FWIW I'm against the death penalty because it's irreversible, not because it's an unjust punishment but to claim it's hypocritical to be against doing something to an innocent person that you would be willing to do to a criminal is silly
Your argument is not valid. What is the difference in terminating a human being and terminating something that is on its way to becoming a human being? This is the pro choice argument; that's it's ok to kill an embryo or a fetus before it becomes a human, even though pro choice advocates know this embryo/fetus will inevitably become a human. This is why the pro choice crowd confuses me. It's not more important. It's equal at this point. And the mother rightly gets to choose to live, to save her own life if she wants to. In your scenario, pro choice wins either way, because the choice is made to either end the baby's life, or end the mother's life.
Stop trying to catfish people into absolutes by using emotion. Pose a logical argument and people will hear you out. Stuff like that not only deepens the assumptions that you're a right wing nut job it also makes you look stupid.
Curious how many of you pro-lifers have no problem taking a weekend into the woods to slaughter animals for sport.
You can look at it from a variety of angles honestly. There are late term-abortions which look akin to what was posted and early-term abortions that resemble nothing like the picture. But honestly hot button topics such are these are useless to debate. You either believe in it or you don't. At the end of the day unless you're a closet liberal, or closet conservative and are faking an opinion to fit in better with a social strata, your opinion won't really change with a discussion on clutch-fans. So while it may be a talking point for a discussion these laws won't change.Just like gun control. You can have a myriad of debates on whether or not guns should be legal, but thirty years from now i will still own my gun.
What was illogical about my post? Out of sight out of mind is what allows people to think it's ok to kill the unborn. If you can't face what you're condoning, maybe you need to rethink why you are.
Wow, your argument falls so flat. Are animals more important than a human being? Go ask yourself that question.
Here's another way to look at abortion. If you are glad that you were not aborted, then you shouldn't be pro-choice. Yet abortion is legal is this country, up to 24 weeks? Sickening if you really think about it.
B.S. it's just as valid as your argument. Becoming a human being is NOT a human being. The same can be said about sperms and I know you've killed millions in your time. I don't understand why you can't see that. Actually, I lied... I do, and that's the difference. I, at least, understand your point of view is as important as mine. I feel that I'm right just as strongly as you do. Maybe because I'm not religious, but that's an argument for another day. I know it's not as "simple" as you stated. That is such a demonizing view of pro-choicers, you don't even know you're doing it. Why do you think the mother dying is what I want?
Because you are basing your argument on your opinion on what defines "life". What you posted certainly does, but what about an early-stage abortion? Who are you to claim to know the moralities of other people and how they define what is life. The fact of the matter is that in our culture we like to jump on absolutes and define things with words like "should". You'd be suprised to hear about how other cultures define the meaning of life. Now relating back to the topic at hand. You and I live in a country where there are thousands of different cultures present. So you're gonna decide for all of them what they should and shouldn't do? Reason why im posting in this thread is because i had to do a paper on this back for my minor in college. Here's a little info graphic on abortion laws in other countries Spoiler Now i'm curious why do you think these laws are directed in such a manner/ as in country-wise?
wow at the mental loops. How are a woman's womb and her pregnancy not private individual activity? In fact, this is probably the most intimate affair I can think of. That's why Roe v. Wade was ruled the way it was, by the way, in case you ever bother to read the actual ruling. and so wait, unless you are responsible for creation of that baby, you shouldn't sustain life? huh. so pro-American life in a woman's vagina, or at least don't let her decide. We'll just decide not to sustain the life after. that's an even more limited definition of pro-life than (my admittedly stereotypical, but whatever) "shamer" who loves to lurk in a woman's vagina, but forgets the fact that he probably eats enough copious amounts of meat to starve a couple of African villages, and supports "collateral damage" in the Middle East without a shred of shame. (and yes, it is almost always typically a he)
Yes, because banning abortions now will lead to much less of them, just like banning drugs spiraled INTO control. It's also the BEST way to go about it empirically. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2011/12/13/legalize-abortion-and-the-rate-goes-down/ Let's deal in moral absolutes---if you're too much of a prude to let a woman have the education and contraceptives required to protect themselves, then you are crushing baby skulls.
This makes no sense. If you can't conclude that there is NO difference between a human being, and a "bundle of cells" in the womb that is forming over time to becoming a human being, then I can't help you any further. You couldn't even answer the question. This is not valid either. What about the millions of sperm that die when there is an attempt to impregnate a woman? Are we not supposed to have sex anymore since millions of sperm abortions happen, while only one makes it into the egg? I guess every male that has an orgasm has an abortion a million times at once. Where did I say that you wanted the mother to die?
It doesn't make sense to you, but it makes perfect sense to me. I won't go any farther either because my point of view should be self evident even if you don't agree (which is fine also). This argument is valid within your realm of truth. It just becomes an issue of degrees. You can't change the rules... we must make every effort to preserve every sperm, even the ones that don't make it to the egg. And no flapping. That's quite an implication.
I don't understand how you can say this when the facts say that millions die during a pregnancy attempt. This fact clearly determines that millions of them dying is God's intent. No rules are changed. I didn't imply anything. You're reaching now.
