-->
@TheUnderdog
Straight women only have sex because of horny men
Is this what you guys really think?
Seems really weird that two people who've never had sex are such experts.
Abortion
Posts
Total:
255
-->
@ludofl3x
My dad said that Mom never asked for sex and that dad was always the iniator.
But a man knows, "If this woman gets pregnant, I'm dashing. I don't think she would sue me for child support, and child support is less serious than pregnency".
A woman knows, "If I get pregnant, I'm going to endure 9 months of pain. Either that, or get a painful abortion."
This is why men tend to be hornier than women.
-->
@TheUnderdog
My dad said that Mom never asked for sex and that dad was always the iniator.
So a sample size of two people leads to this intractable conclusion: because your dad would never get sued for child support, he fucked your non-horny mom. Is that how you figure it?
I've had a fair number of women initiate sex with me, and I've initiated my fair share, but let me assure you dude, women get just as horny as men. Maybe it's not women you know being less horny than men you know, maybe it's some other 'common denominator' which...well what could it be...
I kid around, but you're entirely off base here. Women literally do get as horny as men.
-->
@ludofl3x
Women literally do get as horny as men.
Why would they? They are the ones who get pregnant.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because sex is awesome, short story. Because it feels fucking great to both parties. And because there's a ton of methods to avoid getting pregnant if you don't want to. Women do not think "What if I get pregnant" when they're horny enough to ask you to give it to them in broad daylight in a Parisian parking garage. I married that one. True story.
-->
@ludofl3x
Women do not think "What if I get pregnant" when they're horny enough to ask you to give it to them in broad daylight
That doesn't make any sense. Do people think long term?
-->
@TheUnderdog
That doesn't make any sense. Do people think long term?
Why do women go on the IUD or birth control, do you think?
ETA that people DO think long term, but the reproductive drive that is at the heart of the 'horny' is powerful down to a genetic level, like your genes WANT TO FUCK. You'll find out.
-->
@TheUnderdog
The scientists can't agree according to chat gpt, so I have to be unsure.
Chat GPT is super biased dude. It has already been proven in the code to have bias.
If your using Chat GPT to do all your research, then you are not doing research at all.
And also, you have to make your own opinions.
If you give your money to the poor, you get more money from your job and you use it to subsidize the poor (if human life was worth saving no matter what).
No, because then eventually there are no more poor people, and when there is no lower, middle and upper class in society, then society collapses.
You have to have those classes to have a functioning society. The goal is to make those classes more advanced.
Like in America, the lower class is equivalent to the upper class in some African countries. This is a good thing, because our lowest class is still advanced.
I'm saving more people, so I would kill one person to save 5 equally valuable people.
Again, the ends don't justify the means.
This was Hitler's ideology. He believed that as long as the end (which was a thriving civilization) worked, then whatever he did to get their (mass murder of millions of Jews) would be justified.
It's still a huge chunk of the population (that would use the money exclusively for their own selfish purposes, whereas I would use some of it to save more people and keep the rest). I think 90% of the US population would kill one person to save 5.
You think, but that's not what the data that you yourself provided.
I still don't want my tax dollars paying for it.
Well, you live in a society, where everyone works together for the good of that group.
Deal with it. We all contribute something.
A lashing is a lot of short term pain that people remember so they are less likely to re offend. Prison makes you unemployable, so you end up committing more crime so you can be in jail with taxpayers taking care of you. But lashings also heal quicker than a prison sentence, so I support replacing prison sentences with lashings for minor crimes.
This has so many contradictions to it, just from reading it, I think you need to re-read it, and then line it back up with you other arguments.
I was telling YOU that if YOU (a male) don't want a pregnancy, you shouldn't have sex.
Ok............I agree with that.
Straight women only have sex because of horny men like you.
No. Some women have sex for their own pleasure.
Some women have sex for reproduction.
Some women have sex for money.
Point is, if a woman doesn't want to have sex, she's not going to.
In the end it is her decision.
If you don't want to risk your girlfriend getting an abortion, don't have sex with her.
Great............I agree.
I'm a virgin and it's great; I've never had to worry about STIs or pregnency.
Good for you.
-->
@ludofl3x
Why do women go on the IUD or birth control, do you think?
So they don't get pregnant. There are times when this fails.
You'll find out.
How so? I've been through puberty and I have never had sex with anybody. I have had wet dreams, but I've felt so awful after them. I never want to have a wet dream again.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Chat GPT is super biased dude. It has already been proven in the code to have bias.
If they were biased, they would claim that virtually no scientists believe a zygote is a human being. If they said 95% of scientists believe a zygote is a human being, then you would be claiming that they are correct and that the liberals are anti science. But when you claim they are biased, that is also anti science.
Chat GPT is reliable and your the biased one.
Like in America, the lower class is equivalent to the upper class in some African countries. This is a good thing, because our lowest class is still advanced.
It depends. I would say the richest person in Nigeria is doing better than the poorest person in America.
This was Hitler's ideology. He believed that as long as the end (which was a thriving civilization) worked, then whatever he did to get their (mass murder of millions of Jews) would be justified.
That's cap; Hitler murdered millions of Jews because he was a bigot and the German people voted for him because they needed a scapegoat for their problems (instead of blaming the west for Germany's problems).
Well, you live in a society, where everyone works together for the good of that group.Deal with it. We all contribute something.
Would you be fine with paying for every homeless person to get a home? This costs about $30 billion. If not, explain why your unwilling to have taxpayers pay $30 billion for the homeless to get homes (when the homeless usually didn't harm anybody to get in their situation) but are fine with society spending about $200 billion a year taking care of prisoners (when they DID do something bad). Taxation if theft!
This has so many contradictions to it, just from reading it, I think you need to re-read it, and then line it back up with you other arguments.
How did I contradict myself at all?
I was telling YOU that if YOU (a male) don't want a pregnancy, you shouldn't have sex.Ok............I agree with that.
So are you a virgin? Because only 3% of the US population waits until marriage to have sex. Granted, virginity is good, but it's rare.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes, the politicians that we the people voted for.
Yes, that's what government is. Is there a point here that you think you're refuting?
Murder, is:"The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another:"Capital punishment is not unlawful and is held up to the law's standards.
Then your argument that abortion is murder is entirely circular.
We're talking about what the law should be, so if your argument here is that it's against the law you aren't saying anything.
Ok, well let's say that the doctors say that the man will definitely wake up in about 9 months, but without any memory of his life whatsoever. Is it then ok to kill him?
No. First off and as I already pointed out, the man already has the qualities I listed, they're just laying dormant. Second, there's no conflict which ending his life will resolve. He isn't growing in someone else's womb.
If qualities define a human, then what quality's do born humans have that unborn humans don't have that makes them human, and why do those qualities make them human.
We're talking about what qualities make someone a person, not a human.
The biggest single quality that differentiates a fetus from a person is the capability of surviving without the connection to another person's womb.
Yes, but he is relying on a human medical staff to keep him alive, and also either his own or others time and money to keep him alive.
And they are all willing to continue keeping him alive. If no one wanted to expend their time, energy, and money to keep him alive, there would be no moral force which could require others to do so. That would result in the removal of others rights thereby conflicting with the man's right to live.
Tell that to:
- Sen. Martha McSally
- Sen. Kelly Loeffler
- Sen. Joni Ernst
- Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith
- Sen. Shelley Moore Capito
- Former Rep. Cynthia Lummis
- Lila Rose
- Marjorie Dannenfelser
- Charmaine Yoest
- Penny Nance
- Kristan Hawkins
And many other famous women spoke persons who are pro-life.
Do you really think listing a few individuals who disagree with the overwhelming majority of women proves a point?
Things about sex that is a big deal:Creates human life.Is the only way we can reproduce.Creates emotional bonds between men and women.Also, you are the one making the argument circular when you just repeat things rather than refute them.
You haven't made an argument to refute. That's the nature of circular argumentation.
The fact that sex creates human life makes it a big deal in the sense that we as a species need it to continue our survival. That is irrelevant to any individual couple since no individual couple is responsible for that.
Your reproduction point is the same point repeated in different words.
The emotional bond created by sex differs between sexual partners and is up to each individual to determine what it means to them. This is completely irrelevant to this conversation.
So once again, you continue to assert that sex is a big deal without any justification as to why any other individual should adopt your personal opinion.
You then use your unsupported personal opinion to justify why others carry a burden on their shoulders to act in accordance with it.
You then rely on your made up burden to justify removal of others rights when they do not act in accordance with your personal opinion.
You then argue that the potential removal of one's rights gives reason for all to view sex as a big deal.
And now we're back at the beginning.
It's all purely made up and then passed on as an intellectual argument.
-->
@TheUnderdog
If they were biased, they would claim that virtually no scientists believe a zygote is a human being. If they said 95% of scientists believe a zygote is a human being, then you would be claiming that they are correct and that the liberals are anti science. But when you claim they are biased, that is also anti science.Chat GPT is reliable and your the biased one.
It is definitely biased.
But they are not biased to the extreme. They are biased whilst trying not to seem biased, but blatently are.
Let's not forget they claimed to be a reliable source of information (non-biased) when released. But they lied because its code was biased.
Therefore, you should not trust Chat GPT for your research and do it yourself.
That's cap; Hitler murdered millions of Jews because he was a bigot and the German people voted for him because they needed a scapegoat for their problems (instead of blaming the west for Germany's problems).
So just taking a wild guess from your grammar, you are either a very young adult or a teenager like me.
Anyways, yes you are right, Hitler did murder millions of Jews because he was a bigot, and blah blah blah.
But his defense for why he was right (this is even written in his book Mein Kampf) was:
He believed that as long as the end (which was a thriving civilization) worked, then whatever he did to get their (mass murder of millions of Jews) would be justified.
Would you be fine with paying for every homeless person to get a home? This costs about $30 billion. If not, explain why your unwilling to have taxpayers pay $30 billion for the homeless to get homes (when the homeless usually didn't harm anybody to get in their situation) but are fine with society spending about $200 billion a year taking care of prisoners (when they DID do something bad). Taxation if theft!
Easy. Especially nowadays, it is easier to make money and survive than it is to commit most crimes.
Most (not all) homeless people have either made bad financial decisions or bad life decisions, by their own choice.
We need to spend money on prison to hold the bad guys in and protect ourselves from them, to keep a civilized society.
So are you a virgin? Because only 3% of the US population waits until marriage to have sex. Granted, virginity is good, but it's rare.
Yes, I am a virgin.
-->
@Double_R
Then your argument that abortion is murder is entirely circular.We're talking about what the law should be, so if your argument here is that it's against the law you aren't saying anything.
Ok...............so do you think murder is good?
The death penalty (whether it should be banned or not) is an entirely different argument from abortion, so I am not going to argue two arguments at a time.
Try to stay on topic.
No. First off and as I already pointed out, the man already has the qualities I listed, they're just laying dormant.
WHAT QUALITIES? You never listed any qualities. If you did, please enlighten me.
Second, there's no conflict which ending his life will resolve. He isn't growing in someone else's womb.
There could be. Abortion usually doesn't solve any conflict besides inconvenience.
Same with this situation. Someone could be inconvenienced of paying his bills or not wanting him there.
Also, he would defiantly be emotionally affecting others, in many different ways as well as financially and psychologically.
We're talking about what qualities make someone a person, not a human.
Ok, what qualities make someone a morally valuable human. Aka a human that has moral value.
The biggest single quality that differentiates a fetus from a person is the capability of surviving without the connection to another person's womb.
Again, with my coma example, the man would not have the ability to survive without the connection to a machine.
So, you are basically saying that viability defines a person, that is the ability to survive on their own makes them a valuable human.
Good luck keeping up with that argument.
And they are all willing to continue keeping him alive. If no one wanted to expend their time, energy, and money to keep him alive, there would be no moral force which could require others to do so. That would result in the removal of others rights thereby conflicting with the man's right to live.
Just the same as a mother.
A mother might not want to keep her child alive, but there is a moral force that requires her to.
A mother might not want to keep her child alive, but there is a moral force that requires her to.
You did not refute my argument here.
When a mother has sex, she is willing to the possibility of a pregnancy.
The fact that sex creates human life makes it a big deal in the sense that we as a species need it to continue our survival.
I agree.
That is irrelevant to any individual couple since no individual couple is responsible for that.
If they decide to have sex, they are.
So once again, you continue to assert that sex is a big deal without any justification as to why any other individual should adopt your personal opinion.
Sex is a big deal because it literally creates human life.
And if you involve yourself in it, then you are contributing to the possibility of creating human life.
-->
@Athias
Sorry about that pause, back to the argument.
This represents the key difference between your argument and mine: you maintain that the unborn child is entitled to its mother's resources; I do not.
The child is entitled to the mothers' resources, because it was the mother that offered them in the first place.
If you bring who suffers from memory loss in a house and let them in, that is you choosing to let them in.
Then after a day if you shoot them in the head and kill them, then that is wrong, yes?
I maintain that it is only moral for the mother to submit her womb if and only if she provides the use of it voluntarily as a gift to her unborn child.
I cannot stress this enough:
She already provides the use of it voluntarily as a gift to her unborn child when she has sex. When she makes that decision.
Her body is always her body.
But the child she allowed in is not her body.
You don't get to allow another living human into your body, then kill it for whatever reason.
That is not how all abortions are conducted, though they do not mitigate the horrid method you've described.
Well, these are the types:
There are pills, which is intoxicating the baby. Still murder
There is the vacuum aspiration process, which includes the cutting open of the child's skull and vacuuming out the brains.
Then there is dilation and evacuation or (D&E), which includes the whole vacuum aspiration process but adds on the cutting off of limbs and parts of the body.
Those are the only two medical processes for abortions.
Any later abortions than that are considered illegal in most states.
But the states that allow them to have even worse procedures than that.
Honestly, I personally agree with some of what you've said. But my personal opinion does not at all qualify or modify a person's right to themselves. My opinion can only serve as a premise in persuasion or as a modifier or qualifier in my own body, resources, and decisions.
I'm glad we can agree on this.
Even if we entertain that she "put it there in the first place," it does not produce an entitlement that an unborn child, or proxy, can exercise to the exclusion of its mother's interests.
YES, IT DOES.
Listen to this:
The mother made the choice to put a child inside of herself. She did.
The mother created a human life without any decision made by the child she created.
Then she consented to the child existing in her womb by her own decision.
After all of this she is not allowed to kill that child in her womb that she created, let live in her, and made the choice for.
No you don't. Acknowledging the possibility of a car crash is NOT THE SAME as "consenting" to it. If we were to apply your reasoning, no one would be accountable for vehicular homicides because one would "consent" to death when they enter their car.
It does make sence.
Driving = Sex
Crashing = Pregnancy
The reason could have varied from a condom breaking = someone not seeing you turn, bad pullout game = someone texting on their phone, but it doesn't matter.
I think that vehicular homicide would = rape. And rape is a different story.
But no matter the reason, you still consented to the possibility that when you enter the car and start the engine and push the gas, you might get into a crash.
And the parties involved in the crash can deal with the aftermath of the crash however they choose because their cars are their property.
Yes, are we arguing abortion anymore, or cars now lol?
How is it wrong?
When killing yourself there always is a reason and that reason always has to do with the fact that you want to escape the misery of something in your life. Intentionally removing yourself from the pain and struggle is selfish because you are doing something bad to escape something hard. We all deal with hard things in life, and to take shortcuts out of them are selfish.
Now of course I wouldn't say that to a person about to commit suicide because that would make the situation worse, but still.
Yes, she is presumably consenting when having sex under the circumstances about which we discuss. But once again, acknowledgement =/= consent.
Consent: permission for something to happen or agreement to do something
It is acknowledgment with consent.
No she does not. That is merely a platitude used to justify coercing her. If she seeks an abortion, then she obviously did not give over her womb.
If she seeks an abortion after consenting to sex with another man fully aware that this might indeed lead to a pregnancy, then that is selfishness.
Even if she is in part responsible for how the zygote/embryo/fetus occupied her womb, it does not mean she's liable to submit her womb to the zygote's/embryo's/fetus's use. Her womb never stops being her womb.
She is not only letting the fetus use it, but she is the reason the fetus is there in the first place. She is not renting out her house to someone. She put that person there in her house, who doesn't understand anything.
And as long as it's her womb, it is up to her to dictate how it's used.
Exactly. So, don't go sleeping around with a bunch of men who want to get semen inside your womb.
Alright, let's entertain this scenario. Let's say that I put you into my home. There was no blizzard before you entered. You are inside my home for about half an hour before I decide to kick you out into a blizzard that started after you had entered my home. You succumb to the blizzard and die. Did I kill you?
Yes. Because let's not forget, I had no choice in any of this scenario. I was put in your home (not by my choice) and was kicked out (not by my choice).
So, in other words, you legitimately forced me into your house, then forcefully kicked me out and I died. That killed me, and you did that, so you killed me.
And yes, I'll continue to state that I'm kicking you out as opposed to shooting you because you're not being honest about the available methods of abortion, one in particular which does not include the destruction of the zygote/embryo/fetus.
I am being honest.
Doctors don't just take baby's out of the womb and leave them on a table.
But let's play this game.
If my father who has many years to live gets sick, and is not viable on his own is hooked up to a machine, if I unplugged or unhooked him to the machine, and he dies, did I kill him?
So does my putting you in my home grant you the right to occupy my home against my wishes?
The word wishes right their shows your contradicion.
Your (by definition) wishes at first was to put me in your home, then after, your wishes were to kick me out with full knowing that I am 100% going to die.
This scenario would be fine, if it didn't deal with a valuable human life.
Even if you were to argue that I had kidnapped you, would you be able to justify occupying my home and consuming my resources against my will? Or that I owe it to you to provide you shelter and resources?
Well seeing that you forced me into your home, if you didn't provide those things for me, I would die, therefore you would have killed me.
Here's the thing:
When you make a decision in which you know the person will die, yet you have the ability to save them without killing yourself, and you don't, that is killing.
If that decision is taking action to kill that is killing.
If that decision is not taking action to save, when you have a clean ability to, that is killing.
The father/boyfriend/husband has no more right to the mother's womb than the zygote/embryo/fetus.
Why not? He half created that child in her womb. He provides the materials, and she provides the shelter.
The bottom part of your argument I already answered and repeated many times over.
I like this debate and your argument is solid, but it has done nothing more than increase my opinion that abortion should be illegal.
I am just going to stick with that abortion is the murder of a child, and no matter what should be stopped.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Therefore, you should not trust Chat GPT for your research and do it yourself.
What cites are reliable?
He believed that as long as the end (which was a thriving civilization) worked, then whatever he did to get their (mass murder of millions of Jews) would be justified.
What would a thriving civilization have to do with millions of dead jews?
Most (not all) homeless people have either made bad financial decisions or bad life decisions, by their own choice.
Victim producing criminals also made bad choices. But we take care of them; give them free food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. I don't think they should get it, just like the homeless. But ANY of these situations I would respect(not necessarily agree with, but respect):
1) Homeless get taken care of and so do rapists and murderers.
2) Homeless get taken care of and murderers and rapists do not.
3) Neither group gets taken care of.
What I do not respect is:
4) The homeless do not get taken care of and murderers and rapists do.
Our murderers and rapists don't deserve any better treatment than our homeless.
We need to spend money on prison to hold the bad guys in and protect ourselves from them, to keep a civilized society.
Or you could give alternative sentencing (lashings for minor crimes, of which Indonesia does and their crime rate is significantly lower than the US).
I am a virgin
I respect that and I am a virgin.
-->
@Double_R
Double, I agree that I came in at the wrong time only reading your first post that set me off, but that doesn't remove the point of killing a life due to an "oops" is wrong. The fact is that women who kill their babies are doing it over 90% of the time just because the baby gets in the way. That is immoral. The fact is that abortion stops nearly 1M human lives due too an inconvenience. This is bad, wrong, immoral, unjust and disgusting. Not the baby's fault. Not the baby's problem to solve.
Should the government have to step in and tell us "Now, American people, don't kill your children. That's not good."? But I suppose the American population could agree that a good baby is a dead baby. In fact, can 1M dead babies be wrong?!
I know you are going to try to split hairs on all those adjectives above, but the truth is, you either believe in murdering babies or not. Candy coating with definitions doesn't eliminate the fact that an abortion is a willful halting of human life. If woman's rights have come down to legalizing an irresponsible couple's decision to eliminate their product of sex, then I oppose woman's rights.
-->
@TheUnderdog
What cites are reliable?
Did you go to 3rd grade computer class?
Or do any research assignments in school?
What would a thriving civilization have to do with millions of dead jews?
I don't know it was Hitler's plan. Ask him.
Victim producing criminals also made bad choices. But we take care of them; give them free food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. I don't think they should get it, just like the homeless. But ANY of these situations I would respect(not necessarily agree with, but respect):1) Homeless get taken care of and so do rapists and murderers.2) Homeless get taken care of and murderers and rapists do not.3) Neither group gets taken care of.What I do not respect is:4) The homeless do not get taken care of and murderers and rapists do.Our murderers and rapists don't deserve any better treatment than our homeless.
The homeless don't hurt anyone else, therefore they don't need money spent on them.
Murderers and rapists do, so we need money to pay for the police officers, law enforcement and court systems, to deal with them, and then money for jails to keep them away from doing that again.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Did you go to 3rd grade computer class?Or do any research assignments in school?
I did and they said .gov cites were reliable. But part of me thinks your going to claim it s biased if it doesn’t agree with you. Now full disclosure, if a reliable source claims that a zygote is a human being, I will believe it and try to code it into chat GPT.
I don't know it was Hitler's plan. Ask him.
His plan of a perfect Germany was one free of Jews and anyone without blond hair and blue eyes. In other words, if everyone had blond hair and blue eyes, we wouldn’t be better off because of it.
The homeless don't hurt anyone else, therefore they don't need money spent on them.Murderers and rapists do, so we need money to pay for the police officers, law enforcement and court systems, to deal with them, and then money for jails to keep them away from doing that again.
If the government spends a lot of money taking care of teachers, they want teachers.
If the government spends a lot of money on firefighters, they want firefighters.
If the government spends a lot of money on roads, they want roads.
If the government spends a lot of money on murderers and rapists, they want murderers and rapists.
If the government killed all the murderers and rapists, and took the money to build homes for the homeless, our society is in a better place. But our government has the living expenses of murderers and rapists as a higher priority than the homeless. You might as well tell any homeless person who is convinced they will never get a job to murder or rape someone so the state takes care of them the rest of their life.
Murderers and rapists deserve death.
-->
@TheUnderdog
What qualifies to you as human being? .
What is the definition for human being?
-->
@TheUnderdog
I probably could have combined ths together but ...
Now full disclosure, if a reliable source claims that a zygote is a human being, I will believe it and try to code it into chat GPT.
What is a reliable source?
...if everyone had blond hair and blue eyes, we wouldn’t be better off because of it.
Wait, isn't that supposed to be the other way around, or are you saying geneticsally the human race is better with diversity?
-->
@TheUnderdog
I did and they said .gov cites were reliable.
There's your answer.
His plan of a perfect Germany was one free of Jews and anyone without blond hair and blue eyes. In other words, if everyone had blond hair and blue eyes, we wouldn’t be better off because of it.
That is correct.
If the government spends a lot of money taking care of teachers, they want teachers.If the government spends a lot of money on firefighters, they want firefighters.If the government spends a lot of money on roads, they want roads.If the government spends a lot of money on murderers and rapists, they want murderers and rapists.
Flawed logic.
You do know that money goes into everything right?
So even if we were to kill murderers and rapists (all of them) it would cost a lot of money and a lot of paperwork to do that.
Just because the government makes prisons doesn't mean it wants harm.
If the government killed all the murderers and rapists, and took the money to build homes for the homeless, our society is in a better place. But our government has the living expenses of murderers and rapists as a higher priority than the homeless. You might as well tell any homeless person who is convinced they will never get a job to murder or rape someone so the state takes care of them the rest of their life.Murderers and rapists deserve death.
It's funny that you use the homeless for your advantage in the argument when it comes to murderers and rapists, but not with the border crisis.
There are many American citizens that matter more than immigrants that are not American.
Shouldn't American dollars go to American people and not immigrants?
-->
@DavidAZ
I know you are going to try to split hairs on all those adjectives above, but the truth is, you either believe in murdering babies or not.
Zygotes and embryos are not babies.
Pro life advocates love to pretend everything is black and white - that a fetus, even a severely underdeveloped one, is the same as a two year old. That's complete nonsense. This is a complex issue, if you are unwilling to recognize that fact and deal with it appropriately then there is no point in continuing.
The fact is that abortion stops nearly 1M human lives due too an inconvenience.
So does abstenance.
-->
@hey-yo
What is the definition for human being?
I'm unsure; I'll let the scientists answer that one.
What is a reliable source?
I would say .gov, .edu, and .info are reliable. .org and .com are case by case. There is an exception if they cite something unreliable. Like I found this "reliable" cite that was pro life but then I looked at the citations and they were the National Right to Life Committee and Trump; 2 very biased sources.
Wait, isn't that supposed to be the other way around, or are you saying geneticsally the human race is better with diversity?
We are better with genetic diversity, but only nominally so. If everyone had blond hair, it wouldn't be the end of the world. The issue is all the people you would have to kill or sterilize to get to that point. Whereas if you wanted to tell people with HIV that they can't reproduce, that may be bad, but it's very different than telling all dark haired people they aren't allowed to reproduce. Nothing wrong with having black hair, there is something wrong with having HIV.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Nothing wrong with having black hair, there is something wrong with having HIV.
On the many levels of ignorance this displays, the one that sticks out most is the difference between hereditary and acquired, and therefore not comparable.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You do know that money goes into everything right?So even if we were to kill murderers and rapists (all of them) it would cost a lot of money and a lot of paperwork to do that.
It's cheaper to kill murderers and rapists after one trial (which they would get even if innocent) than it does to spend millions of dollars a year taking care of 1 false convict and 24 guilty ones.
Just because the government makes prisons doesn't mean it wants harm.
Our government should stop incentivizing murder by paying for the living expenses of prisoners. Find alternative sentences for crimes.
It's funny that you use the homeless for your advantage in the argument when it comes to murderers and rapists, but not with the border crisis.There are many American citizens that matter more than immigrants that are not American.Shouldn't American dollars go to American people and not immigrants?
This is because even undocumented immigrants deserve taxpayer funds more than murderers and rapists because being a murderer or rapist is worse than being undocumented.
My ideal (if I could snap my fingers and make this happen) is I don't want tax dollars going to help ANY of the following groups:
1) Murderers (citizenship status is irrelevant)
2) Rapists (citizenship status is irrelevent)
3) Corporations
4) Undocumented homeless people
5) US Citizen homeless people
But I would rather have them go to #5 than #4, #4 than #3, and so on, because American homeless people deserve better protection than undocumented homeless people since they are American citizens, and being undocumented is less serious than being a murderer or rapist.
But I don't want tax dollars going to help ANY of these groups.
-->
@ludofl3x
On the many levels of ignorance this displays, the one that sticks out most is the difference between hereditary and acquired, and therefore not comparable.
If I was born with HIV, it would still be bad. If I got black hair from someone else, it wouldn't be bad. Having HIV is worse than having black hair.
-->
@Double_R
Zygotes and embryos are not babies.
Pro life advocates love to pretend everything is black and white - that a fetus, even a severely underdeveloped one, is the same as a two year old. That's complete nonsense. This is a complex issue, if you are unwilling to recognize that fact and deal with it appropriately then there is no point in continuing.
By definition, and historical word usage, the word baby applies to any human prior to birth as well as those younger than 2 or toddler.
We hear it all the time. We are having a baby. Im having a baby boy. Im sorry but I can not get a heart reading for your baby. Etc.
However there are many who use this word metephorically for their 12 yr olds too.
All usages are correct.
This is because the word baby applies to humans (in general) unless otherwise stated. Like saying, " oh honey, do you see the baby horse?"
We do not say this because a fetus "a latin word for young child/young one - used for human children historically - is developmentally the same as a 2 yr old or a 12 yr old. Instead we recognize the humanity in all ages. At all developmental stages. you might say a 2 yr old without legs is not exact same as a 2 yr old with legs. A kid with autism is not exact same as a kid without. An adult with abilities vs. an adult w/o abilities. But that does not matter. They are all equal as humans for being human. We recognize their humanity.
The fact is that abortion stops nearly 1M human lives due too an inconvenience.
So does abstenance.
Focus on the sentence provided. "abortion stops." There is nothing to "stop" if a human life is not there to stop. Abstenance prevents conception from occuring, does not stop a human life.
-->
@TheUnderdog
If the whole world had good intentions, your terms would work. But corruption and loopholes and bad people exist, and you fail to understand that.
The world isn't as simple as you make it out to be.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Hmm.... Okay I have three sources that go into human being. May you rate their quality as you see it? If thats too much or what ever just say so. I can...handle ... It.
1.
This one is simple. Human being is a human.
2.
I use brittanica more than not.
This one is wordy.
3.
This was written by a biologist.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I think I'll put a pause to our exchange. I don't think there's anything I can argue that will demonstrate to you at least that a woman's womb is not subject to forfeiture even in light of her acknowledging the consequences of sexual intercourse. I don't believe I can maintain the patience necessary to explain how fundamental bodily integrity and autonomy is. And I sincerely doubt that either of us will be convinced of the other's description of murder. So, have a nice day, sir.