does not make those sales = [a] human being.
Samples.
What abortion basically comes down to.
Posts
Total:
67
Abortion is an effective way to reduce overpopulation. I am fine with people not using it as so, but it just is.
-->
@Best.Korea
And therefore we are justified in executing Best Korea, if they execute a woman who chooses to abort zygotal tissue.
-->
@zedvictor4
And therefore we are justified in executing Best Korea, if they execute a woman who chooses to abort zygotal tissue
Since no life has value from an abortionist standpoint, executing you or anyone is justified. Such view falls apart quickly.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Abortion is an effective way to reduce overpopulation.
Imagine believing in overpopulation.
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, in India and Bangladesh.
-->
@Best.Korea
Imagine believing in overpopulation.
Better than not let too many people enter the world than let them enter the world and have them feel like shit because that is what happens if there is too many people. One issue in China. There are too many college graduates where you have to fight for the life to get into a college, where there are too many applications that even blue collar workers only accept bachelors and even masters and those without a 4-year college degree can’t even get a job unless you have family relations at the construction campground.
But oh sure, just cram people in because life is good and killing fetuses are wrong for arbitrary reasons!
-->
@ebuc
Biologic life has value...until it doesnt
No. Human life always has value. There is no point at which it is okay for you to murder a human being. Not young, not old. Life is the most precious thing on Earth, and decreasing human life is morally wrong. If you disagree with this, then you justify murder. Do you think that murder is justified? Who decides which life has value? Anyone? Since it is obvious that you have no morality, you can just say "I am an atheist who has no morality" and we can bring this contest to an end.
-->
@Intelligence_06
There are too many college graduates where you have to fight for the life to get into a collegehave them feel like shit
And your solution is to kill them? I knew that atheists have no morality, but this is literally the most corrupt logic I ever heard. This justifies killing anyone. Will you kill your neighbor and say in the court "There are too many Chinese anyway"?
-->
@Intelligence_06
killing fetuses are wrong for arbitrary reasons
No. It is wrong because life has value. If you say that life has no value, then your life has no value. If you say that life has value, then the goal is to increase life.
Biologic life has value. Cars have value. Money has value --until is doesnt---. Gold has value. Dirt has value. Concepts ergo Meta-space info has value.
How we arrive at value varys i.e. there exists no cosmic absolute truth regarding value.
Value is in the eye-of-the-beholder, and that value can change, just as circumstances altar cases.
Those who chose to create a false narrative have a value to themselves that allows them to mislead others, by posting words made to appear as tho their quoting some one else, yet the words are not what other stated. All that exists has a value of one sort or another. All that exist has pros and cons.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Either you think that a mothers' right to her body is more important than the life of an infant.Or you think that an infant is more important to a mothers' right to her body.
First off, and has been pointed out, abortion has nothing to do with infants.
Setting that aside, this is not simply a choice between two different rights as you continue to portray. We don't just weigh rights in the abstract, we have to consider them in their proper context. We both have equal right to sit in the open chair in the waiting room, until one of us sits in the chair. At that point the person standing does not get to contest which one should have the right to the chair.
We can go down this rabbit hole again where I'll point out that the fetus does not have a right to the mother's body and you'll go on and say it does because the woman had the audacity to have sex, so I'll take this back to what I've already pointed out before; this debate comes down to whether you accept the fetus as a person.
If you don't, then the woman's decision to engage is sex does not warrant her losing her rights to her body. If you do, then you'll see her decision as irresponsible and even cruel.
Everything else follows from that.
-->
@Best.Korea
The basic principle is, that the death of the living sustains the living until death.
And everything living takes it's place within that system.
And humans have evolved to think that they are more important than anything else,
Which in terms of material evolution might be true.
And Best Korea loves and hates in equal proportions, shining as a beacon of human moral ambiguity.
Happy Chocolate Egg Weekend B.K.
-->
@Best.Korea
And that is why we don't use it as a device to reduce overpopulation regardless of how effective it might be.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Wrong. You do use it.
Justify abortion = justify murder.
-->
@zedvictor4
And Best Korea loves and hates in equal proportions, shining as a beacon of human moral ambiguity.
Well, thats rude.
Happy Chocolate Egg Weekend B.K.
You too.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Do you have other reasons as to why abortion should be illegal?
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, flashing my butt at old ladies would be rude.
-->
@hey-yo
Do you have other reasons as to why abortion should be illegal?
Its killing human life not enough for you?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
1. Im pro life
2. I ask because there are arguments against your position that can be very tricky to translate your position for another to adopt.
3. Having multiple premises working together help your position because, in my eyes, it allows others to follow a, b, c.
For some human life is not well defined in their minds. Unfortunately some buy into the lies to exclude some humans from humanity.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Becoming infertile works better. Look at china's history to control their population as evidence. They did it so well they got the population to decrease. Although some groups or documentaries focus on abortion and 1 child laws, we forget how many people were made infertile to prevent procreation.
From a communist stand point (or totaltarian), infertility helps prevent nay sayers and accidental pregnancies from missing the abortion factory all together. (yes some sarcasm in my comments)
From a communist stand point (or totaltarian), infertility helps prevent nay sayers and accidental pregnancies from missing the abortion factory all together. (yes some sarcasm in my comments)
-->
@hey-yo
Well, they are biologically alive.
There is no difference between them and a born human, except for some developmental issues. And if they say development issues define humanity then they have to account for all humans born with a developmental issue.
They can't survive on their own for a while, but so can't people in a coma, and people who have certain disability's.
They didn't take over the mother's womb, the mother let them in.
You can't kill a human being.
Yea all that. I could go deeper, but it would have to be part of conversation.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
@hey-yo
Biology really reinforces the pro-life side, which is why the pro-choice camp tries to avoid making the debate about science as much as possible.
-->
@Savant
Not really.
Pro-choice and anti-abortion, both differentiate between something relative to conditioning systems.
The status and importance of living matter.
Science just attempts to make sense of processes.
Realistically, we are all selectively moral, so the unscientific fact is that most anti-abortionists have a tendency to be hypocritical.
-->
@Savant
True. We can see a transition in the pro abortion side - where main argument was scientific based during the early years (between 1970 to 1990) and then develop to argue for a philisophical approach between 2000 and 2010.
Sometimes the efforts are comical as science and philosophy blend - or at least this is what I have seen. Where someone uses science to identify sentience but philisophical perameters to define it. Confusing really.
Even more scary is a recent change in opinion where the humanity in unborn is accepted by the pro abortionist, but they just dont care. They dont even argue for value or anything. They push for a mindset like "vote or die," but more serious approach.
-->
@zedvictor4
What is the "thing" that is hypocrital of?
The issue is not in living matter. Anything and everything can be living matter. The real issue is a living organism that is included in our species.
-->
@hey-yo
The real issue is a living organism that is included in our species.
Selective morality for sure.
And quite often even within this narrow band of distinction, selective moralists are also prepared to make exceptions to the rule.
Is your regard for human life, total and without exception?
-->
@zedvictor4
I do not understand what you are trying to say is hypocritical for some or all anti abortion/pro life individuals.
If you are answering the question.
What is my regard to human life? That all humans should be identified and recognized as humans and therefore be protected by law identifying/recognizing a "right to life" based on being identifying/recognizing as human.
Hm.... Yeah that may be my regard to human life and how it could be explained in this discussion. I mean I have only talked about how unborn should be recognized as.
Does this qualify for your question?
Not necessarily as an answer but to lay out an answeer.
-->
@hey-yo
Let me put it another way.
How many anti-abortionists have an absolute commitment to the sanctity of human life, whereby there are no circumstances that justify the taking of another life.
-->
@zedvictor4
I dont know. Just as pro abortionists have a varied array of supporters, so does anti abortion supporters. Not every anti abortion person is pro life. And not every pro life individual looks at "pro life" as something that extends outside the induced abortion debate. Just as some "pro choice" do not advocate for 100% choice for/in bodily autonomy.
Do some anti abortion individuals believe in 100% sanctity of life for everyone 100% of the time? Yes. However, I can understand why someone claiming to be pro life would also seperate or see a moral difference between killing someone in self defense vs. killing someone through induced abortion.
On one hand you have an actor who initiates the situation while on the other hand you have an actor who has a situation pushed onto them.
Also, sanctity of life is not a position held by all pro life. There are many like secularprolife.org that cater to humanity not spiritual human essence or value. Some like me dont cater to using value as a means to justify our position.