conception, but a belief in swelling human numbers. I was talking strictly about the anti-scientific belief of "life beginning at conception". That said, I can see some questionable logic in your reply.
Restricting our population may actually be beneficial for the ecosystem and managing resources, if that's your cause. This is the mainstream belief of environmentalists when asked.
Also, exactly how many people would be involved in deflecting an asteroid? Maybe a few hundred scientists and engineers and maybe several thousands to allocate resources and fabricate a giant missile? Earth having 10 billion people or six billion people isn't really relevant here. Surely you won't need anyone in Africa or Central America to do this. (Unless you believe in predestination at birth, where more people would be helpful.)
The life beginning at conception is explained by the fact that that's when the unique genetic code is created and doesn't ever fundamentally change through a person's life. There's no point after conception where you can say that it isn't a human being.
Pro-life people generally don't follow the belief that liberals tend to have that all life is precious and must be prolonged regardless of any other considerations. Liberals tend to think the life of a pedophile is equal to that of a normal law abiding citizen while somehow also considering an unborn baby to be nothing but a clump of cells.
My point of managing resources more responsibly has a hell of a lot to be unpacked:
You need all the other jobs to support the lives of the people working on that and there's the gradual development of technology that came before just to even have any hope of having the technology of deflecting asteroids. You also need a large enough pool of people to select people that have aptitude for it and are passionate about it. Besides, there's not much point in preserving life if it can't be enjoyed.
You can’t tell the difference in the significance of human life vs. animal life? Are you one of those insane vegans?
I have never suggested equivalency or non-equivalency between one type of life or another. I also love a good medium rare steak, so no on both counts.
My original point was strictly about the dubious science behind a common theocratic definition of life's beginning. People who want to claim "life begins at conception" need to reconcile how the majority of living things were never conceived, including certain fish or insects which are plainly observable by the common person as living. You are welcome to believe otherwise, but are grossly mistaken to think your view is scientific.
Well if you can’t figure out that people obviously are referring to human life when they say “life begins at conception” then Idk what to tell you. It’s always used in the context of abortion and therefore is always meant in the context of human life.
You are obviously right that a lot of things produce asexually, but it is obvious that pro-lifers are not talking about those things. It shouldn’t be that hard for you to understand that.
How do you measure sentience?
The science is clear the fetus responds to stress and responds to pain.
Every watch a video of a child in the womb squirming to get away from the doctors instruments?
Scalia was asleep. Didn't make it OK to kill him.
Alright I'm done for now. For the record, I like you and none of the downvotes were from me.
So if your argument is that they are mostly asleep, why can’t we just give people we just put people that are a burden to their mothers into a medically induced coma and then murder them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07rqR52dvCE (Trump: I am pro-life, period)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j6g_IZc04A (Former Planned Parenthood Director Exposes Abortion Lies! (Abby Johnson Uncut) | Louder With Crowder)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCSZYJywQPM (I’m Pro-Life | Change My Mind)
I knew you probably knew that about Trump, but it fits with the other 2 videos that also give a pretty good logical explanation of why.
Me too, I'm pro-choice. I do want R v W repealed because that's a travesty that the Left legislates from the bench, and I would limit it to the third trimester.
But in general: if ghetto joggers and feminists want to kill their own spawn, let them.
We'd be in concentration camps already if it wasn't for abortion.
Murder is murder. Just because it loses some votes doesn't mean I will back down on my desire to make murder illegal.
Otherwise, what good are we?
That fetus has a full, complete human DNA sequence separate from and distinct from the mother's. From conception, that new human being meets all signs of life (made of one or more cells, uses energy, reacts to external stimuli, regulation between internal and external resources, grows and develops, potential for reproduction, and capability of movement). It is a whole, complete, separate human life, and the claim that anything beyond the point of conception is the mother's body is a denial of basic biological science. If you can provide me scientific proof that this is wrong, I will consider changing my views.
Do parents have a right to murder their teen-aged children? My house, my choice. They're just so expensive too. Could save so much money or headache my just aborting them at 200 months old. They aren't even adults yet.
If you wanted to argue in good faith, you'd understand the sole reason people are pro-life is the same reason people are anti-murder. But instead, you are arguing like a leftist.
"With their own bodies" That's the part I take issue with.
Everything points to the fetus being it's own body, not a part of the mother.
She has her own heartbeat, her own fingerprints, her own brain waves, her own DNA, her own response to pain.
The child is her own person who deserves life regardless of the mistakes of the mother or the feelings of the public.
It's he/his, not she/her. In English when the gender is unknown or irrelevant the pronouns to use are he/him.
Indeed. Telling a woman she can't get an abortion is equally as restrictive to "her own body" as telling that same woman she can't put a bullet in my brain.
Except your body doesn't depend every single second on that woman's body to survive.
It's actually the other way around, there are plenty of non-insane democrats that are being turned off by the extreme leftist stance on abortion. Tim Pool talked about this the other day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blNdMhj0_wc
It always pays off in the long run to stick to the truth and not try to pander to something you don't truly believe in, it's a slippery slope and it weakens you.
Why would you want to restrict Hitler's right to kill millions of jews? They're not real people after all. You must be a commie if you don't support it. /s
Killing human life is killing human life and you can't prove otherwise.
May I assume you are happy to support the welfare, AFDC, food stamps, rent subsidies, and the entire welfare state apparatus that is needed to provide for possibly millions of otherwise unwanted children? Or are you someone who believes that women who can't get abortions will somehow become industrious responsible mothers when forced to give birth?
Wait a second, let's not jump to conclusions here...
Shit argument.
Those babies would not be conceived if abortion is illegal. People treat sex like it is nothing because at the end of the day, if all other contraceptive measures fail, they will always be able to exterminate an unplanned baby without having to think much about it. If you take away that ultimate option, women will stop treating sex like a game, and they will only do it with men that they can actually trust.
I literally teach sex Ed lol. I know a thing or two about it. I also teach US history and there was a very clear change in sexual behavior starting around the time contraceptives began to be widely available. Things got 10x worse after Roe v. Wade. Before that it was always questionable whether contraceptives were going to work. After it, you knew that you could always get out of a pregnancy if you wanted to.
You are right, we are programmed to want sex. But that does not mean that we aren’t constantly refraining from giving into all of our sexual impulses. We do it all the time because we know that there are consequences to having sex whenever and with whatever we want to. That leads to a much better society where people are only having sexual when they are with someone they really trust.
Those things occurred as a result of sex having zero unintended consequences. If things have more risk, less people will do them. And with this we are talking the risk of going to an abortion clinic vs the risk of 9 months of pregnancy plus 18 years of raising a child. Suddenly sex would have a lot more risk and therefore would not be done as much.
Btw you can still see this in society today. Teenagers do not have sex nearly as much as college students despite arguably having more sexual desire. That is because teens realize that there is a huge risk in having sex including the risk of unplanned pregnancy due to lack of birth control at that age, social stigma, and disappointment from parents. This means that even teenagers who are famous for having lack of self control are still able to control themselves when the stakes are that high.
If someone isn't prepared to feed, clothe, house, educate, provide healthcare, and otherwise raise a thriving child, they should be encouraged to abort on their own dime. Otherwise, it's going to require incrementally more socialism the rest of us need to pay for.
I agree with all of this. My other replies in this thread reveal me to be pro-abortion...or a "soulless goddamn baby-killing nazi atheist murderer" in the words of the pro-lifers. Economically, there's no question that abortion is the sensible option to the welfare state. If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. If you can't afford 'em, you better abort 'em.
even worse science doesn't support / backup wearing mask as being effective..
If you support abortion but also support enforcement of a mask wearing mandate than you are a hypocrite. Those two positions are contradictory. Change my mind.
First let me explain why I said "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice". If I had instead said pro-choice than my argument is already won because pro-choice means that getting the abortion procedure should be the women's choice and that contradicts with not allowing people to chose whether or not they wear a mask in public. For this conversation, the reason you support abortion is important as are what instances you would not. Because if the same reason you support abortion is overlooked when it comes to a mask mandate, than your logic is inconsistent and that reason is not genuine.
Before you go on telling me that these two situations are different because there is an innocent person who's bodily autonomy is being infringed, I'll need to tell you that these situations are strikingly similar. When the abortion procedure is performed, an innocent person's bodily autonomy is being infringed... an innocent person is being killed. So someone who refuses to wear a mask cannot be more selfish than someone who gets an abortion.
Which brings me to the next similarity: Convenience. While there are people who have medical conditions that prevent them from wearing a mask, the vast majority of mask-refusers do so for the sole purpose of convenience. Likewise, the vast majority of abortions are performed for the purpose of convenience (90%+ and more than half being repeat visitors). So why it is okay for someone to infringe on another persons rights when they inconvenience them in one situation but not the other?
If your argument is that the situations are not the same because you don't acknowledge the life of the baby, than you are going to have to convince me that the baby's life is either insignificant or imaginary. I'm pro-life and that position will not change unless someone provides me scientific evidence disproving it, which you won't because it is an undeniable scientific fact that the baby is a living human organism.
The difference is that you refusing to wear a mask harms another individual.
A mother deciding to abort her fetus is different if you don't consider the fetus to be an individual, or if you consider that individual's life to be dependent on the mother.
Guess what: people die from colds and the flu every year. Someone gave it to them. It's really not up until now that "harming other individuals" with disease became a justification to mask entire populations. That logic is completely bunk if we apply it to literally any other disease.
To be fair, leftist idiots believe Dr Nye is a scientist and he's not even a doctor OR a scientist, he's got a masters in mechanical engineering
The only science they believe in is Political Science
I believe life probably begins at conception, or very, very, very soon after-as in, usually by the time your pregnancy test would show positive. This is based on the magnesium explosion when the sperm hits the egg suggesting that's when it's forming a unique, individual human's DNA. I'm not sure if it's "life" yet, maybe it is in a few minutes, hours, or days, but I'd say the fetus is a live human early enough that any willful abortion is killing, different than fapping or cutting your nails.
Even as someone ultimately pro-choice I can accept this science. I think a mother has the right to essentially defend herself from an unwanted use of her body and resources, and from the chemical "assault" the fetus unleashes on her body during pregnancy. The only way to do this is to kill it, but it is still killing. It's also killing when it's a dangerous pregnancy, attaching to the filopian tubes or such and needs to happen for the life of the mother. It's all right to be sad and to weigh whether you're willing to kill or not, whether you feel responsible the situation having come to needing to kill. (If you were raped, hopefully you feel less responsible--though some still can't kill and carry a rapist's child to term. This is why it's CHOICE. If you were careless, well, leaving your door unlocked doesn't make it okay to rob you, but it's not wrong to feel bad about it.)
That said, I don't believe what I've read supports that COVID is such a pandemic as to require masks of the populace to contain it, nor that it would necessarily do so.
is sperm alive?
This old pro life logic have failed time and time again. You want to not FUND abortions, not BAN abortions. Why? cause no one likes BANS.
They can believe life begins at conception and still vote against a ban. Why? because no one likes BANS. However, no one likes to pay for a stupid mistake someone else did either, Trump use DEFUND PP for a reason.
Would I like to ban abortion, stop premarital sex and have world peace? heavenly yes, but that's not reality. People can't have stupid sex and easily vote for banning abortions. Mike Pence though obviously can, but most humans? Nah
The same goes for unwed cohabitation. Living as a couple prior to making a legal commitment with your current property and future earnings at stake is perfectly logical.
It used to be banned in the states in religious areas and it didn't work, it isn't reality, that's the point. The point is common sense is what bans things not laws.
Cohabitation makes breakups emotionally feel like divorces, and breakups get nasty with pet custody disputes or kids; thus I don’t think it’s smart.
Premarital sex is necessary because you have to test drive before getting married.
You want to stop premarital sex? How about you go fuck yourself and mind your own business you fucking socialist.
read it again...did you just woke up or something jeez
And then Amazon and Netflix step up with their funding abortions plan, like Bloomberg add him paying off his felon's fines so they can vote.
And we're right back to where we started from.
But I don't disagree with your premise of defunding abortions. It's a start.
Your argument is like saying, "Let's stop funding slavery! But banning slavery? WHAAAT? No one likes bans!"
Still, I don't disagree entirely. But I can always see a devil's advocate position. I'd still prefer to have it banned outright.
The thing is persuading people over time is better than making a law that bans. There is a lot less visible slavery now, same with cannibalism. Sure there is a 'ban' but was it the law or the common sense that is really banning it? Wage slavery is very real still, did minimum wage help much at all?
Laws are great at gray areas, like you can have abortions before x weeks and not after. Laws are not great at bans, like lets ban murder, doesn't work? ban guns, doesn't work? ban aggressive males, doesn't work? etc but age of consent or drinking? great!
So to the point, telling pregnant mothers they are wonderful and it's gonna be great to have mini them running around the world, and you and many will help them raise the kid will work way better than laws.
Poor women in bad areas often have low self esteem and support which make abortion a very real choice. For example, if you think your kid is gonna be the next Trump, you'll die for that baby right? but if you think you are nothing the father won't be there and the kid is probably not far from the tree then...it's sad.
Most people should have problems of PP making 1.67 billion last year of of aborted babies, then contributing to democrats.
I'll leave the pro life or pro choice bs argument to someone else.
Since when are we ok with solving social problems by ending the life of the innocent?
Society would do really well if we could just kill off a few million people.
The term "Sack of cells" pretends those cells aren't arranged into human form with a brain, and a heart, and blood pumping through his veins.
Hmm.
I don't necessarily disagree. In fact, I've made similar arguments over the years. Remember when the argument was "Well, abortion sucks, but it's necessary"? Yeah, that's went out the window now. "Let's celebrate our 19th abortion on Twitter! sponsored by Google! Yay women!"
I still think you're arguing semantics, though. But it's not an invalid approach, I guess.
You do you. If it works for you, you're doing God's work. Despite your well-reasoned argument, I would, myself, still consider any sort of abortion ban a success.
Think of it this way, if it is God's work, learn all the ways to communicate with someone. Learn all the semantics if needed.
My point is what is posted will not succeed in swaying people. Something like: Planned parenthood made 1.67 billions in 2017-2018 & 79% of their surgical abortion facilities were within walking distance of African American or Hispanic communities.
How do we feel about profiting off of abortions? what would Jesus say?
IMHO is more effective in reach and persuasion.
See,I disagree that it's not persuasive.
I've seen no evidence to support your claim, and I've never even heard it before you, at least in terms of this specific phrase - "anti-murder."
Persuasion is one level, one tactic, say. Legal redress is another. Both support a strategy of no (minimizing) non-therapeutic abortions.
replied to the wrong person friend
Whoopsy daisy, fren!
I found your reply here, which perhaps you meant for me?
I dislike the term pro-life because it's not what I support, at all. The moment you take this stance, you're asked how can you support the death penalty if you're pro-life?
Therefore, I define what I support as anti-murder, which includes some of these important points:
A baby can't "murder" it's mother. (Murder is intent.)
But I understand your point.
I don't support the death penalty for one reason - if the state murders someone who didn't murder, then they committed murder. It's a catch 22. I'm not against the death penalty for moral reasons, but there have been far, far too many cases of people murdered by the state who were later exonerated. People on death row, too.
I know that's a digression. But I guess it's germane. So, at least I'm logically consistent.
The phrase anti-murder is derived from the Bible. Exodus and Deuteronomy have 10 statements, one of them being "Don't murder". Therefore, I am anti-murder.
If you're unaware, please see: https://www.prageru.com/video/do-not-murder/
Maybe use a condom or birth control. Or don't be a hoe.
Hey, I can do that too.
Sun hot
Sky blue
Grass green
Blm marxist
Let's get rid on the "BAN" on killing people because you want their wallets too, then, because "nobody likes bans." Killing innocent human beings is OK to ban.
I would like to defund the killing of children. And I would like to BAN the killing of children. Both.
You believe what the TV people tell you. FIFY
The science of wearing a mask is foolishness https://www.sott.net/article/439705-Facemasks-Lies-Damn-Lies-And-Public-Health-Officials-A-Growing-Body-of-Evidence
They might be consistent in their beliefs if they are okay with child murder.
life begins at fertilization, that's before conception
Reverse the order to subtly redpill libs
As a scientist and engineer who hates leftist, this is stupid.
Stop making parallels and metaphors bcz that is exactly what they do to try to sell their nonsense ideologies.
Also a scientist and engineer. The "pro-life" position is purely rooted in theology and lacks the logic and consistency to be considered scientific.
I have a post above where I talk about life beginning at conception and the majority of living things being unconceived, for example.
I kinda agree and kinda don't agree with you. How else do you make a point about inconsistencies in their logic and beliefs?
As in, if their argument for abortion is "its just a clump of cells" then you bring something up like this. They can be for abortion, but if your reasons are shit, are you really someone who knows wtf you are talking about?
My Body, My Choice only applies to children in the womb with their own heartbeat, their own fingerprints, and their own DNA.
Neither of these things are science or even true.
Well until it develops a brain and nervous system, its just a lump of flesh.
They develop a brain 5 weeks after conception and a nervous system 4 weeks after conception.
So if you're interested in cutting abortions down to the first month, that's a step in the right direction.
--
You are also a "lump of flesh" arranged by DNA into a living human being, same as the unborn.
Based on your own logic, you should be okay with that then. But you won't stand for that...you want to go further. So you aren't being honest.
By what logic?
I'm pretty consistent that the fetus has its own DNA (and is its own person) from conception. Every thing else is just stages of growth.
Rhayne said until it develops a nervous system, it's just a clump of cells.
You pointed out when this happens, and that it's a "step in the right direction".
Thus you admit, it's better to abort a 2 week old fetus, than a 2 month old fetus.
Yet you also claim that life begins at conception and it's the same to abort a zygote as it is to kill a 30 year old woman.
Oh, I see what you mean.
I'm saying restricting it to the first few weeks you'd have significantly fewer cases.
Imagine a cannibal that eats people every day switches to only eating people on Tuesdays. We still wouldn't be happy, but it's the right direction.
That may be true in practice, and at least if the decision were made immediately. But if that was the standard rule, society would adept, and more clinics would open and the process streamlined (and it would be a helluva lot easier to perform the early term one than later term ones). Eventually you'd have the same number of abortions being performed before the deadline as you do now.
It may actually INCREASE the number, since mothers that aren't sure may get one anyways rather than wait on their decision (and then decide to keep it).
In your example, the cannibal only can eat so much, so the restriction almost guarantees reduction. But I guess it's possible he could just pig out and eat x7 on Tuesday.
In the real world, we could have just as many abortions done with a 5week limit as we could a 24 week limit. There's nothing logically stopping it.
I'm aware. My outlook is if you fuck, then you pay the consequences. Only allow abortions for things like rape & it has to be before 4 weeks.
--
Again, I'm aware captain obvious. Until my brain was developed, I was just a literal lump of flesh. You don't seem to be capable of understanding the difference. Is your brain infected with jebus?
"Lump" implies random arrangement. If you take a bunch of cells and "lump" them together, that's not the same as what you get with a fetus.
That's just your assumption based off flawed perception.
-.-