Author Topic: Should abortions be illegal?  (Read 807 times)

Offline Serpent

  • New Community Member
  • *
  • Registered: 21/01/2012
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
  • Group: Hobos
Re: Should abortions be illegal?
« Reply #15 on: 10 08, 2019, 10:51:46 am »
Can you drop this "appeal to ridicule" bullshit?  You've showed in the past that you can have a civil conversation, which is why I'm replying here. But I don't have to continue debating someone if he doesn't have common decency. I'm sure you don't belong in that camp of people.


Let me repeat that I believe late-stage abortion is immoral. What I'm discussing here is early-stage abortion before the development of a fetus takes place. I'm talking about embryos, perhaps early-stage embryos.  This is what an early-stage embryo looks like:

https://imgur.com/YTpROWo

Also, if embryos have the same status as babies, entrepreneurs  and scientists won't be able to  engage in stem-cell research, so finding cures for many diseases may get postponed indefinitely. Of course, the undesirable consequences doesn't mean people like OhhKarim are wrong. But it's worth pointing it out.

Quote
A sperm is never going to lead to the development of a baby on its own without interaction of an egg, and neither will an egg lead to the development of a baby on its without interaction of sperm. So individually, they will never lead to the development of a baby

If someone prevents the sperm and egg from interacting, he basically precludes the possibility of fertilization, which precludes further development of life that may lead to a baby. I'm not only talking about "masturbators". I'm also talking about those who use contraceptive methods.

They prevent potential for the development of human life. This is why the Catholic Church believes contraceptives are sinful. I didn't make this up on my own.

Let me also repeat the following:

"Fertilization doesn't necessarily lead to the development of a baby. It leads to the development of a baby only if the right circumstances take place."

An embryo is not a baby. An embryo is an embryo. Ask any embryologist about it. No need to "trust Seprent". I didn't say anything that's false. So what's so nonsensical about it? You use the appeal to ridicule to undermine what I'm saying, which is a logical fallacy.

The embryo may develop into a baby if the development continues on the right path. But in about 50% of fertilization cases, the development of the embryo gets stalled, resulting in miscarriage.  So If we have an embryo, there's no guarantee it will become a baby. So if someone aborts an embryo, we can't say it's "killing a baby".  The embryo itself is not a baby. But if it continues its development, it has potential to become a baby, unless there's miscarriage.


Fertilization is the beginning of a development that may or may not lead to a baby, depending on circumstances. So let's call it what it is: a potential. If someone uses early-stage abortion, she removes that potential.
« Last Edit: 10 08, 2019, 11:41:16 am by Serpent »
Made some valuable memories here ;)

Offline OhhKarim

  • Senior Community Member
  • ****
  • Players of the Gold
  • Registered: 16/05/2015
    YearsYearsYearsYears
  • Group: Team eXodus #1
  • Ingame: OhhKarim
  • Squad: NoAP4U
Re: Should abortions be illegal?
« Reply #16 on: 10 08, 2019, 04:15:42 pm »
Since I can't be arsed to re-write what I said, because you just repeated yourself, I'll quote some sources to reply to your "potential" (illogical) argument. Science doesn't agree with you, life begins at fertilization and that's a fact.

From the moment of conception—when a sperm meets, and fertilizes, an egg—the unborn are fully living, genetically distinct, and biologically self-directing autonomous individuals of the species Homo sapiens­­—i.e., human beings. Modern medicine, specifically embryology, is very clear about this. Unborn humans at various stages may be smaller, weaker, less-developed, stranger-looking, more helpless, and less personable than other human beings, but this does not make them any less human.

This objection evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of human biological development. There is no such thing as a “potential” human; there are human haploid gametes, male and female, and when they meet, they create a fully actual human being, no “potential” necessary.

After being created, a human being surely has a lot more growing to do, but the creation—the dividing line between nonexistence and actualized existence—has already happened. Full and complete humanity does not depend upon growth but rather origination—that is to say, fertilization.

And regarding "Experience"

For one, the pro-choice “personhood” criteria generally apply equally to newborns, who are helpless, not self-aware, incapable of speech, underdeveloped, and for all practical purposes functionally indistinguishable from most of the unborn. Yet, for obvious and self-evident reasons, you will be hard-pressed to find pro-choicers who believe you should be able to stab a newborn in the head with an ice pick. The inconsistency betrays the fallacy.

More to the point, a civilized human society does not assign “personhood” on the basis of functionality and capability. A human being in a deep but temporary coma fits most of the criteria for non-personhood. Is it okay to kill him? What about those who are in a deep sleep? What about the severely retarded and disabled? A criteria-based philosophy of human personhood must inevitably be okay with executing all of these people on the basis of their non-personality.

Pro-lifers tend to believe otherwise: most of us assign personhood not on the basis of functionality or capability but rather innate capacity and intrinsic essence: we believe the unborn (possessing the full capacity of humanity) and the disabled (who are intrinsically ordered to that capacity, even if their specific individuality differs from it) are all persons, all worthy of life, and all worthy of protection under the law.

I suggest you to just read the whole page since it covers all of the arguments from pro-abortion people.


Offline RaMoS

  • Renegades Leader
  • Criminal Boss
  • ****
  • Registered: 29/07/2015
    YearsYearsYearsYears
  • Group: TR\Groves
  • Ingame: iRaMoS#20
  • Squad: Anti_Cops
Re: Should abortions be illegal?
« Reply #17 on: 10 08, 2019, 10:49:13 pm »
Yes, certainly if it is deliberate, because it kills someone who has no guilt but he did not see life even and this is called killing a child and certainly must be punished by death and not just imprisonment
Don't stop until you are proud of yourself
I Never Lose,Either I Win or I Learn

Offline Serpent

  • New Community Member
  • *
  • Registered: 21/01/2012
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
  • Group: Hobos
Re: Should abortions be illegal?
« Reply #18 on: 11 08, 2019, 05:16:59 am »
OhhKarim:

It looks like two-thirds of embryos fail to develop on their own, not just 50%:

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2010/10/earlier-more-accurate-prediction-of-embryo-survival-enabled-by-research.html

If two-thirds of embryos fail to develop, they only represent a potential human development.

What does the word potential mean?

Quote
possible when the necessary conditions exist

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/potential

Scientists wouldn't engage in stem-cell research if they thought it was immoral, so looks like scientists don't really agree with your viewpoint.

Now fetuses are a different story, and I'm against that type of abortion as I've already mentioned.
« Last Edit: 11 08, 2019, 05:21:57 am by Serpent »
Made some valuable memories here ;)

Offline OhhKarim

  • Senior Community Member
  • ****
  • Players of the Gold
  • Registered: 16/05/2015
    YearsYearsYearsYears
  • Group: Team eXodus #1
  • Ingame: OhhKarim
  • Squad: NoAP4U
Re: Should abortions be illegal?
« Reply #19 on: 11 08, 2019, 06:26:36 pm »
From the moment of conception—when a sperm meets, and fertilizes, an egg—the unborn are fully living, genetically distinct, and biologically self-directing autonomous individuals of the species Homo sapiens­­—i.e., human beings. Modern medicine, specifically embryology, is very clear about this. Unborn humans at various stages may be smaller, weaker, less-developed, stranger-looking, more helpless, and less personable than other human beings, but this does not make them any less human.

Killing an innocent living human being who's not born yet = murder = should be illegal

This objection evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of human biological development. There is no such thing as a “potential” human; there are human haploid gametes, male and female, and when they meet, they create a fully actual human being, no “potential” necessary.

After being created, a human being surely has a lot more growing to do, but the creation—the dividing line between nonexistence and actualized existence—has already happened. Full and complete humanity does not depend upon growth but rather origination—that is to say, fertilization.

the dividing line between nonexistence and actualized existence—has already happened therefore it's already a human being, just because the development might unfortunately not continue by chance doesn't mean you can end it on your own by choice since many still continue their development

Offline Western

  • Junior Community Member
  • **
  • Registered: 28/01/2019
  • Group: DoMinos_Family
  • Squad: ClassicCarClub
Re: Should abortions be illegal?
« Reply #20 on: 12 08, 2019, 07:22:33 pm »
I strongly agree with Karim's reasoning since he posted actual sources to backup his statements, which is what I said in the beginning. Yes, children would be sent to adoptions but that would be better than killing innocent life, as Karim also stated.

Offline Serpent

  • New Community Member
  • *
  • Registered: 21/01/2012
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
  • Group: Hobos
Re: Should abortions be illegal?
« Reply #21 on: 15 08, 2019, 09:31:33 am »
It's an actualized embryo; it's not an actualized baby or even a fetus. Therefore it shouldn't be treated as such. It's a clump of human cells that only represent a potential human development, as two thirds of embryos fail to develop.

Quote
the unborn are fully living, genetically distinct, and biologically self-directing autonomous individuals of the species Homo sapiens­­—i.e., human beings

Embryos aren't autnomous and they aren't individuals. They aren't individuals because they can't think, they don't have values, they have a low or nonexistent level of consciousness for suffering and other functions, and so on - and they've never had those things. They aren't autonomous because they must stay in the female body for survival and have a biologically symbiotic relationship with the mother.

Your source (The Federalist) is also biased, has an ax to grind as it's coming from a conservative point of view. But nevertheless, I engaged with their views.

Further, I can argue both from the consequentalist and the natural law perspective.

From the natural law perspective, even if we grant that the embryo has the rights of a "full-fledged, developed human" (I don't agree that it does), the mother is still the owner of her body and can do what she wants with it. Just like I can get someone out of my house, the mother has the right to get others out of her body if she so desires.

From the consequentialist perspective, the world is a cruel place and the human experience is not that great. Since the embryo has a very low level of consciousness, and two thirds already fail to develop, maybe it's better to spare him the potential sufferings of life - especially if the parents or adopted parents won't be able to guarantee a decent existence. In fact, many people wish they hadn't been born in the first place. Poverty, cancer, mental disorder, painful death, war, rape, inability to attract the opposite sex, fraud, incapacitating injury, shitty parents, mind torture at school, dysfunctional families, dysfunctional marriage (so common), shitty kids,  stress at work,  disability, the innate social comparison mechanism that makes us unhappy, the constant temptation for things that we know are bad for us (processed meat, added sugar, alcohol, etc). For many people, the bad stuff outweighs the good stuff, and statistically speaking, you're much more likely to get a bad deal at life than die in a war if you're already drafted and deployed "on the ground".

Also from the consequentialist perspective, since embryos have a very low or nonexistent level of consciousness, and stem cell research promises cures for many diseases that can make millions of people happier, it make sense to continue stem cell research.
« Last Edit: 15 08, 2019, 11:29:16 am by Serpent »
Made some valuable memories here ;)

Offline OhhKarim

  • Senior Community Member
  • ****
  • Players of the Gold
  • Registered: 16/05/2015
    YearsYearsYearsYears
  • Group: Team eXodus #1
  • Ingame: OhhKarim
  • Squad: NoAP4U
Re: Should abortions be illegal?
« Reply #22 on: 15 08, 2019, 05:34:58 pm »
Once again, for the one hundred millionth time, once the egg is fertilized, there is no such thing as "potentiality" as life has already begun. An egg and sperm individually are potential human beings, but once the egg is fertilized, it is already a human being. It's just in its initial human development stage, that doesn't mean it is any lesser of a human being. A teenager is smaller than an adult, doesn't mean it's any lesser of a human being, a toddler is smaller than a teenager, that doesn't mean they are any lesser of a human being.

And technically, we are all "clump of cells", even at adulthood and that still doesn't give you the right of killing the innocent human being. Also, it's not the right of a woman because it's not her body. It's a distinct human being, otherwise she'd be the one dying. Lastly, it has nothing to do with conservatism, embryology literally says that life begins at fertilization, it's science, not politics. However, it seems to be hard to understand for you, because you are indoctrinated by leftist agendas to try to justify the mass genocide on innocent human beings with around 40 million deaths per year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_human_body

You are choosing to stay ignorant and are trying hard to find any reason to justify yourself (which are all illogical reasons you stated, and any other pro-abortion person stated) so you won't feel bad for supporting mass genocide on innocent human beings. Disgusting, people were sorrowing for the deaths of 6 million jews, yet there's around 40 million deaths per year due to abortion and barely anyone bats an eye.

https://www.worldometers.info/abortions/

Offline Arran

  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Registered: 20/11/2010
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
  • Ingame: [CIT]Arran
Re: Should abortions be illegal?
« Reply #23 on: 16 08, 2019, 12:07:54 am »
An egg and sperm individually are potential human beings, but once the egg is fertilized, it is already a human being.

Looking at the definition of "being" I can't agree that as soon as an egg is fertilised it can be considered a human being. Please explain how you can consider something that is 0.1 mm in size to be a human being. And if someone took a "morning after pill" that kills that 0.1 mm cell how is that any more immoral than crushing an insect? When that insect meets more criteria to be considered human than a 0.1 mm cell, since an insect can do things like feel.

As far as I know, a 0.1 mm sized cell is not protected by natural law as it's not a sentient being and it would be more immoral to kill an insect than it would be to kill a 0.1 mm cell. Also what if an unfertilised egg is removed from the body, fertilised with sperm (this does actually get done it's called IVF) and then not put back in the womb, is that then an immoral act of abortion in your view? In fact the fact that this is a thing that does actually occur, proves how daft it is to believe that abortions are completely immoral / should be illegal.



So this is an egg being manually fertilised with a sperm. Now tell me, whose committing the immoral act by not putting the egg back in the womb? Obviously it can't be the scientist doing the IVF as they can't force the creator of that egg to put it back, that's called rape. So any moral responsibility would have to lie with the creator of the egg, that is if you believe that it would be their responsibility to have it put back which would be a medical procedure that someone else would have to perform and if nobody was willing to perform that procedure then... Yeah.

It'd be like saying when you cut yourself you need to put back all the blood you lose, because there is life in that blood, there is more life in a drop of blood than there is in a 0.1 mm egg. Sure, the egg might have more potential, but I just can't understand why you'd want babies to be born to mothers who don't even want that baby when that baby won't get the love it deserves and we're all just wasting our infinite potential anyway so...

and certainly must be punished by death

Holy fucking shit. :fp:

That is so... illogical. Because murdering an actual human being because they killed what could have been a 0.1 mm cell, is so morally justifiable, right...

Why don't you go murder some people who admit to having abortions then? :fp: You can be the first ever serial killer whose justification was that they were protecting more 0.1 mm fertilised eggs from being killed!!!!!!!!! The universe will totally forgive you for murdering actual human beings because the universe cares soooooo much about those 0.1 mm sized cells.
« Last Edit: 16 08, 2019, 12:17:15 am by Arran »

Offline OhhKarim

  • Senior Community Member
  • ****
  • Players of the Gold
  • Registered: 16/05/2015
    YearsYearsYearsYears
  • Group: Team eXodus #1
  • Ingame: OhhKarim
  • Squad: NoAP4U
Re: Should abortions be illegal?
« Reply #24 on: 16 08, 2019, 12:52:48 am »
Looking at the definition of "being" I can't agree that as soon as an egg is fertilised it can be considered a human being.

Science doesn't care what people think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_human_body

Quote
Human development is the process of growth to maturity. The process begins with fertilization, where an egg released from the ovary of a female is penetrated by a sperm cell from a male. The resulting zygote develops through mitosis and cell differentiation, and the resulting embryo then implants in the uterus, where the embryo continues development through a fetal stage until birth. Further growth and development continues after birth, and includes both physical and psychological development, influenced by genetic, hormonal, environmental and other factors. This continues throughout life: through childhood and adolescence into adulthood.

as it's not a sentient

So we can kill people based on sentience? So if there's someone who has severe brain damage and lost sentience, would it be alright to kill him? I bet you'll make up a further justification for yourself because you won't be able to say "Yes" to this question.

The abilities necessary for sentience appear at a certain stage in humans, as in other species, and brain damage can result in those abilities being lost so not all humans are sentient.

murdering an actual human being

It is an actual human being, it's just its initial human development stage, might have to research embryology.

Embryo > Fetus > Baby > Toddler > Teenager > Adult

You are not a lesser human being at different development stages.

Why don't you go murder some people who admit to having abortions then?

Because unfortunately some countries have retarded laws where they will even protect child molesters, rapists, and murderers (in which abortionists fall under as well with over 40 million murders per year). They rather protect these monsters than the innocent human beings who are dying from a mass genocide. Didn't expect much from a society run by pedophiles and criminals.

Offline Ronaldo

  • Junior Community Member
  • **
  • So I walk into the club like, everybody hates me.
  • Registered: 05/02/2017
    YearsYears
  • Group: San Andreas PD
  • Ingame: RONALDO
  • Squad: NeXuS
Re: Should abortions be illegal?
« Reply #25 on: 16 08, 2019, 03:09:24 am »
Many woman do not become pregrant by choice. It is wrong to force them to remain pregnant, when they don't want to be. Pregnancy and birth of a child can be gruelling and have a huge impact on women's physical and mental wellbeing. So I guess, pregnancy should be legal.
   
#ForzaJuve | #CR7Juve
The legend, the football king, Cristiano Ronaldo!

Offline Serpent

  • New Community Member
  • *
  • Registered: 21/01/2012
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
  • Group: Hobos
Re: Should abortions be illegal?
« Reply #26 on: 16 08, 2019, 07:37:48 am »
Once again, for the one hundred millionth time, once the egg is fertilized, there is no such thing as "potentiality" as life has already begun. An egg and sperm individually are potential human beings, but once the egg is fertilized, it is already a human being. It's just in its initial human development stage, that doesn't mean it is any lesser of a human being. A teenager is smaller than an adult, doesn't mean it's any lesser of a human being, a toddler is smaller than a teenager, that doesn't mean they are any lesser of a human being.

And technically, we are all "clump of cells", even at adulthood and that still doesn't give you the right of killing the innocent human being. Also, it's not the right of a woman because it's not her body. It's a distinct human being, otherwise she'd be the one dying. Lastly, it has nothing to do with conservatism, embryology literally says that life begins at fertilization, it's science, not politics. However, it seems to be hard to understand for you, because you are indoctrinated by leftist agendas to try to justify the mass genocide on innocent human beings with around 40 million deaths per year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_human_body

You are choosing to stay ignorant and are trying hard to find any reason to justify yourself (which are all illogical reasons you stated, and any other pro-abortion person stated) so you won't feel bad for supporting mass genocide on innocent human beings. Disgusting, people were sorrowing for the deaths of 6 million jews, yet there's around 40 million deaths per year due to abortion and barely anyone bats an eye.

https://www.worldometers.info/abortions/

Why do you believe you have the right to thrust someone into the world? Perhaps the future adult will prefer to never have been born in the first place. By demanding that they be thrust into the world, you're infringing upon the rights of those embryos who will grow up to hate their life, preferring to never have been born.

There's a good chance that the embryo, if it beats the odds and develop into a full-fledged human, will not love his life. The future adult who survives the embryonic stage  may prefer he was never born; he may prefer that he didn't pass the embryonic stage, when he had a low or nonexistent level of consciousness and didn't experience the tremendous sufferings of the world.

You want to force those future adults into the world to feel good about yourself and satisfy your morality, and yet you're certainly not willing to help those millions of adults when their lives  take a wrong turn?

That seems selfish.

Let's look at the data.

90% of Japanese workforce are not "engaged" with their jobs, meaning they hate their jobs. And 80% of Americans think the same way
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/212045/world-broken-workplace.aspx?g_source=position1&g_medium=related&g_campaign=tiles

In freer countries, where people don't have to lead false and painful lives to satisfy the law or social customs, divorce rates are sky high. 70% of Portuguese marriages end up in divorce, 52% of Russian marriages, 53% of Dutch marriages end up in divorce.

Do you understand how painful marriage can be for many people, including the subsequent divorce? You don't. But that's not even the tip of the iceberg. Should I even mention lack of money, health problems and everything else I already mentioned in my previous post?

Certainly, money is always a problem. In the US, one of the richest countries in the world, most people don't have $1000 to cover an emergency. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/most-americans-dont-have-the-savings-to-cover-a-1000-emergency.html

Again, are you willing to help all these people when their lives take a wrong turn? Because you obviously demand that they be thrust into the world, even against the wishes of the mother.

Two-thirds of embryos will fail to develop, and as for the rest, you don't know if they will love their lives and you don't have the right to thrust them into the world, certainly not if you're not willing to help them when their lives take a wrong turn!


You're potentially infringing not only against the natural right of the mother to eject something from her body but also against the wishes of the future adult.

Quote
From the natural law perspective, even if we grant that the embryo has the rights of a "full-fledged, developed human" (I don't agree that it does), the mother is still the owner of her body and can do what she wants with it. Just like I can get someone out of my house, the mother has the right to get others out of her body if she so desires.

Further, the natural rights of the woman, a fully developed human being with experience and values, trump the rights of a clump of cells that may or may not experience further development, and is statistically speaking more likely to end up in a miscarriage anyway.

And I'm a laissez-faire libertarian, the complete opposite of a leftist.
« Last Edit: 16 08, 2019, 10:32:10 am by Serpent »
Made some valuable memories here ;)

Offline OhhKarim

  • Senior Community Member
  • ****
  • Players of the Gold
  • Registered: 16/05/2015
    YearsYearsYearsYears
  • Group: Team eXodus #1
  • Ingame: OhhKarim
  • Squad: NoAP4U
Re: Should abortions be illegal?
« Reply #27 on: 16 08, 2019, 02:53:41 pm »
Many woman do not become pregrant by choice. It is wrong to force them to remain pregnant, when they don't want to be. Pregnancy and birth of a child can be gruelling and have a huge impact on women's physical and mental wellbeing. So I guess, pregnancy should be legal.

Stop lying here, only less than 1% of abortions are done due to rape, so this is not an excuse. And secondly, why would a rapist want you to keep your baby? That would be easy evidence. If you use common sense, abortion is an easy way to hide evidence for rapists. And secondly, it's an easy way for deadbeat fathers to keep using their wife/girlfriend as a sex object without having to deal with the consequences (of babies).

Why do you believe you have the right to thrust someone into the world?

Due to the most important thing in the world, the right to live. The baby didn't choose to be born, so you shouldn't act like it's the baby's fault and kill her. That's pathetic. Imagine getting killed due to the actions of other people while you are completely innocent.

Perhaps the future adult will prefer to never have been born in the first place. By demanding that they be thrust into the world, you're infringing upon the rights of those embryos who will grow up to hate their life, preferring to never have been born.

This is the most retarded shit I've ever heard. Just because you're a depressed weirdo doesn't mean everyone hates life. You are already making the choice for someone without even knowing the answer, thus infringing upon his right to live. And secondly, if someone is depressed, are you going to seek mental help for them, or are you going to say "alright, here's a rope, go hang yourself in the closet"? Anyone with a brain knows you'll seek mental help for them, killing them is not the option so what you said made no sense. Your logic is like this; "It would be okay to kill Serpent right now, because he might become a serial murderer and rapist when he turns 40, we better gotta take care of it right now and end his life before this happens, otherwise we're infringing the rights of the human beings who are going to be victims of him."

It's a human right to live. It's not a human right to kill innocent people for your own convenience and because you're a mentally deranged person who thinks it's okay to kill babies because you hate the world. After reading your comment, you should honestly be sent to mental institution and then to jail.

You're potentially infringing not only against the natural right of the mother to eject something from her body

"Eject something" is what a murderer would say, trying to justify their actions. It's called "killing a human being" whether you like it or not, pro-preborn baby killer.

It is not a right to kill your offspring, you are taking the right to live from them.

Offline Serpent

  • New Community Member
  • *
  • Registered: 21/01/2012
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
  • Group: Hobos
Re: Should abortions be illegal?
« Reply #28 on: 16 08, 2019, 03:27:28 pm »
I wrote something else here as a reply to Karim, but I've decided to edit it. Why? Because it would lead to another cycle of undesirable comments, and then another, and possibly another.

I can continue this discussion until 2021, but it's already turning into a shit-fest. I'm not "obliged" to put up with it.

Karim, it's been a pleasure talking to you. Thank you for taking the time.

 

« Last Edit: 16 08, 2019, 07:23:41 pm by Serpent »
Made some valuable memories here ;)

Offline OhhKarim

  • Senior Community Member
  • ****
  • Players of the Gold
  • Registered: 16/05/2015
    YearsYearsYearsYears
  • Group: Team eXodus #1
  • Ingame: OhhKarim
  • Squad: NoAP4U
Re: Should abortions be illegal?
« Reply #29 on: 23 08, 2019, 07:10:44 pm »
I dare any pro-abortionist here to look at an abortion procedure or simply looking at abortion after-math pictures on google. You will see how they have killed the babies, cut off their limbs, head, etc. Then tell me you think that is still ok to do, if you say yes, you are the simply a disgusting creature and should be jailed.

Let me go over the points again.

(S=statement, A=answer)

S: "It's not human life"
A: Wrong, science clearly says;

Many members of the medical community accept fertilization as the point at which life begins. Dr. Bradley M. Patten from the University of Michigan wrote in Human Embryology that the union of the sperm and the ovum "initiates the life of a new individual" beginning "a new individual life history." In the standard college text book Psychology and Life, Dr. Floyd L. Ruch wrote "At the time of conception, two living germ cells—the sperm from the father and the egg, or ovum, from the mother—unite to produce a new individual." Dr. Herbert Ratner wrote that "It is now of unquestionable certainty that a human being comes into existence precisely at the moment when the sperm combines with the egg." This certain knowledge, Ratner says, comes from the study of genetics. At fertilization, all of the genetic characteristics, such as the color of the eyes, "are laid down determinatively." James C. G. Conniff noted the prevalence of the above views in a study published by The New York Times Magazine in which he wrote, "At that moment conception takes place and, scientists generally agree, a new life begins—silent, secret, unknown."[10]

The view that life begins at fertilization reached acceptance from mainstream sources at one point. In 1967, New York City school officials launched a large sex education program. The fifth grade textbook stated "Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin growing, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell." Similarly, a textbook used in Evanston, Illinois stated: "Life begins when a sperm cell and an ovum (egg cell) unite."[11] Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft goes so far as to say:[12]

This is widely accepted still today and has been verified by the scientific community.

Human embryonic development, or human embryogenesis, refers to the development and formation of the human embryo. It is characterised by the process of cell division and cellular differentiation of the embryo that occurs during the early stages of development. In biological terms, the development of the human body entails growth from a one-celled zygote to an adult human being. Fertilisation occurs when the sperm cell successfully enters and fuses with an egg cell (ovum). The genetic material of the sperm and egg then combine to form a single cell called a zygote and the germinal stage of development commences.[1] Embryonic development in the human, covers the first eight weeks of development; at the beginning of the ninth week the embryo is termed a fetus. Human embryology is the study of this development during the first eight weeks after fertilisation. The normal period of gestation (pregnancy) is nine months or 38 weeks.



This embryo was created by a human reproductive system, correct? Yes.

It has human DNA, correct? Yes.

Then if the embryo was created by a human reproductive system and has human DNA, it's in its earliest stages of human development, correct? Yes.

Then stop denying humanity. ---> Pro-abortion people "It's not human"  :fp:



S: "We need abortion for rape victims"
A: Why should a girl who had unprotected sex be allowed to get an abortion just so that the person who's actually a rape victim, can get it? That makes no sense. Especially considering the fact that like nearly all pro-abortionists want abortion to available for everyone. So if someone says "abortion should be illegal" most pro-life people are generally talking about non-rape/incest victims (like less than 2% of total abortions), so like 98%+ of abortions are done for the sake of convenience. Secondly, is a person who's conceived through rape of less value than you or me? If no, then why does he/she deserve to be killed if the women's health isn't in danger? (C-sections, etc)

S: "What about a 15 year old with an unstable life who got pregnant?"
A: Why should a 15 year old child be having sex with such an "unstable life" if there is clearly a possibility of becoming pregnant? It's like driving a car without insurance and then realizing you have no money to repair your vehicle after a car crash, or pay for the other victim's car damages. As long as you cannot cope with the consequences, you should by no means do it. This only further proves that abortion is done for selfish reasons.

S: "It's just like birth control"
A: "The birth control pill works by stopping sperm from joining with an egg (which is called fertilization). The hormones in the pill stop ovulation. No ovulation means there's no sperm to fertilize, so pregnancy can't happen. The pill's hormones also thick the mucus on the cervix." Meanwhile abortion is done while pregnancy has already occurred, and thus killing a living human being growing inside of you.

S: "It's the women's body so it's her right"
A: How many women do you know that have 2 hearts, 2 brains, 4 legs, 4 arms, and 2 unique sets of DNA? None, the child is not your body. Never was, never will be.

Also during the third trimester, women still go through labor. Except, they give birth to a dead baby.

Liberal logic: "Ban weapons, think about the children."
Also liberals: "Women should have access to abortion at all time."

Lastly, the clear hypocrisy. When a teenager wants to commit suicide because their life isn't worth living, people tell them life is worth living because "it gets better" yet when a baby might be born into difficult circumstances, people say "they'll be miserable their entire life, their life's not worth living". When the teenagers kill themselves, people morn the "lost potential" yet when a baby is killed through abortion, people say "it was just potential life". (Which in itself is already incorrect considering life scientifically begins at fertilization.)

Imagine telling your babies you're glad they're alive but you also could've just killed them in utero because that's what kind of person you are.