The abortion argument boils down to:
If you believe a baby in its mother's womb is a human life, then willfully terminating it is murder
If you believe the baby is not a human life, you can do what you want with it
Or if you believe that the baby is a human life but you are still ok with terminating it. Murder is a legal judgement on an action, not an action in and of itself. If abortion is legal then the taking of that life is, by definition, not murder.
That is an insanely oversimplification of a complex subject. There are numerous factors that completely ignores, such as rape, gestational ages, maternal welfare (physically, mentally and home life), financials, ECT.
Wow, legalised murder
Using the law to justify something as moral is a terrible mistake
Slavery was legal
If you're okay with arbitrarily ending human lives then you are morally reprehensible
@celticrose the ending of life (legal or illegal) doesn't suddenly become acceptable based on need such as financial circumstances
"Oh I can't afford these kids, let's kill them"
And don't use rape either as an example. Less than 1% of abortions are rape cases (research the data yourself if you don't believe me)
Even in a rape case, killing doesn't suddenly become legal, although I am in favour of either castration or possibly capital punishment for rapists
Capital punishment seems a bit much and castrations would create a bad precedent around mutilation. I doubt any of us want to go back to hands getting cut off for theft.
Don't quote statics to me, I've actually been there, and I've been in counseling with plenty of other victims who ended up pregnant, some chose to continue with the pregnancy other didn't. YOU have no right to cast judgement on them. Pregnancy is a lot more common than YOU would think, given that most rapists aren't considerate enough to wear a condom. And that right to life is just as complicated, because until a certain point that life depends solely on the woman, taking vital energy and potentially causing severe side effects. As I've stated, once that pregnancy had reached the point the child has a reasonable expectation of survival outside the womb, THAT should be the cut off. But until that life is self sustainable it's not more important or having more rights than the woman. I will say, I personally hate the concept of abortion, but I also understand I have no right to make choices for that drastically effect other's lives. Cont.
Do you feel the same applies to the THOUSANDS of fertilized embryos that are intentionally created by fertility clinics (not to mention those for research purposes) and ultimately destroyed. What about their right to life?
@scatmandingo I don't know, when it comes to child rapists especially I have to agree castration or death are valid options. Especially when right now the sentences are WAY too lenient due to plea deals.
What do you mean, I have no right to judge them?
I have every right to judge someone who kills children
Why do you base things on experience? If I haven't experienced it my opinion is completely invalid?
And at what point exactly does a "fetus" become a baby?
When is someone still alive if they have a pacemaker, or require dialysis, or are on a life support machine?
Can you arbitrarily call for their deaths?
I find it fascinating that instead of posting links to statistics, or doing your own research, you just tell me not to quote them at you
Nothing quite destroys someone's argument by ignoring it right?
@cakelover- so by sound logic- cost is no excuse to end life. So if it costs $4000 a day to keep a person on life support- we should NEVER be allowed to pull the plug. They are a living human. It doesn’t matter what their quality of life is expected to be damnit. They are alive. You should sell your home and max your loans and keep them alive no matter what. Cost is no excuse for murder no? And an embryo with its 100’s of cells- that’s life. It ant think like we can and is a simple organism- but so are animals. That’s why you’re vegan though right? Because every bird and fish with its many times that in cells. Why- a small bird has over 100 million neurons- and a large bird has billions! That’s many times more than a fetus- and it’s alive! So not only should we never harm a bird for any reason- but if a bird is sick we must spare no cost to keep it alive.
And of course- if a person kills another weapon they should get 400 billion life sentences. Because when they killed that person- that person had millions of reproductive cells and so they also killed every single child that person would have had- that those cells would have become, and all the children those children would have had. It doesn’t matter that those children weren’t born. Statistically they WOULD have been born and so that’s murder in every case!
Or... did I misunderstand you? Are you or are you not saying that life is life- that because a thing is alive that to kill it is murder just the same as if you killed me? That cost isn’t a factor and quality of life aren’t factors that should determine wether we keep a thing alive or not if it is at least as complex as a fetus? Are you not saying that we can proactively apply murder based on the POTENTIAL or statistical odds of a person existing? Man. I’m confused. Maybe you can clear it up. You seem to like statistics and numbers. What are the specifications on which you judge life? Who is and isn’t a worthy human being in your eyes- how many cells do they need? Neurons? What capacity for movement and interaction must they have with their environment? How can we “test” a person to see if they meet your criteria?
You guys might want to zoom out a little bit. Abortion is in a steep decline because of better access to long-term birth control. If you're running a country, wouldn't you want to explore that rather than seeking to change irreconcilable differences in your worldview?
,
Also, if an area has unrestricted access to abortion and it's changed to "prohibited, except to protect the life of the mother," the abortion rate goes up. If an area outlaws abortion totally, the rate stays the same but the abortions are provided unsafely. The take-away here is: if you don't want more abortions, keep expanding access to birth control and don't outlaw safe abortions.
,
https://www.vox.com/2018/12/3/18119528/abortion-rate-decline-2018-birth-control-iud-pill
,
https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2018-03-21/abortion-rates-where-and-why-theyre-falling
,
(Sorry, @guest_ - I jumped in your flow)
@Jasonmon- not even and no worries. I agree that birth control and education should be the priority when it comes to this issue. When and where those options fail, or it is too late for them however, there is an often uncomfortable reality which emerges. With issues like this I try as much as possible not to project the decision I feel strongly about or the I think I would make- but instead advocate personal choice. In the case of abortion- wether one feels a fetus is or isn’t a “human life” is irrelevant. There is no defining test by which we can prove or disprove such an intrinsic value, or rank life as to say a fetus or a human life is worth more or less than a cow or a butterfly. Sanctity of life is a personal belief system- the law protects commerce and society and is informed by morality but not dictated by it.
In short- unless someone can created an accepted testing method which weighs the value of any living creature and we rank lives of all creatures and variables or states they can have- there isn’t any evidence to support a “feeling” or “belief” on the subject conclusively. To me- that is a clear case where each person must decide for themselves how they feel, and have the freedom to act based on their own judgment of the issue.
@guest_ I appreciate your more measured response
To be fair, my comments were mostly designed to show how inconsistent and flawed the arguments that @celticrose was using, rather than contributing my own point of view
One of the main points of contention is at what point exactly do the two gametes become a human?
@cakelover- no worries. I’m certainly not here to tell anyone how to feel about the subject. We are all entitled to our feelings- and that’s not something to forget, that this particular topic is one that tends to stir emotions- the subject matter and the experiences and everything else involved are profound and fundamental. It’s a charged issue- and if it wasn’t that would be a bad thing. What we often forget when discussing abortion is that every pregnant woman who goes that path must make that choice, and everyone must live with it forever. There is no “easy way out,” as each path had its own burdens and baggage. It’s a heavy choice- the potential of a life weighed against ones own life. Both roads golf experiences and challenges and opportunities the other doesn’t for everyone involved. but science is a genie that can’t be put back into its bottle.
Like Nuclear weapons or biological weapons, computers and genetic engineering- once we have the ability it isn’t a question of “if” but of when and how. It’s a question wether we want to push a thing underground to shady parallel markets and deal with all that brings- or if we would rather have something in the light where we can monitor and regulate it and maintain some measure of control over it.
There are thousands of ways to force a miscarriage, and many ways to perform “back alley” abortions. Abortions have been known to human kind for thousands of years in many forms. We can push it back underground but we cannot stop it. We certainly ant criminalize miscarriage either- so there’s always a way here. One doesn’t have to like it any more than one has to like marijuana - but they exist and have a demand that people will find a way to satisfy regardless of the law, people will find Loop holes or anything else. We could outright ban abortion tomorrow but it would come back in years or decades. Somewhere in the world it will be legal and those who can afford to will have that ability while those who can’t will be forced to go underground or DIY if they are so inclined. So while we can feel any way we want about a thing- we also must view the world realistically and not just ideologically.
What any of us think doesn't matter. Under our Constitution, a fetus is not a human life. Period. It has no legal rights and isn't counted on the census. It is not considered a human by the government. End of story.
@cakelover in your response to @celticrose about "only" 1% of rapes resulting in pregnancy: It doesn't matter. The law is supposed to be equal ground for EVERYONE, therefore, those 1% matter. It could be ONE PERSON instead of 1% and guess what? IT WOULD STILL MATTER. Equal rights for ALL individuals.
@cakelover A fetus becomes a baby the moment it exits the womb and takes it's first breath. That wasn't hard. Ok, it was like a 10 min thought... I fought with myself because I kept thinking about life vs fetus and started thinking about single-celled organisms, but then I remembered a single-celled organism never produces a fetus in the first place so it was moot.
@cakelover asked when two gametes become human. The trick is, there are different answers. I think the definition that most people hate the least is: when the fetus can survive outside the mother. But you'll have people who say zygotes are a human, or blastocysts, or embryos, or fetuses, or only babies. My personal definition of the age two gametes become human falls around 25 years old.
This sign is important IMO. It's reminding people that if Roe goes down in flames, states are already shoring up their rights to preserve legal abortions. This supreme court decision will allow traditionally red states to push out something they've always hated, but it won't prevent traditionally blue states from retaining it. The issue right now is a bold move in a political/religious chess game more than it is a final, epic showdown in the landscape of reproductive rights.
Roe is going to be challenged and likely overthrown, but that's a good thing. We need a better established ruling that will eliminate this state by state bullshit. Much as the Marriage Equality ruling took that out of states hands. The problem is the timing. If we can put it off until the current administration is out it would be better. But the entire reason all these bans are happening is specifically so they get contested and taken to the Supreme Court. It's also why Pat Roberson said the Alabama ban was too extreme, because it hold zero chance of holding up in the Supreme Court because of it's lack of any exemptions or compromise.
No, you cannot. You only want federal overreach because in this case it favors your cause. But one day it will not.
That's why we have fifty state governments cooperating with the federal government. Because what makes sense in Washington State, be it for economic, geographic, popular, or any other reason, may not apply to Arizona.
Yesterday? Gay marriage. Today? Abortion. Tomorrow? Guns. Next week? Free speech. Next month? Privacy. Next year? Genocide.
And every case of overreach you condone, because you agree with it, will make you that much weaker against the case of overreach that will hurt you, and maybe a lot of others.
"First they came for the socialists".
How does one equate freedom to the freedom to take other people’s choices away as opposed the freedom to make your own choices? If federal over reach is so bad at the state level, why isn’t state reach as bad at the individual level? And here’s an interest question? Mississippi is the second most dependent state on federal assistance, along with several other states in the current news cycle it sits near the top for taking federal money and near the bottom for state programs to assist those in need. So the Federal government is good enough to pay out to a state which has over 20% of its citizens living below the poverty line, but not good enough to set some basic ground rules? These states are by and large ran like shit shows that fall behind less conservative states in most regards to quality of life and opportunity. If some of these states weren’t part of the union- we’d likely invade them or embargo them.
Actually- when states like Mississippi weren’t part of the union... WE DID! Huh. Well.... people like to hold these states up as beacons of “traditional American values...” from when? 1776? Speaking of which- a notable example of federal overreach as it pertains to choice and human life was that time where the government told Mississippi to stop holding slaves so they seceded. How’s that turn out? While I generally think the government should stay out of peoples affairs as much as possible- that applies a little less to the kid who can’t read in 4th grade and eats crayons instead of doing his math. The track record of governance into the 21st centuries says dear lord- someone needs to help these guys out so they don’t hurt themselves or others.
As for talk of over reach and freedom? Laughable in this context. It’s over reach to say that a person should have a choice- but not so to say that a person should be denied a choice? The federal government is the bad guy for saying that the state should ease its iron fist and let people decide for themselves- while the state is the underdog hero for telling people what they can and can’t do? It’s clear to me which entity is trying to put its hands into the business of the individual- into the lives of the individual. I usually side against that guy- most of the time.
So here is a case where a state seeks to deny a person the right to make a choice. Did you think my comments about these states were insulting and patronizing above? Did they anger you? Did you want to punch my smug face for thinking I’m so much smarter and more enlightened and should make other people’s decisions for them? Good. You were meant to. I don’t really think so poorly of these great states. But that’s the message they are sending. “We know Better than you how to run your life. You are too ignorant to be trusted with a decision like this.” That’s what they are saying about their citizens.
If the people truly and honestly don’t want abortion- the clinics will close on their own when no one comes in, when they can’t get staff or funding. If the people just don’t want other people to be able to do so- that’s not freedom- that’s not American. If the whole point here is that it’s wrong for a government to tell a lesser and sovereign entity what to do with itself- that applies between the state and the government.
And @famousone- first they take away abortions because of the threat to life- then they take your guns. That sounds a little more reasonable- because once we’ve justified saying that the risk to life from misuse and the outrage of the moral panic masses outweighs and overpowers the freedom of individuals and their ability to exercise such a thing responsibly- we have set precedent. We have said that the possibility you might do wrong, and the utmost sanctity of life demand the sacrifice of personal choice and exercise of agency. That’s dangerous too.
@Celticrose that “state by state bullshit” you spit on is the essence of the country. It is the United States of America. We were not built as one country. Because the founding fathers knew that trying to rule a vast area was futile due to the unhappiness when the scale tips one way. Thats why the 10th Amendment exists. It clearly states that any and all rights and powers not enumerated to the federal government in our Constitution should be given to the states to decide and such powers should only be given to the federal government by addition of an amendment in which 2/3 of states agree. It is this idea that is the foundation of our country. Learn your government before portraying it falsely.
And also @guest_ I must point out that they can take away the choice because it is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights that grant us citizens our rights. The right to bear are however is enumerated so it can’t be taken away.
@famousone abortion was legal for the first 120 years of this nation, so technically your argument is entirely backwards. Enshrining that right is a restoration of rights, it's not taking anything away.
I am so thankful that I am Canadian and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are pretty clear. I feel so much for the American women who's rights are being taken away. I believe in the right to choose what is best for you fully recognizing that if you believe abortion is murder that is fine, you don't need to get one. However, someone else's situation may be completely different and an abortion is the best thing for them. I feel the same way about the right to take your own life if you have a terminal illness. May not be for me nor would I want a loved one to do it but I do recognize that it may what is best for you. In conclusion, you do you. Don't tell other people what to do with their bodies. Education is the key to making the right decision for yourself.
Anti-abortion people don't give a shit about kids; they only care about making sure that a woman does what they want and strip away any choice they have in the matter
While I largely agree with the sentiment of pro choice- Bethorien makes a valid point. Lumping all people together under one stereotype doesn’t help us understand them. Wether it’s about religion or life or control or any other thing- people oppose abortion for many reasons. But I do have to say that personally- I don’t think someone should be able to tell another person they must carry a child if they aren’t at the least willing to pay for the prenatal care, delivery, and post- and aren’t willing to care for the child as their own after birth. “Don’t have sex then-“ stop. If we are talking about abortion that ship has sailed. It’s too late to not have sex. We are here now. We can only address what comes next- not before. So if abortion isn’t an option- what happens next?
Unless Georgia finds out, then you'll be arrested for murder. And you may not have to be rich but you still need money and the time off. So @famousone , you can go fuck yourself. This is not your decision. You have no idea what goes into making this choice.
If a few of these laws go into effect, you can be charged for having an abortion in another state.
That's 100% unconstitutional bullshit, obviously, but that's the way some of the bills have been written.
It's like being charged in Texas for a DUI when you smoked weed in California a month earlier and can prove it... or like being charged with gambling in Utah because you gambled in Vegas.
taking example from i think japan where they said that they would give urine tests to returning citizens that went to canada and arrest anyone that had weed show up on the test
In the United States- repeated rulings say explicitly that unless Congress has declared otherwise (such as the case with certain racketeering and financial crimes,) US citizens traveling within or outside the borders are subject to the laws of the host and not the home state. Think about it for a second- you basically couldn’t drive in most other countries or the autobahn if this weren’t true because you’d be ticketed or arrested for breaking US road laws when you returned. How can 18yo’ US kids drink in the UK and not get arrested- how can people from states like NYC go places like Vegas and smoke indoors without being arrested or visit another county from a “dry” county to buy liquor.
Some places make commerce illegal on certain religious days or times within the Cory or county- but if you are on a business trip in Florida can you be arrested when you come home for buying a meal in a different time zone because it was during that period? The basic idea of it is insane and there is no way it will stand up to challenges. How do you even prove a person had an abortion in another state? HEPA is Federal and you’d still need the other state hospital to agree to help you “catch” people- and if they refuse you’d also need their state to side with you and order them to otherwise you’d have no ability to make them share those records.
So what- any lady going out of state gets inspected by a border control gyno when she returns for signs of illegal abortion? Asides from invasive medical testing- of a woman left pregnant and cane back not- and says she miscarried- how would you know she had an abortion? And if one wanted to examine her- what’s the probable cause? What legal grounds do you declare she probably committed a crime?
So @Calvinoot- there is nothin stopping a person from traveling to another state and having an abortion. There are some states that make this illegal- but that would likely be overturned as precedent and logic both suggest a state can’t extend its laws to the border of another state, and a crime must be committed within a state for that state to have jurisdiction. So some people MIGHT face legal issues on return to their home state.
I've always thought that sensible judgement could be made on both sides and compromises could be made. When pro choice nuts started to justify killing babies that are born alive after a failed abortion and sensible pro choice people also supported it I knew which side I had to be on.To often anymore the nuts on the far left and far right are making the policy decisions on all matters forcing the common sense majority to choose between two very horrible choices. Hopefully this changes in my lifetime.
Okay, I think I've had enough. 4 posts about this in the span of three days, wtf is going on. It's like someone's intentionally flooding funsub with the abortion debate in particular, not even just political stuff in general.
True. How can we help ALL people get over the desire to have abortion legal? So far, here's what doesn't work: 1) abortion being legal (high abortion rates, half the people mad) and 2) abortion being illegal (much higher abortion rates, the other half of people mad).
,
So far, here's what works: 1) access to long term birth control and 2) sex education.
,
If you were in charge and you really, truly wanted people to stop aborting people, what would you do? I'm genuinely curious.
The same people who say abortion is murder also say "murder is wrong unless it's the death penalty, war involving innocents and bio-warfare on countries" and other hypocritical things. Pregnancy termination is both legally and biologically distinct from killing a human being.
A fetus that, for instance, can't live outside of the wound is different than killing a crawling/walking human person.
The phrase itself would mean "concerning living organisms, is different".
I think “biologically” differentiates it from ideologically. It removes the philosophical arguments and religious scholars and makes it simply about distinguishing a thing using the science of biology.
1. Biology isn't an "artificial authority," it's a study based on observable traits. Artificial Authority would be like saying "because God said so" as a response.
2. You are physically different than me, but we're closer biologically than either of us are to a fetus. So I don't think "physically" would have been good in its place.
It's not blown out of proportion at all. It's sliding backwards by claiming that they are saving lives while threatening to kill women who get abortions.
No such threat of killing women. Not even a claiming of charging women with a felony. If you believe it is true, find a credible source that supports it.
I stand corrected in the sense that there was a bill introduced by a single congressman. However, if you continue reading the article it clearly states that there was immense backlash on all fronts toward this bill. There are fanatics that are calling for this and there are fanatics calling for the opposite. It’s important to look at the majority. Not the voice of the minority
The opposite would be that abortions can be done up until the moment of delivery for no reason except because they want it. That would be the opposite in which case there are plenty of people calling for that.
@ilikemoderation You say there are plenty of people demanding partial-birth abortions? I don't agree, and neither do statistics. Can you please clarify? You also just said "it's important to look at the majority; not the voice of the minority." So, to be clear, is there a majority somewhere in the world that demands viable fetuses be aborted?
I do not recall anything about partial births. Also, the point about the majority/minority is exactly that. I don’t concern my debate toward the minority that says fully viable fetuses. They are the minority. I am concern with the majority
Forget abortion, it is CHOICE you are taking away. Each woman who has an abortion is taking on any perceived sin or moral judgment. It is the choice of the woman to take that ‘sin’ to their grave. It is not a choice for some other human, it is a choice for her to make.
you cant use this kind of arguement against someone that wholeheartly believes that abortion is murder. when talking to someone that believes as such it is exactly the same to them as saying "forget shooting someone in the head, it is CHOICE you are taking away. Each person who shoots someone in the head is taking on any perceived sin or moral judgement. It is the choice of the person to take that 'sin' to their grave. It is not a choice of some other human, it is a choice of her to make"
If you believe that an abortion is taking a life then you should care about the school shooting that are killing children, you should care about the migrant children in detention that are being raped and molested, you should care about the children in foster care. Do NOT put yourself on some higher moral ground because you are fighting for some "lives" that will never know they even existed. Except that eliminating abortions don't save lives and the statistics prove it. If you really want to reduce the need for abortions then you need to do everything that the Netherlands is doing.
well for 1. Ive got no real opinion on the matter because i just dont give a fuck either way. mother fuckers are gonna do whatever they want whether there are laws in either direction.
and 2. thats more non-arguements. deflecting the discussion about this topic by attacking the person behind the argument over something that isnt this. not actually talking about this topic at all. its just bad debating.
3. someone not actively doing anything about an unrelated thing does not invalidate their opinion or beliefs on another topic. One could very easily turn that arguement exactly around and point out that none of the people using said arguement give a shit about anyone involved as they arent doing a damn thing about "unrelated issues 1, 2, 3, and 4."
its not an argument. Its deflecting the argument by attacking your opponent directly rather than what their points are.
Look, I'm pro-choice and every anti-abortion person I have ever met, spoke with, read about, watched interviews with have placed themselves on a moral high ground claiming that they are saving lives. These same people see nothing wrong with the death penalty, believe migrant children should be locked up, and that foster children just have to deal with it. These are their beliefs and their arguments. Any argument can be switched around by anyone. One could argue that you can't be pro-life and an anti-vaxxer.
someones opinion on one thing does not invalidate their opinion on anything else. appeals to hypocrisy are worthless and have no argumentative value other than to attack the person you are arguing with rather than their points and just shows that whoever is doing that has no actual argument to use otherwise.
@laughwendylaugh I am pro life, Don’t think that children should be imprisoned, see plenty wrong with the death penalty, and believe our foster system does need reform, along with many areas in our country. To say that someone thinks that banning abortion is saving lives has nothing to do with me as an individual claiming to be more moral than you. It’s simply saying that it would indeed saving children from being killed. It has nothing to do with my morality. It is a subject matter. Not a part of my personality. As for the deflection to school shootings, I don’t think anyone is okay with school shootings so you can’t say that pro life people are hypocritical.
@ilikemoderation You are a rarity and you are the first pro life person I have met/spoken with who has this outlook. I do not believe that a zygote/embryo is a child. I believe that people have the right to choose what is right for them even if I do not believe they are making the right choice.
The point being made is that it’s dangerous and ignorant to look at a single aspect of a person and assume you know how they will feel on all things. If one elected Hitler for his “goods” under the assumption those would dictate his personality and actions- history wouldn’t show that a wise choice. Likewise- most historical figures have skeletons in their closets. Richard Nixon was known for Vietnam, corruption, and many other bad things. But he also started the EPA and made reforms to civil rights and many other “good” things that one might not assume he would. So if we only judge people negatively that’s not realistic either. I love guns but am for gun control. I think a fetus is a life, but I also think abortion should be legal because what I think and what science says are two different things, and what I think shouldn’t be the de facto ruling for other people who may think differently than me. People are complex.
If you believe a baby in its mother's womb is a human life, then willfully terminating it is murder
If you believe the baby is not a human life, you can do what you want with it
Using the law to justify something as moral is a terrible mistake
Slavery was legal
If you're okay with arbitrarily ending human lives then you are morally reprehensible
"Oh I can't afford these kids, let's kill them"
And don't use rape either as an example. Less than 1% of abortions are rape cases (research the data yourself if you don't believe me)
Even in a rape case, killing doesn't suddenly become legal, although I am in favour of either castration or possibly capital punishment for rapists
I have every right to judge someone who kills children
Why do you base things on experience? If I haven't experienced it my opinion is completely invalid?
And at what point exactly does a "fetus" become a baby?
When is someone still alive if they have a pacemaker, or require dialysis, or are on a life support machine?
Can you arbitrarily call for their deaths?
Nothing quite destroys someone's argument by ignoring it right?
,
Also, if an area has unrestricted access to abortion and it's changed to "prohibited, except to protect the life of the mother," the abortion rate goes up. If an area outlaws abortion totally, the rate stays the same but the abortions are provided unsafely. The take-away here is: if you don't want more abortions, keep expanding access to birth control and don't outlaw safe abortions.
,
https://www.vox.com/2018/12/3/18119528/abortion-rate-decline-2018-birth-control-iud-pill
,
https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2018-03-21/abortion-rates-where-and-why-theyre-falling
,
(Sorry, @guest_ - I jumped in your flow)
To be fair, my comments were mostly designed to show how inconsistent and flawed the arguments that @celticrose was using, rather than contributing my own point of view
One of the main points of contention is at what point exactly do the two gametes become a human?
That's why we have fifty state governments cooperating with the federal government. Because what makes sense in Washington State, be it for economic, geographic, popular, or any other reason, may not apply to Arizona.
Yesterday? Gay marriage. Today? Abortion. Tomorrow? Guns. Next week? Free speech. Next month? Privacy. Next year? Genocide.
And every case of overreach you condone, because you agree with it, will make you that much weaker against the case of overreach that will hurt you, and maybe a lot of others.
"First they came for the socialists".
"the means to get the thing i want don't matter as long as i get what i want"
That's 100% unconstitutional bullshit, obviously, but that's the way some of the bills have been written.
DDDDDDDDDIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDNNNNNNNNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTTTTT
RRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDD
,
So far, here's what works: 1) access to long term birth control and 2) sex education.
,
If you were in charge and you really, truly wanted people to stop aborting people, what would you do? I'm genuinely curious.
The phrase itself would mean "concerning living organisms, is different".
2. You are physically different than me, but we're closer biologically than either of us are to a fetus. So I don't think "physically" would have been good in its place.
2. We're probably also more similar physically than either of us are to a fetus.
"im gonna attack your intentions and not your argument"
and 2. thats more non-arguements. deflecting the discussion about this topic by attacking the person behind the argument over something that isnt this. not actually talking about this topic at all. its just bad debating.
3. someone not actively doing anything about an unrelated thing does not invalidate their opinion or beliefs on another topic. One could very easily turn that arguement exactly around and point out that none of the people using said arguement give a shit about anyone involved as they arent doing a damn thing about "unrelated issues 1, 2, 3, and 4."
its not an argument. Its deflecting the argument by attacking your opponent directly rather than what their points are.