Abortion...

[palerider500]

Ohh lets see.

Most US abortions caused by miscarriage

Miscarriage is a natural death. Should someone be charged if you have a heart attack and die in their presence? Why would a natural death be compared to a deliberate killing in the realm of the law?

Unwanted pregnancy caused by defect birth control (yes even the pill) That would leave the mother unable to care for the child

Not a valid reason to kill an innocent human being.

Incest

Not a valid reason to kill an innocent human being.

Rape

Again, Not a valid reason to kill an innocent human being.

The world is not black and white.. I´ll accept the arguments of pro-lifers once you start adopting unwanted babies from the system. I´ll wait

Whether I choose to adopt or not adopt babies does not change the fact that unborns are human beings and human beings in this country have a right to live.

 

[palerider500]

No there isn´t

Again, one of us can produce reams of evidence to support his position while the other cannot. Your inability to produce a single piece of evidence PROVES my point.

 

[palerider500]

Do you see anything but black and white? please document 1 mill convinience abortions

Roughly 1 to 1.5% of abortions are performed for medical reasons. If the woman is not aborting because her life is in danger, then she is aborting for some reason associated with what she wants, and what she wants would relate to what is convenient for her.

The consensus on when a fetus becomes a human is not clear by any means

Are you completely unable to use your brain?

This is the reason why I started this thread. There are people like you who once presented with reams of FACTS and evidence will continue to deny it. Frankly you are no better than a flat earther who continues to believe that the earth is flat even when DOZENS of scientists tell you that you are wrong.

I think I am finished with you.

 

[palerider500]

It's call a human fetus when there could be some confusion on what animal fetus you are talking about. That still does not make it a human being. Trying to word smith the argument does not change reality.

It is called a human fetus because it is a human being. We are not talking about any other animals, we are talking about human beings.

What facts have I disagreed with? Do you think a fetus before it is viable does not need it's mother?

You have disagreed with ALL-KNOWN scientific facts. The mere fact that you say that an unborn is not a human being PROVES that you are in disagreement with science.

Further, an unborn human is an individual. Dependent, but so are we. Unborns are dependent upon their mothers, you are dependent upon the biosphere. Your dependence does not diminish your humanity or your individuality.

 

[palerider500]

No, life continues. Life does not magically start at conceptions. Both the sperm and the egg are living cells before they fuse.

No, you were never sperm or egg. You came into being as an individual at the same moment that the sperm and egg ceased to exist. You as an individual have never been anything but you. You have matured and changed much and you continue to change and mature, but your life span began at a singular point in time. One moment further and "You" did not exist, only the possibility of you. Upon fertilization, you left the realm of possibility and entered into reality. From that moment forward, you have been a living human being.

I suggest you take the required time read and learn something before you continue to embarass yourself further.

 

[palerider500]

After conception the new cell, a zygote. The first stage of a human. However, it is not yet a human being.

Human life is what it is. The unborn is most certainly human, its DNA proves it, and by any scientific definition it is alive so it is a living human being.

As I stated before, you really should learn something before you continue discussing this issue in the future.

 

[palerider500]

Neither law nor scientific consensus name aborted fetuses as human beings, which is natural since they are only potential human beings. To sum up the opposite side as just "convenience" also only displays your own lack of insight into the matter. It's on the same level as saying anti-abortion is just religious hysteria.

So provide some credible what states that an unborn is NOT a human being. If you can't then my statement stands, the scientific consensus states that an unborn is a human being.

Also, how about you try naming a reason for having an abortion that does not involve saving the life of the mother. If you can't... well then I am right again... as always.

 

[palerider500]

The simple answer is that not everything with human dna is a developed human, especially not in the terms of having legal rights.

The simple answer is that YOU are WRONG. Again, produce some credible science which agrees with what you are saying. Oh you can't?

 

[palerider500]

Well, I am pro-choice so yes, women should be able to kill developing baby to end there pregnancy.

THERE. That is the position ALL pro-choice people truly hold but very few are brave enough to voice it out in public the way he just now has. This is an argument that I cannot argue with because it is TRUTHFUL.

He favors one human being killing another human being for no better reason than convenience. Thanks for stating your position Nickerson.

 

[cooks1]

I am against the death penalty. Now, can you answer the question?

Why should one human being have the right to kill another human being that is not threatening their life?

Rather than using loaded words and phrases, let's look rationally at what we are dealing with here----- a pregnant woman.

A pregnant woman who does not want to be pregnant should be able to legally end her pregnancy. Is it sad when that happens? Yes. Is terminating an unwanted pregnancy generally an awful thing? Pretty much. But you can simultaneously think it is sad and awful while still believing a pregnant woman should have the legal right to terminate or end their pregnancy.

Let's take a look at the alternative for a moment. A pregnant woman NOT being legally allowed to end her pregnancy. So what does that look like?

Imagine being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Then having to make the agonizing decision to keep the child or put it up for adoption. Fucking harrowing.

Fortunately, we already know what illegal abortion looks like. And it is super-super shitty. FOR EVERYONE. It looks like a lot of women illegally ending their pregnancies, and greatly increased risks to their own health. With legal consequences for both them and the people trying to help them. And as for the children that are born, about 70% of them are born into poverty, immediately gobbling up taxpayer resources. And nearly 2/3 of the women currently having abortions already have children.

If you really want to reduce or eliminate abortions, rather than trampling on a woman's right to make choices with her own body, howz about making a massive effort to eliminate unwanted and unintended pregnancies. Education and easy free access to birth control and morning after pills for everyone. Abortions are going down just as fast, and in many cases faster in states with unfettered abortion access as in places with very onerous restrictions. And the biggest driver in lowering abortions is reducing unplanned pregnancies.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/abortion-decline-better-contraception

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ing-because-fewer-women-are-getting-pregnant/

And hopefully within about 10 years there will be a 'male pill' that will really make a difference.

In the meantime, if it's that big a deal to you, pull out your wallet and pay women not to abort pregnancies. Pay their medical bills, a monthly stipend, then maybe take the kid. A few countries are tinkering with the idea. And many private citizens that can not have children are using a wide variety of surrogate options.

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/02/italy_abortions_pay/

http://freedomoutpost.com/russian-mps-sponsor-bill-to-pay-women-not-to-have-abortions/

Ironically, one part (perhaps a small one) of the anti abortion argument is that there are many families willing to adopt healthy babies. But the vast majority of those people don't want to have jackety shit to do with the 400,000 kids in the US foster care system and the over 100,000 in need of adoption, or any of the less than healthy kids with physical and mental issues.

So there you have it. I gave you my opinion, explained it as best I can, and gave all you lovely pro-lifers out there some things you can do that will actually make a difference. Get to it.

 

[m52nickerson]

It is called a human fetus because it is a human being. We are not talking about any other animals, we are talking about human beings.



You have disagreed with ALL-KNOWN scientific facts. The mere fact that you say that an unborn is not a human being PROVES that you are in disagreement with science.

Further, an unborn human is an individual. Dependent, but so are we. Unborns are dependent upon their mothers, you are dependent upon the biosphere. Your dependence does not diminish your humanity or your individuality.

Words mean things, there is a reason to say human fetus and human being. They are not the same. Science does not tell us when a fetus gains it personhood, ei. becomes a human being.

As far as dependence, well once the biosphere has it's own rights then you may have an argument.

No, you were never sperm or egg. You came into being as an individual at the same moment that the sperm and egg ceased to exist. You as an individual have never been anything but you. You have matured and changed much and you continue to change and mature, but your life span began at a singular point in time. One moment further and "You" did not exist, only the possibility of you. Upon fertilization, you left the realm of possibility and entered into reality. From that moment forward, you have been a living human being.

I suggest you take the required time read and learn something before you continue to embarass yourself further.

Okay, but that does not change that both the sperm and egg are living cells. So there was a change, but still life continued did not just start. Now this talking about life as a function, not a life.

Human life is what it is. The unborn is most certainly human, its DNA proves it, and by any scientific definition it is alive so it is a living human being.

As I stated before, you really should learn something before you continue discussing this issue in the future.

You don't understand what I mean by human being. Again it is human life, but it is yet to become a person, or human being.

THERE. That is the position ALL pro-choice people truly hold but very few are brave enough to voice it out in public the way he just now has. This is an argument that I cannot argue with because it is TRUTHFUL.

He favors one human being killing another human being for no better reason than convenience. Thanks for stating your position Nickerson.

Again, not simply out of convenience. You have said that since your first post. You were wrong there, and continue to be wrong. The reason is the right of the mother, to her body simply are greater then that of a fetus.

 

[DoomPatrol]

I think it's really simple. The thing inside a woman isn't a human just because it has the potential to be a human in the future. I'm all for setting a limit on how far along you can do it, but I'm 100% pro-abortion.

My biggest issue with anti-abortion people is you only give a fuck about the baby while it's inside the woman. The second it's a real baby, you stop giving a single shit about it. There's already too many unwanted children in this world that need loving homes. We don't need anymore. While the developing fetus inside a woman isn't capable of emotion or thoughts and isn't fully developed, then I don't consider it human yet. I would rather the mother terminate the pregnancy than bring an unwanted child into the world and ruin both of their lives. If she isn't ready for the child, then all you're doing is forcing a burden on her that she can't deal with. Then we just have two more people with shit lives and no money. Once that happens, all you anti-abortion people sulk off into the shadows or start complaining about them being on welfare. It's fucking sick.

If you're anti-abortion, you're sick and overstepping your rights to tell another human what they can or cannot do to their own body. You should take that energy and spend it on some of the children that are actually alive an in need right now. There's thousands of starving kids in this country. Go do something that's actually helpful and shut the fuck up.

 

[cooks1]

I think it's really simple. The thing inside a woman isn't a human just because it has the potential to be a human in the future. I'm all for setting a limit on how far along you can do it, but I'm 100% pro-abortion.

My biggest issue with anti-abortion people is you only give a fuck about the baby while it's inside the woman. The second it's a real baby, you stop giving a single shit about it. There's already too many unwanted children in this world that need loving homes. We don't need anymore. While the developing fetus inside a woman isn't capable of emotion or thoughts and isn't fully developed, then I don't consider it human yet. I would rather the mother terminate the pregnancy than bring an unwanted child into the world and ruin both of their lives. If she isn't ready for the child, then all you're doing is forcing a burden on her that she can't deal with. Then we just have two more people with shit lives and no money. Once that happens, all you anti-abortion people sulk off into the shadows or start complaining about them being on welfare. It's fucking sick.

If you're anti-abortion, you're sick and overstepping your rights to tell another human what they can or cannot do to their own body. You should take that energy and spend it on some of the children that are actually alive an in need right now. There's thousands of starving kids in this country. Go do something that's actually helpful and shut the fuck up.

Really agree with a lot of this.

Why is there not a giant pool of money somewhere raised by anti abortion activists designated to eliminate the financial hardships leading to abortions. Someone is considering an abortion? Give them a reason not to do it. Pay their medical bills. Give them a monthly stipend to live a clean life. Offer to become the legal guardian of the kid. Don't any of you pro lifers out there have a girlfriend or spouse that forced you to sit through 'Juno '.



If pro lifers spent 1/2 the energy in proactive measures like providing financial alternatives to women in poverty considering abortion, and working to prevent unplanned unintended pregnancies as they do trying to restrict and limit the actions of pregnant women, most of whom are in poverty, there would probably be like 6 abortions annually.

 

[palerider500]

Rather than using loaded words and phrases, let's look rationally at what we are dealing with here----- a pregnant woman.

A pregnant woman who does not want to be pregnant should be able to legally end her pregnancy. Is it sad when that happens? Yes. Is terminating an unwanted pregnancy generally an awful thing? Pretty much. But you can simultaneously think it is sad and awful while still believing a pregnant woman should have the legal right to terminate or end their pregnancy.

Imagine being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Then having to make the agonizing decision to keep the child or put it up for adoption. Fucking harrowing.

Killing an innocent child out of convenience is barbaric and monstrous. The right to life trumps the woman's right to not be inconvenienced. Further, the woman can put the child up for adoption if she does not want to keep it.

Fortunately, we already know what illegal abortion looks like. And it is super-super shitty. FOR EVERYONE. It looks like a lot of women illegally ending their pregnancies, and greatly increased risks to their own health. With legal consequences for both them and the people trying to help them. And as for the children that are born, about 70% of them are born into poverty, immediately gobbling up taxpayer resources. And nearly 2/3 of the women currently having abortions already have children.

Exactly how much should I care if a woman injures herself while trying to kill another innocent human being and commit a criminal act?

If you really want to reduce or eliminate abortions, rather than trampling on a woman's right to make choices with her own body, howz about making a massive effort to eliminate unwanted and unintended pregnancies. Education and easy free access to birth control and morning after pills for everyone. Abortions are going down just as fast, and in many cases faster in states with unfettered abortion access as in places with very onerous restrictions. And the biggest driver in lowering abortions is reducing unplanned pregnancies.

How about we strike down the laws on murder, arson, assault, kidnapping, etc., etc., etc., depend on education to keep order in the streets. How well do you suppose that will work out?

In the meantime, if it's that big a deal to you, pull out your wallet and pay women not to abort pregnancies. Pay their medical bills, a monthly stipend, then maybe take the kid. A few countries are tinkering with the idea. And many private citizens that can not have children are using a wide variety of surrogate options.

The waiting lists for adoption of infants is years long in every state but that does not even matter. Unborns are human beings and human beings in this country have the right to live.

So there you have it. I gave you my opinion, explained it as best I can, and gave all you lovely pro-lifers out there some things you can do that will actually make a difference. Get to it.

This is a human rights issue and if one rationalizes reasons to not protect human rights, then one joins the ranks of the despots, and the tools of despots, and the dupes of despots of both history and present.

 

[cooks1]

Killing an innocent child out of convenience is barbaric and monstrous. The right to life trumps the woman's right to not be inconvenienced. Further, the woman can put the child up for adoption if she does not want to keep it.



Exactly how much should I care if a woman injures herself while trying to kill another innocent human being and commit a criminal act?



How about we strike down the laws on murder, arson, assault, kidnapping, etc., etc., etc., depend on education to keep order in the streets. How well do you suppose that will work out?



The waiting lists for adoption of infants is years long in every state but that does not even matter. Unborns are human beings and human beings in this country have the right to live.



This is a human rights issue and if one rationalizes reasons to not protect human rights, then one joins the ranks of the despots, and the tools of despots, and the dupes of despots of both history and present.

Obviously you are just here to rant so I will leave you to it. It's important for you know though that this menstruation of yours is going to lead to more abortions. Half the people on this thread are out fucking bareback right now so they can have an unplanned pregnancy that ends in abortion just to spite your whiny ass. How does it feel to be an accessory to murder?

 

[ValidArmani]

THERE. That is the position ALL pro-choice people truly hold but very few are brave enough to voice it out in public the way he just now has. This is an argument that I cannot argue with because it is TRUTHFUL.

He favors one human being killing another human being for no better reason than convenience. Thanks for stating your position Nickerson.

Palerider its beautiful to see moral people like you defending innocent lives on sherdog....but...

You're wasting you're time arguing with atheists about abortion. The vast majority of atheists fanatically support abortion...even late term abortions.

Science definitely points to the unborn being humans with their own DNA but atheists will just ignore this. Remember that these are the people that claim to be "champions" of science and reason.

The state says abortions are moral and legal therefore the atheist will draw his/her morality from this.

Atheism walks hand in hand with moral relativism. There is no objective right and wrong on atheism. No good vs evil paradigm.

In the future you'll see the atheist left SLOWLY destigmatize Euthanasia, infanticide of special needs babies, euthanasia of special needs people in psychiatric hospitals, pedophilia, incest, among other heathen barbarities.


Abortion is just the beginning....things are going to get ALOT darker. Atheism can lead to any evil. It all depends on the morality of the state.

 

[Thurisaz]

Imagine being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Then having to make the agonizing decision to keep the child or put it up for adoption. Fucking harrowing.

Yeah, a woman's feelbadz versus murdering an her child. Who'd ever think the latter is worse?

You also appear to think every woman is happier having murdered their kids. You're wrong. Dead wrong.

 

[Thurisaz]

The thing inside a woman isn't a human just because it has the potential to be a human in the future.

Hello, science denier. Are you perhaps a flat earther too?

While the developing fetus inside a woman isn't capable of emotion or thoughts and isn't fully developed, then I don't consider it human yet.

I don't consider you human either, considering you have developed no sense of empathy or justice. So fucking what? Does that mean I should be allowed to murder you at my leisure because of it?

If you're anti-abortion, you're sick and overstepping your rights to tell another human what they can or cannot do to their own body.

FYI the child's body is not the woman's. Abortion is designed to kill. If it were the woman's body getting killed it would be called assisted suicide and the results would be entirely different.

 

[Thurisaz]

For the most part I think pro-choice individuals understand the science.

I do not think they do, because they claim the human being getting killed is not a human being. They are either science denialists or completely ignorant about the facts of the matter and I'm not sure which is worse.

 

[m52nickerson]

I do not think they do, because they claim the human being getting killed is not a human being. They are either science denialists or completely ignorant about the facts of the matter and I'm not sure which is worse.

Call it what you want. It really come down to who rights trumps whos.