Implausible Abortion Arguments

I never could understand how abortions laws are allowed to coexist with fetal homicide laws...

Californians must be playing mental gymnastics with their law. 

Abortion is a demonstrably feasible solution to a real time problem.

Whereas ethical and moral disputes based upon ideological premises, are what they are.

Unborn Victim.

Or Not-born Not-Victim.

You choose GODDO.

an interesting argument is that a snow ball is not a snow man. but if you put a lot of snow balls together, at what point does it become a snow man? it's unclear. with that said, it's not the case that snow balls ever grow themselves into snow men. now, the mother does help the fetus grow, but it looks more like the fetus grows itself, unlike the snow ball. a fertilized egg and fetus, after all, are human organisms. 

at the very least, given the uncertainty, it's sinful to abort. whether it should be illegal is another matter. and whether it's a person is debateable, but looks immoral. 

More abortions means less flash mob store robberies.

I wish my mom had an abortion. Then I wouldnt have to debate about why abortion is good.

All human life has value only when you arbitrarily assign value to it.

When you do, then creating human life becomes mandatory and women become baby factories.

Then we have too much humans and no one is happy, but at least you got your arbitrary moral values fullfilled, so score one for you.

Never said I was against birth control. 

*alternatives aka not abortion 

If we killed criminals who committed theft, perhaps there would less theft. However, it doesn't make it moral to do so or reasonable to most people.

Well, okay.

You do realize we are just animals who like cumming in each other without responsibility and suffery that is child birth?

Hey, gays cant get pregnant. So I guess if abortion is banned, people better turn gay to make Christians angry. Allow abortion or homosexuality increases, thats how you fight against Christians. Also gotta mobilize trans too. People should start identifying as wolves. We can howl the whole night every night to further make Christians uncomfortable. Christians, can you really afford this war on abortion? Me thinks you cant!

I guess simply suggesting the possibility of having a little responsibility and moral values is offensive to some people. I'm not even that religious, so baiting me with religion won't work. 

I care about debating not this back forth pointless remarks.

At what age do you tell a child that they are going to die anyway? You know, from cancer ,car accident, old age.

Do you say, God is moral and designed you to die?

Damn right you guess. Who wants moral values of Christianity?

I prefer self-centered moral values, the only consistent moral values that work in practice and provide answer to all moral questions.

Or as Trump says it: "America first!". I guess you like Trump so thats why I mention it. Otherwise, no one should take Trump seriously. He is a liar that sold USA to Putin.

So you are saying MMGA (Make Morals Great Again)?

Also, how do you tell your child that 95% of deaths are extremely painful? Do we just lie to them and say that it feels good to die from cancer or be run over by a truck?

And life itself is filled with pain.

In USA, 1 in 6 women were victims of rape.

With such odds, I dont see how anyone can claim that pain in life doesnt matter. It sure as hell matters.

I realized that I can be happy only if I literally live in ignorance. You cannot possibly be happy when you know that every second millions of people die in pain. At that point, abortion seems like a relief. Fetus cant feel pain, and didnt ask to be born so better not force it. We are already at 8 billion humans, so is there a point where people say that we have too much humans? 

Interesting or silly.

If you put a lot of snowballs together you will eventually create a pile of snow.

Stick a small pile on top of a large pile and whack on a carrot.

And voila.

A baby.

There are stages of development of the human organism, and a child comes post natal somewhere after baby.

So we can employ misrepresentational rhetoric and provide a emotional argument.

And we can also apply logical rhetoric. Whereby we do not attribute a bundle of cellular tissue with sentience.

We can also apply a moral logic, whereby a level of  pre-natal development is reached and abortion becomes immoral.

Notwithstanding rare exceptions though, most women are aware that they have had unprotected sex and medical intervention provides every opportunity to terminate a fertilized egg at this first stage.

I would very much doubt that a fertilized egg knows much of it's future potential.

Changes in body chemistry is also a strong indicator of stage 2 zygotic development, wherein sentience is also not a developed quality of the tissue.

So there is every opportunity in the early stages of pregnancy, to terminate without moral obligation.

Of course, morality and emotion are arbitrary concepts.

And therefore a persons moral and emotional response to unwanted conception, should be the individuals choice. Which in most cases is a women unprepared and unready for the responsibilities of motherhood.

And certainly not the choice of  piety or self-righteousness.

I think this is the quid of the matter. Morality is a subjective concept.

During the 80s, there was a policy of one child in China so abortion was rampant and people couldn't care less about it.

Maybe the western society is deeply influenced by christianity which makes people think a fetus is an actual person. It's like when a dog is a pet, but there will always be people that deem dogs as children.

Yep, all very true.

I think that we have a general sort of agreement.

Hopefully you realised that I personally only advocate abortion in the early stages of cellular division before sensory awareness starts to develop.

However, all genuine arguments are valid, therefore alternative arguments are only bad if we are not prepared to accept that all genuine arguments are valid.

And issues such as abortion, have a tendency to always have two or more perfectly valid arguments. Though in this instance we can generally differentiate between Anti abortion and Pro abortion, incorporating varying levels of both scientific and moral consideration.

I would also like add to this discussion by saying, that within the context of living organisms, I regard all life as equal.

And therefore all life as dictated by natural processes to be universally dispensable, and none to be universally special.

And for sure, the human condition is such that we all get hung up on thoughts.

China did notperform abortions as a Nation it conducted Female-specific amputations toterminate the immigration of a citizen of China into the nation of China. Whilein America abortion has since 1973 been against United States ConstitutionalRight, a form of law. Also, making this type of medical process Female-specificamputation as a United States Constitutional right to be assigned held by womenor men. As men are part of what is described as an ordered to terminate givenby a woman to stop officially an ongoing process created as described betweenall men and women involved as a united state of immigration. Not birth as the claimof body autonomy state otherwise failing in an attempt to alienate males fromthe order given by abort.

 Law has two forms in America, the form of law towhich abortion was legislated is described as criminal law and is based oncrime and criminal accusation, as a practice of law. This creates an additionalcomplication as by literal definition criminal law is by terms of filedgrievance organized crime, then becoming dependent on United StatesConstitutional right to hold it in connection to established justice. All thiswhile remaining against the law that is United States Constitutional Right.Breaking the process of medical treatment and pregnancy connected toimmigration by law of nature is part of the process of Constitutional right. Wethe people are arguing which is the largest United State between all women andpregnancy, all women and medical treatment, and all women and medical privacy.without the use of crime as a United States Constitutional Right otherwise thelegal practice is left unbalanced and disconnected to highest level ofestablished Justice.

Whydo youwrite likethis?

Not all things that are wrong are murder. I do use the above argument, but only in defense to the ever stupid "abortion is murder" claim.

I've never actually used that one. See above the the personhood discussion... I don't consider the coincidence of human DNA to be important without a mind.
I didn't have enough characters, but I attempted a little discussion of this in a recent debate.

I use word to spell check ...copy and paste. Didn't remember to fix it.

As a group of neuroscientists seeking to sum the field up put it in 2012, “Humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures...also possess these neurological substrates.”

Should we really be eating eggs?  Isn't that pro-abortion?

Murder is the unlawful taking of life, abortion is by United State Constitution unlawful, thus is murder by association given by the admission the order to abort describes. The problem in criminal law was that the admission was criminal as well. Abortion is legilsated as an argument of organized crime by legal malpractice in criminal law.The United State Constitutional Right some person might be looking for is better described as female-specific amputation although this "Right" may pose in some arguments in the loss of Doctor patient privacy laws. However it does not make the same admission in describing a order to stop it is a order of medical removal. 

A women is by United States Constitution an ambassador to the life her body hosts as a form of immigration by "law of nature." It is not a stupid claim, it pregnancy abortion as murder is a grievance that is substantiated by criminal law or judicial organized crime. At this point it had been clearly wrong for legal council and women not to establish a common defense by the establishment of United States Constitutional Right. Was the task to create such connection impossible or is and was it always possible?

Does Female-specific amputation best establish a connection to justice to all women by right and not  crime ?