lol why is america forcing girls to give birth tho

[Platypus20]

like ok guys, the joke has gone on long enough now. can we stop forcing girls to give birth?

imagine forcing someone to give birth because you're upset about some partially developed baby being aborted, then when it's born you aren't even willing to offer your life to take care of it. like, i swear pro-lifers are just wanting to punish girls for aborting "god's gift".

why are you trying to force people who don't even believe in your religion to obey your religion? you're a literal pos. lol

and this is for misinformed religious people who act as disgraceful as the taliban forcing people to obey their faith:

Alabama, Abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Arkansas, Abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Idaho, Near-total ban in place.

Indiana, Abortion is banned with limited exceptions.

Kentucky, Abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Louisiana, Abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Mississippi, Near-total ban in place, includes exception for rape but not incest.

Missouri, Abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest.

North Dakota, Abortion is banned with exceptions for rape or incest in the first six weeks of pregnancy.

Oklahoma, Abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest.

South Dakota, Abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Tennessee, Abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Texas, Abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest.

West Virginia, Near-total ban in place. A federal judge ruled in August that the state can also restrict the sale of abortion pills.

[↑↑↓↓←→←→BASelect]

Triple G の投稿を引用：

Dr. Johnny Fever の投稿を引用：

Yup pure junk and worthless. if you can't take 5 minutes out of your game to use the restroom then you are pure lazy.

Like said - it´s not about laziness. It´s about world peace.

But anyway - have a nice day, was very fun talking to You.

You too.

[Bamford]

Triple G の投稿を引用：

Bamford の投稿を引用：

Sorry wall of text, the woman has always been able to force the man to pay 18 years of child support for that clump of cells, so you have no argument.

But why should the woman force the the man to pay for child support for 18 years, when the child stays with the man? Here it would be that way that the man can "force" the woman to pay for it in that case...

Its a question, but its just proof their principles were never consistent at all, and so I discard their arguments by default.

[Bamford]

:D の投稿を引用：

Dom の投稿を引用：

By "worthless" I mean that since they are not considered human life, they aren't considered to have that human value. They don't have the VIABILITY that human lives do. This is totally different from a viable human being that requires assistance. Viable means life-sustaining - it doesn't mean that you don't require any support.

And there is a difference between independence and dependence when it comes to being your own body and being part of someone else's body, as much as you wish to act like there isn't and come up with strange examples. When you are your own body, you are a separate individual and considered such. That is a major difference.

And now since you asked about conciousness, I think conciousness is a rather good way to define a human. You could change any body part of me and I would still be the same person, fundamentally - but if you changed my brain (and thus my conciousness) would you still call me the same person? You probably would not...

So consider the example above, and then realize that since conciousness is missing, the fundamental part of what makes a human is quite literally missing.

Now that considered, fetus develops conciousness between between the 24th and 28th week. This is where many "pro-abortion" (if that's what we wish to call them) countries and states place the restrictions on; on the 24th week.

As for coma, there is a difference between having developed conciousness and having the ability to deploy conciousness and being in a state where the ability to use it is temporarily minimal or gone vs. not having developed conciousness at all. Coma patients have conciousness, it is just not in use. It doesn't "disappear" from their brain; it has developed and exists there. Hence - they they wake up from coma later. So that example is just not good at all in comparison.

Your message was super long so I'll admit that I didn't read all of it
But you go on with your "dependence" and "viability" points but man what does that even mean? A 1 year old has a 0.00001% of surviving without the constant care of his mother/father, does that mean it is unviable? That 1 year old might die from a simple cold, does that mean it is unviable?
A child could die from a million different things, does that mean it is unviable?

Children are entirely reliant on their mothers for loooooooong after they are born. Where is the line that you draw where killing them is acceptable and where it is not?
Can someone kill a 17 year old who is a freeloader with no job and no aspirations?

Its just antinatalism cope, as Peter Singer coming out with "why not animals if they consent" one can rationalize anything.

[Mega Ultra Chicken]

Because the right side knows marriage and relationships are slowly dying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRxhnSkgxtk&t=123s

[Triple G]

^
Actually when i read "the relationships professor" - i know it has to be important...

[repaeR]

Dom の投稿を引用：

repaeR の投稿を引用：

I did quote what you said clearly though.

The comparison is legit, because it bases on what you wrote. "Not viable pieces of cells (which means they are worthless on their own)". People that are in coma are not "pieces of cells", but they are "worthless" on their own, without the support, so then, they would become "pieces of cells", or equivalent. That is according to your logic, and I did compare it by using your logic.

Again, remember this: both examples are completely "worthless on their own", equally, so I don't see how you are trying to twist it around from what you wrote, and for that, it failed to convince me. Read it again.

Sure, even if you interpret that word "independently" that way, it still stands: a newborn baby, or even toddler out side of a mother's womb would never make it if he/she doesn't get provided nutrition. The only difference between one in the womb and one not is the womb is this: the tube. The nutrition (food) still must go to the baby (inside or outside), it's just different methods.

..and if you try to argue with me about: "the tube". If that the only thing can make a difference between your word "independently" and "dependently", like one is one body, other is 2 bodies, then you got to try harder than that, because I would easily take that you are using it as a scapegoat to justify abortion.

Nope. Not just religion. Even your science says the same. The only science that you try to use today is your political science, it's corrupted.

You think that the unborn child is not human, just because he/she is not "consciousness"? Are you sure about that?

They can listen to music, even in the womb, they can kick, they do react certain mother's movements. There have been countless studies of this for very long time.

They have no desires? You sure? They do grow from mother's provided nutrition, does that count as desire to grow and live?

Oh by the way, now that makes me to pin on you again about those people that are in coma. They are not "consciousness", so they are not human either then?

If you argue that way about "moral" and "values" then I guess that we should never any law or rule in a society then. Murder should be legalized then.

By "worthless" I mean that since they are not considered human life, they aren't considered to have that human value. They don't have the VIABILITY that human lives do. This is totally different from a viable human being that requires assistance. Viable means life-sustaining - it doesn't mean that you don't require any support.

And there is a difference between independence and dependence when it comes to being your own body and being part of someone else's body, as much as you wish to act like there isn't and come up with strange examples. When you are your own body, you are a separate individual and considered such. That is a major difference.

And now since you asked about conciousness, I think conciousness is a rather good way to define a human. You could change any body part of me and I would still be the same person, fundamentally - but if you changed my brain (and thus my conciousness) would you still call me the same person? You probably would not...

So consider the example above, and then realize that since conciousness is missing, the fundamental part of what makes a human is quite literally missing.

Now that considered, fetus develops conciousness between between the 24th and 28th week. This is where many "pro-abortion" (if that's what we wish to call them) countries and states place the restrictions on; on the 24th week.

As for coma, there is a difference between having developed conciousness and having the ability to deploy conciousness and being in a state where the ability to use it is temporarily minimal or gone vs. not having developed conciousness at all. Coma patients have conciousness, it is just not in use. It doesn't "disappear" from their brain; it has developed and exists there. Hence - they they wake up from coma later. So that example is just not good at all in comparison.

"By "worthless" I mean that since they are not considered human life, they aren't considered to have that human value. They don't have the VIABILITY that human lives do. This is totally different from a viable human being that requires assistance. Viable means life-sustaining - it doesn't mean that you don't require any support"

That whole paragraph above has so many holes, and wrong scientific facts there.

"not considered human life"? Why not? It is a POTENTIAL human life. Human life forms at conception, and I quote this in more correct way:

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)".

Just at that moment, it has a unique human DNA that NONE other would have on the whole planet Earth, or maybe the whole universe. Your DNA sequences stays with you for life! Any other change only occurs because of your environment, your aging, but your code doesn't really change. Of course, there are more depth of that subject, but your billions of letters that make up your gene stay with you at very beginning of your creation.

If you can tell me that at the conception, that "worthless lump of cells" has no unique whatsoever, it is not a whole, it's like either female egg or male sperm, then sure, then you could at least have an argument. Other than that, you are not making any sense. I mean, you are still ignoring my previous post mentioning that EVERY ONE of you, or I was once like that!! So I wasn't a potential human life form at my own conception??? Really??? You expect me to believe that logic???

Now the "consciousness". What you said did not make sense. How is that "altering" your brain then you simply quoted, "are not the same person..."? You left a hole there so that you could try to twist it around or what? because here is what I understood:

If I "change" your brain, and if you are still functional, like still be alive, then sure, you are not the same person, AND when I said that it only means that you are just handicapped, but you ARE still A HUMAN BEING.

There are many many many people that have "altered brain" (like brain damaged for example) in this world, and YES, they are still human being.

It doesn't matter if the baby (or whatever other form, or stage that you want to call it) has consciousness or not, he/she has a unique DNA codes!!! He/she is a potential human being!! I or you, anyone did or did not have consciousness, it didn't matter, I am still a breathing adult human being today!!!

It didn't matter whether consciousness was developed or not. It did matter when you literally said that one has or one doesn't have. So the people in coma still applies here, you only tried to snake your way out, that is all, but, as your argument above was invalid, so it doesn't matter anyway.

Your position on how a fetus develops in numbers of weeks, again, I have already said this too many times, this is a "slippery rope". You don't get to decide at certain time frame, just because you think that a fetus doesn't develop "consciousness", because in reality, people are the mess. One or two weeks do make differences, right? Then what about one or two days? Eventually people gonna go back to the time when they would rip a "consciousness" baby (according to your term) out of a mother's womb anyway. This is why I would disagree anyway with any state, or pretty much every state that has a say at what time a mother is allowed to have abortion or not. It's a big slippery rope. It's generally still a murder anyway, so what is the point!?

Gotta say though, the more you said in latest post, the more disturbing I felt about you, or maybe many people like you out there. Like, I still couldn't imagine that you people would view people like me like, when I was created at the conception. Of course, my mother would never, but I could imagine that if some people like you would encourage her to do such thing if she wants to, or if she is in doubt. That is disturbing.

[Phénomènes Mystiques]

Fear of population decrease, infertility...

A nation needs a strong military and you cannot defend a country with an aging population.

[repaeR]

Not Big Surprise の投稿を引用：

repaeR の投稿を引用：

hey, if you say so, then it's why we have these debates. You just answered your previous post yourself.

see that's the difference between what should happen and what does happen

uh, so which one?....ah forget it. Here what should happen: people should just be responsible when it comes to sex, and if there are babies, then they should carry it until he/she is born, then give him/her up to adoption services, there are countless single, childless women or couples out there wanting to adopt.

Not Big Surprise の投稿を引用：

Fake の投稿を引用：

*discovering cells on another planet*
OMG we found life!!!!

*cells in a woman's body*
Eh, it's just cells, flush it.


Make that make sense.

the difference between the presence of some form of life and the presence of a person

..but the point is that it is still a life form, a potential life form, but in this case, it's a potential human life form. You see.

[Dom]

repaeR の投稿を引用：

Dom の投稿を引用：

By "worthless" I mean that since they are not considered human life, they aren't considered to have that human value. They don't have the VIABILITY that human lives do. This is totally different from a viable human being that requires assistance. Viable means life-sustaining - it doesn't mean that you don't require any support.

And there is a difference between independence and dependence when it comes to being your own body and being part of someone else's body, as much as you wish to act like there isn't and come up with strange examples. When you are your own body, you are a separate individual and considered such. That is a major difference.

And now since you asked about conciousness, I think conciousness is a rather good way to define a human. You could change any body part of me and I would still be the same person, fundamentally - but if you changed my brain (and thus my conciousness) would you still call me the same person? You probably would not...

So consider the example above, and then realize that since conciousness is missing, the fundamental part of what makes a human is quite literally missing.

Now that considered, fetus develops conciousness between between the 24th and 28th week. This is where many "pro-abortion" (if that's what we wish to call them) countries and states place the restrictions on; on the 24th week.

As for coma, there is a difference between having developed conciousness and having the ability to deploy conciousness and being in a state where the ability to use it is temporarily minimal or gone vs. not having developed conciousness at all. Coma patients have conciousness, it is just not in use. It doesn't "disappear" from their brain; it has developed and exists there. Hence - they they wake up from coma later. So that example is just not good at all in comparison.

"By "worthless" I mean that since they are not considered human life, they aren't considered to have that human value. They don't have the VIABILITY that human lives do. This is totally different from a viable human being that requires assistance. Viable means life-sustaining - it doesn't mean that you don't require any support"

That whole paragraph above has so many holes, and wrong scientific facts there.

"not considered human life"? Why not? It is a POTENTIAL human life. Human life forms at conception, and I quote this in more correct way:

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)".

Just at that moment, it has a unique human DNA that NONE other would have on the whole planet Earth, or maybe the whole universe. Your DNA sequences stays with you for life! Any other change only occurs because of your environment, your aging, but your code doesn't really change. Of course, there are more depth of that subject, but your billions of letters that make up your gene stay with you at very beginning of your creation.

If you can tell me that at the conception, that "worthless lump of cells" has no unique whatsoever, it is not a whole, it's like either female egg or male sperm, then sure, then you could at least have an argument. Other than that, you are not making any sense. I mean, you are still ignoring my previous post mentioning that EVERY ONE of you, or I was once like that!! So I wasn't a potential human life form at my own conception??? Really??? You expect me to believe that logic???

Now the "consciousness". What you said did not make sense. How is that "altering" your brain then you simply quoted, "are not the same person..."? You left a hole there so that you could try to twist it around or what? because here is what I understood:

If I "change" your brain, and if you are still functional, like still be alive, then sure, you are not the same person, AND when I said that it only means that you are just handicapped, but you ARE still A HUMAN BEING.

There are many many many people that have "altered brain" (like brain damaged for example) in this world, and YES, they are still human being.

It doesn't matter if the baby (or whatever other form, or stage that you want to call it) has consciousness or not, he/she has a unique DNA codes!!! He/she is a potential human being!! I or you, anyone did or did not have consciousness, it didn't matter, I am still a breathing adult human being today!!!

It didn't matter whether consciousness was developed or not. It did matter when you literally said that one has or one doesn't have. So the people in coma still applies here, you only tried to snake your way out, that is all, but, as your argument above was invalid, so it doesn't matter anyway.

Your position on how a fetus develops in numbers of weeks, again, I have already said this too many times, this is a "slippery rope". You don't get to decide at certain time frame, just because you think that a fetus doesn't develop "consciousness", because in reality, people are the mess. One or two weeks do make differences, right? Then what about one or two days? Eventually people gonna go back to the time when they would rip a "consciousness" baby (according to your term) out of a mother's womb anyway. This is why I would disagree anyway with any state, or pretty much every state that has a say at what time a mother is allowed to have abortion or not. It's a big slippery rope. It's generally still a murder anyway, so what is the point!?

Gotta say though, the more you said in latest post, the more disturbing I felt about you, or maybe many people like you out there. Like, I still couldn't imagine that you people would view people like me like, when I was created at the conception. Of course, my mother would never, but I could imagine that if some people like you would encourage her to do such thing if she wants to, or if she is in doubt. That is disturbing.

Potential human life is not the same thing as human life. By saying that, you are already, by yourself, drawing a distinction between the two. By saying "potential human life" you acknowledge in your comment that it has the potential to become one - but it isn't that yet.

So no, human life does not begin at contraception. What does begin, is a potential human life, something that develops into one. If it's terminated within a specific timeframe, then no human life was terminated. Simple and easy.

Then you proceed to say human development begins after contraception. Fine - but this isn't human life either. Development as a word quite literally acknowledges that it isn't a human being or a human life but it develops into one if it's given the possibility.

You are saying things that I have never argued against. I do find it interesting though that you say uniqueness (DNA) is the criteria which determines human life? Would you say snowflakes have human life in them since there aren't two of the same kinds? As you can see, that criteria is a bit flawed.

The point about conciousness is that it's the fundamental part of being a human being and it defines us. It's the only part of me where if it were to be changed, I would not be the same human. So when we talk about fetuses that lack conciousness (have not developed it yet), my very simple and reasonable conclusion is that they are not humans yet.

I don't see how you can claim (or why you claim) that I tried to snake my way out of the coma question. Literally, coma isn't a condition in which conciousness disappears from the brain. It still exists there. So I didn't snake out, you just came up with a terrible example, tried to have that "gotcha" moment but you failed quite miserably and I can only guess that you're upset because of it.

Lastly, don't accuse me or make baseless assumptions about me. As a man, I would never encourage any woman to make an abortion or keep the child. I respect the woman's choices which are hers to make. Entirely.

[replika]

derailing the argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwJYDy52D2U

[ZZZZZ]

repaeR の投稿を引用：

Not Big Surprise の投稿を引用：

see that's the difference between what should happen and what does happen

uh, so which one?....ah forget it. Here what should happen: people should just be responsible when it comes to sex, and if there are babies, then they should carry it until he/she is born, then give him/her up to adoption services, there are countless single, childless women or couples out there wanting to adopt.

ah I guess those forster care people are just a conspiracy theory

[The Impractical Engineer]

With the possible exception of rape or incest, abortion should be banned. It is a human life.

[Raelic]

Triple G の投稿を引用：

BlackDragon875 の投稿を引用：

Can someone actually tell me a good argument for abortion?

Ask me again if You got pregnant after being raped, or if You had sex with Your boyfriend and the condom, or whatever thing You did to prevent a pregnancy failed. Else abortion would be good to get rid of stupid questions, but for some odd reason its not possible to abort adult people without faking an accident.

Dr. Johnny Fever の投稿を引用：

Needless junk. A gaming chair can't keep you warm. A gaming chair is not needed as it adds no feature in gaming and don't help you in gaming. So a regular kitchen chair is all one needs.

Pfff - it has an integrated ass heater, and massage pins at the back. It could also do other things, but i can´t write them here as it´s an American forum, so writing about cutting off legs is okay, but talking about anything "natural" is not...

And of course it helps in gaming. More time for gaming = more skill = more achievements = more meaning in life = more happiness = more peace in the world.

But rape...

We already shut this argument down.

A) Plan B isn't illegal anywhere here. Go to the hospital if you're a victim.
B) You're only using rape to be emotionally charged. If you're against rape, fight that. And further, if Rape pregnancies were allowed to have abortions, that would not be enough. In reality it has nothing to do with the discussion. You're just using rape as a tool and that is disgusting.

[Gym Leader Rory wants to battle!]

The Impractical Engineer の投稿を引用：

With the possible exception of rape or incest, abortion should be banned. It is a human life.

Bro look up a picture of a developing fetus If you think thats a baby you have some issues.

[Dom]

Something that I wonder...

If it's not enough that we live based on our ethics and morality in our personal lives but we must force our moral/ethical views on other people, isn't this a reasonable argument for some vegan to be in favor of total ban on meat production and meat consumption?

They could argue the exact same thing. That based on their religious views, animal lives are sacred and ought not to be killed under any circumstances.

Where do we draw the line between
-> "hey, I live my life based on my own morality/ethical views"
and
-> "hey, my morals and ethics dictate YOUR life and decisions"
?