Because it's not fact! That egg is unfertilized, that acorn has every potential to become a tree, and that worm will become s moth, killing something that is on its way to becoming a human is worse than shooting a human! At least the walking one has a slim chance of defending itself, but we call that wrong as we kill something on its way to becoming a human, that cannot defend itself. The sperm and egg is a sapling, not an acorn.
It quite clearly is fact my dear. The top left picture is an egg - not a chicken. The top right is certainly not a tree by any imagination - just an acorn seed. The bottom left is a silk worm - not a piece of fabric. The bottom right is certainly not a person - it's a sperm going into an ovum. All very clear and concise facts :)
I actually believe that life begins when we can tell someone is pregnant, contraceptives are fine and honestly I think the morning after pill is fine, but I could be wrong and I'm not willing to risk it. Because if life does begin at conception then abortion is murder, and I'm not willing to risk that.
Depending on the state. IIRC abortions are legal in every state for the first three months, the middle three are dependent on state laws, and the last three are illegal.
Or you could just not be a dick about letting people believe what they want to. If peope see the potential in a seed to become something greater, good for them. If someone wants to kill their seed, good for them too, its their seed, they can do what they want to.
yeah people can do what they want, but they shouldn't force their opinion that abortion is wrong (let's face it, the post is all about abortion). if someone doesn't believe in it, cool don't get one but don't stop others from getting it or get angry if they do
If we dont make our opinion known, then we continue letting babies get murdered. "Aw well then just dont have an abortion." Well okay, wasnt going to. But that means we should just sit around and watch all these babies doe because their mothers dont want to take care of a baby. If you're responsible enough to open your legs, you're responsible enough to take care of a child.
Just an observation, but why always "pregnant person"? It's an interesting thing to see how our society has become so focused on gender equality that we forget basic gender roles.
I just don't understand why you'd want an abortion. You're killing a person who could end up being the president, or an astronaut, or anything. That persons personality and life is being destroyed because "you don't want to deal with a baby" fine, once it's born put it up for adoption. That way, you get the abortionists off your back, you're not killing anyone, and you don't have to take care of a child if you really don't want to. I always thought that is a much more humane option.
See this is were you're misunderstanding me. In my religion, if the delivering the child is a threat to the mothers life, than it is okay to have an abortion. Simply because it is saving one life instead of putting two different at large risk. And please don't try to tell me about a will to live, and how killing a child is 'better' than putting them up for adoption. I have learned from depression, self harming, and so much mental pain that I wanted nothing more than to rip out my heart and crush it between my hands, because my entire body felt like it was giving up, that you will get nowhere in life comparing yours to others. My best friend was adopted, and she appreciates life more than me. And you bet your sweet ass I will fight it. Even if I was suicidal, I realized that life is worth living, that you can shape it however you want it to be. But robbing someone else of their chance, no matter how 'bad' or 'insignificant' it may seem to you, is the most selfish thing I can think of.
Also, just because people do it, doesn't make it right, or okay. Hasn't your mother ever told you the "If your friend jumps off a bridge would you do it to?" No. That is not even an argument
Really? Life matters so little to you that you won't allow another person a chance to live in it? Who do you think you are, that you can say whether a person lives or dies? And if a woman is putting her life in danger because she can't handle being pregnant, than it seems she is deciding that the only real productive thing the average human on earth can do in the long run, is less important than her happiness. A life, is less important than her happiness. Doesn't sound selfish at all? Also, you don't have an obligation to do it yeah, but that's because today's fcked up world says that everyone can do whatever the hell they want, even if it means taking a life. *dont take this out of context and say something about LGBT, if you're an asshole I hate you if not I like you it shouldn't go any deeper than that.*
I'm gonna assume that it's the same guest that's on this reply section, so here's a question for you.
You've been taking the position of anti-abortion under the assumption that it's an undesired child, an accident, and that the mother (and father) is perfectly capable of supporting the child but chooses not to because they decided not to use a condom.
But what if the mother, during pregnancy, found out that either she or the child would be guaranteed to die somewhere along the pregnancy line. Or what about rape?
I agree that if you're too dumb to put on a condom you should take the consequences of your (lack of) actions, but rape isn't the mother's fault, and neither is a medical condition guaranteeing her (baby's) death.
So I've gone back and read your previous comments and have seen that your religion allows for termination if the mother is at risk. The point of contention I see now is if the pregnancy is unwanted due to unhappy circumstance (rape, broken birth control, whatever that's not the mother's fault) but not a fatal medical condition prohibiting pregnancy, what to do with the fetus.
You say to birth it and put it up for adoption. Others say terminate. I see why you say what you do (I used to think that way), but I support the termination path for this reason: the mother's rights take priority. I argue that if you didn't cause something, you shouldn't have to bear the consequences for it. Basic rule that would make the world a better place and that all children realize in some abstract sense. You didn't try for a child, so you shouldn't have to go through the pain and mood swings and all that unpleasantness that comes with pregnancy and birth.
I request that when you type out your disagreement that you also deconstruct my argument. Try and make me switch sides, find points that I've stated that you disagree with and why so that I can better understand why my side is wrong. Only giving separate evidence doesn't let me know why you disagree with me, only that you agree with yourself.
Well my main argument would obviously be about your main point of "if you didn't cause something you shouldn't have to bear the consequences for it." I under stand where your coming from and it's a very liable argument. However, sometimes things happen without a good reason. It's life, you must simply deal with the cards your dealt with. Sometimes you don't choose for things to happen, but that doesn't stop them. Teaching kids that you only have to accept consequences for things you do on purpose, is not preparing them for the real world. If your house burns down you can't just say, no I didn't cause it so I don't have to deal with it. I feel that accepting life as it comes and taking each challenge head on instead of quiting because you didn't mean to, is a much better lesson to teach children these days. I believe the basic respect for human life that humans should possess should keep them from just "noping out a situation" because they 'didn't mean for it to happen'.
If we had the technology to do so, would you agree with removing the fetus from the mother (keeping it alive) and incubating it in a machine, raising it so that it could be "birthed" as a completely normal human, then (whenever is deemed appropriate by the humanitarian and scientific community) to put it up for adoption? Then the mother wouldn't have to go through the unwanted pains but there would be no killing?
So you're actually pro-life, not pro-birth as some people confuse them.
Do you feel that homelessness and poverty is a greater problem than abortion? Aborted babies have an infinitely fantastic future ahead of them, but they haven't started it yet. People in poverty can't live life very well; they're not in a good place and probably don't have much of a future ahead of them, but they've already started the path so we should try and make their lives more pleasant and easier right?
I ask these because I want to get an idea of how you stand on the sanctity of life.
I also very much appreciate your counter-argument to me. I've never thought of that implication of my argument which children may pick up on.
Man it'd be nice if people would just post FUNNY things on funsubstance rather than controversial things that can be upsetting when you're clearly on a website to relax and smile
Okay ... seriously? You act like all these pro-lifers are always arguing and demonstrating and forcing their opinion on others. But I keep seeing these pro-abortion posts on here and you know what? It's not funny. This is FUNsubstance. You just want to get people to argue. Can't you just let people have their own opinions for God's sake?
I agree that a just fertilized egg is not a person, however, a person is legally declared dead when their heart stops beating. so...why isn't a person legally declared alive when their heart starts beating?
I believe the heart starts before the brain finishes "developing". IIRC a person is considered dead when there's no brain activity and a fetus is considered alive when it has at least a 50% chance of surviving outside the womb.
that's a good opinion...and yet people can still abort so late. I even heard that in some places it's legal to abort a day before birth. so...what's the difference? one day, really? and if the doctor killed the baby after birth, it would be considered murder.
In the United States (and almost all of the Western world I think) it's illegal to abort in the last three months.
But in the US, it's legal first three months. Middle three are up to state laws. Last three are illegal.
I created account just to be able to comment this post... Yes, it's not a person, but it's a LIFE. Life that contains YOUR genetic code and that will be YOUR child. Although it is your choice to kill it, but what are you doing now - is forcing your opinion on others, which is ignorant and narrow-minded action.
Women can give birth without a father (or sperm) by a very rare phenomenon which I don't remember what it's called but I know it exists. The egg never had a life. But it magically became one. Is it valid to abort that since it's really just a duplicate of you (I think)?
-
Because I can't argue my previous point very well, I surrender that one. But I pose a new question: Rights of the mother vs rights of the unborn? I'm not talking "rights" as in "rights to privacy" and "rights to do whatever the hell I want with my body" (which the latter is a bullshit argument to begin with but whatever). I'm talking about the right to life. The mother's life will be jeopardized by simply having the fetus in her body. Do we tell her to carry a new life at the expense of her own or do we abort something of unlimited potential but will grow up in an environment of minimal support?
Religion is a perfectly acceptable answer in this case btw
You've been taking the position of anti-abortion under the assumption that it's an undesired child, an accident, and that the mother (and father) is perfectly capable of supporting the child but chooses not to because they decided not to use a condom.
But what if the mother, during pregnancy, found out that either she or the child would be guaranteed to die somewhere along the pregnancy line. Or what about rape?
I agree that if you're too dumb to put on a condom you should take the consequences of your (lack of) actions, but rape isn't the mother's fault, and neither is a medical condition guaranteeing her (baby's) death.
You say to birth it and put it up for adoption. Others say terminate. I see why you say what you do (I used to think that way), but I support the termination path for this reason: the mother's rights take priority. I argue that if you didn't cause something, you shouldn't have to bear the consequences for it. Basic rule that would make the world a better place and that all children realize in some abstract sense. You didn't try for a child, so you shouldn't have to go through the pain and mood swings and all that unpleasantness that comes with pregnancy and birth.
Do you feel that homelessness and poverty is a greater problem than abortion? Aborted babies have an infinitely fantastic future ahead of them, but they haven't started it yet. People in poverty can't live life very well; they're not in a good place and probably don't have much of a future ahead of them, but they've already started the path so we should try and make their lives more pleasant and easier right?
I ask these because I want to get an idea of how you stand on the sanctity of life.
I also very much appreciate your counter-argument to me. I've never thought of that implication of my argument which children may pick up on.
(Normally)
But in the US, it's legal first three months. Middle three are up to state laws. Last three are illegal.
-
Because I can't argue my previous point very well, I surrender that one. But I pose a new question: Rights of the mother vs rights of the unborn? I'm not talking "rights" as in "rights to privacy" and "rights to do whatever the hell I want with my body" (which the latter is a bullshit argument to begin with but whatever). I'm talking about the right to life. The mother's life will be jeopardized by simply having the fetus in her body. Do we tell her to carry a new life at the expense of her own or do we abort something of unlimited potential but will grow up in an environment of minimal support?