Political Discussion: My Thoughts on being Pro-Life

[Hilary]

I wanted to share my thoughts on being pro-life. Anyone is welcome to comment here, and if you would like disagree, you are safe to do so. I will attempt to defend my position, but I will always respond to you with respect. I hope others will do the same. ------------- I feel really called to share this message, because I strongly believe that abortion is the greatest human rights violation of our time. It is a discrimination against an entire group of people, of human beings: the pre-born. Don't think they're human? Look to science. Here are some definitions for you: Definitions: Embryo: an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development, in particular a human offspring during the period from approximately the second to the eighth week after fertilization (after which it is usually termed a fetus). Fetus: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth Infant: a human child from birth to the end of the first year of life. Child: a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority Adolescent: Adolescence is the phase of life between childhood and adulthood, from ages 10 to 19. It is a unique stage of human development. Being an embryo, and being fetus, is a stage of human development. We didn't come from an embryo. We didn't come from a fetus. We didn't come from a baby. We WERE an embryo. We WERE a fetus. We WERE a baby. And if you still disagree, I ask you: if they aren't human, then what are they? And understand that science would not be on your side on that one. From Princeton University, "When does a human life begin? Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception. "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote." "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)." (Source) Now that we've established that a pre-born human is indeed a human being, here is my main argument: Human beings have the basic right to live. But history has shown that right to life denied at various points, and it still is today, for various reasons. The only requirement that should be made for having a right to life is to be human. Not human plus. Not human plus a certain skin color. Not human plus a certain ethnicity. Not human plus a certain religion. Not human plus will never suffer. Not human plus no disabilities. Not human plus above the poverty line. Not human plus a certain age. Not human plus a certain stage of development. Not human plus conceived only outside of rape. Not human plus no dependency on others. Human. That's it. No plus. (and yes, I borrowed that concept from the video I posted earlier)

[FryingMan]

I think you're brave to put your position out there and to offer a chance for serious but respectful discussion on a very divisive topic. I agree with you, BTW. I don't have a lot of hope, though, for a productive discussion. People in our day and age have all but forgotten how to discuss seriously -- it's all heat and no light, about "destroying" the person with differing views, instead of engaging with understanding. Sound bites, straw man arguments, ad hominem and many other logical fallacies are pretty much all you find these days in online "arguments." But good luck anyway .

[Hilary]

I think you're brave to put your position out there and to offer a chance for serious but respectful discussion on a very divisive topic. I agree with you, BTW. I don't have a lot of hope, though, for a productive discussion. People in our day and age have all but forgotten how to discuss seriously -- it's all heat and no light, about "destroying" the person with differing views, instead of engaging with understanding. Sound bites, straw man arguments, ad hominem and many other logical fallacies are pretty much all you find these days in online "arguments." But good luck anyway . Oh I know it. Honestly, the last couple days I've been seeking out these discussions. I'm enjoying it because, I've realized, regardless of whether or not someone changes their mind, I actually can't lose at this argument because it has a foundation. It's on the right side of history. Obviously some people will always disagree, and no amount of logic is going to change that, but, there's a foundation in the pro-life argument that the pro-choice movement just simply does not have. The pro-life movement has a foundation of 1. Pre-born humans are human beings. and 2. All human beings, regardless of circumstances, are deserving of a basic right to live. The pro-choice's best "foundation" is the argument that 1. Women should have control over their bodies. ("My body my choice") All of the other arguments they present supporting abortion really just have to do with potential circumstances (well they might suffer, well they might be in foster care, well they might have a disability, well they might be poor, well they might....). That's just fluff with no foundation. No circumstance should determine whether a human should have basic right to live. They should have a basic right to live, regardless, just because they are human. Now, to the main point of the pro-choice argument - women should have control over their bodies. This is true. Women should have control over their bodies. That is a valid point. However.. it's not just their body. Their are two bodies involved. And, in our society, your rights to do what you want with your body end when it negatively affects another human's body. A lot of pro-choice people claim that pro-life people are putting the baby above the mother. That's not true. We're calling for equal rights between mother and baby. Yes, that means the mother should not be able to electively kill the baby. But, this is already the case when pregnant women go to the hospital. They are not treated as 1 patient. They are actually treated by a doctor as 2 patients with equal rights. A doctor must do whatever they can in their power to make sure both lives are protected and safe while in his or her care. Even an ectopic pregnancy, which is NOT an abortion (common misconception), but a medical condition requiring a life-saving procedure, is still not in conflict with the equal rights idea. In that situation, the mother and the baby go to a hospital, and see a OBGYN, a doctor. They do NOT go to an abortion facility, they do NOT see an abortionist, because it is NOT an elective abortion. Why is not in conflict? The doctor is still seeing 2 patients equally. However, because one life is savable (the mother's), and one life is not (the baby's), the doctor will act to save the mother's life. No pro-life person that I know has ever, and will ever, be against medical care for ectopic pregnancies. This is NOT what we're fighting for. This issue is thrown about by pro-choice people as a smoke and mirrors distraction to confuse the uninformed, and therefore get their "support", and to blind people from the real issue.The real issue.... Elective abortion. What about rape and incest? This is admittedly, a more difficult situation. I will say this before giving my opinion on it. Rape and incest account for about 1% of all abortions. It isn't very common. Still, it does happen. I will also preface by saying, I think most pro-life people would be happy in a country where abortion was illegal outside out these extreme cases. That would be a big win for human rights in my opinion. However, I do still feel that there should not be a limitation on the basic right to human life. And that includes the circumstance of your conception. So, what does that mean? It means we need to provide as much FREE care and support that we possibly can for these expectant mothers. I think it's funny because, I vote red. You want me to vote blue? Stop running for pro-choice, and start suggesting democratic social programs aimed at helping these mothers! That's the only way you're gonna get my vote. And then, you actually might! It also means that we're not asking these pregnant women to become mothers. In fact, we're not asking ANY pregnant women to become mothers. The pro-life stance is only asking that these women carry their babies to term. That's it. I know it's still a big ask for victims of rape and incest. But I do think these women, with the correct support, have the strength to do it. And, I also think that promoting abortion for these women only compounds and adds to their trauma. You want to say it's about choice? It's so often not. How can a teenage girl who's been raped make that choice? It's other people making the choice for her. Boyfriends. Parents. Friends. Husbands, even. And so often, it leads to a deep sadness, depression, and regret for that mother. The answer is not to kill an innocent child. The answer is to support the mother. And once again, I argue that one's circumstance of conception NOT be a determining factor in whether or not they have the basic right to live. That's the "human plus" argument. Human plus must be conceived outside of rape. No. Human. That's it.

[Voldmer]

It has not escaped me that this issue has taken on particular relevance in the US as of late, and being a Dane myself I am probably unable to be involved in the matter the way Americans are. Nonetheless, I would like to add my proverbial 2 cents worth. First I probably need to make a philosophical point: Liberty and freedom are two related, but distinctly not equal ideas. Liberty is a system whereby there are rulers, and there are the ruled, and the relationship between those two groups is regulated by rules that cannot be changed by either group (e.g. considered given by God, or nature). Liberty is an idea (and a word) that has spread from Southern Europe. Freedom is the state in which one, who is not ruled by anyone other than him/herself, lives. Freedom is an idea (and a word) that has spread from Northern Europe. I am a hard-core defender of freedom, and although I would choose liberty over oppression without liberty at any time, I would always choose freedom over liberty. Now, with this point out of the way, let me address the currently highly charged issue of abortion in the US. I don't accept the idea of unalienable rights, as used within liberty, because there exists no person, nor any group of persons, with the authority to bestow such rights on anyone. Each of us is born into this world, and eventually lives life, receiving only those rights that are given to us by those who had the ability to dispense such rights. One person may give another person the right to live on land owned by the first, or the right to receive a certain amount of money in exchange for work, etc. No person can give another person the right to live, however, because no one holds such authority. Therefore, I do not accept the idea that an unborn baby has the right to live. However, it is not lost on me that grown people also don't hold the right to live, nor that it would be brutish and destructive if people went about killing one another. Killing the unborn is simply another example of such brutish and destructive behavior. What I would advocate is that no law prevents abortion to those women who seek it, but also that that these two groups of people, who so fiercely dislike the ideals of their opposing group agree to segregate themselves adequately such that contact between the groups is minimized, and agree not to attack each other. Life is easier for everyone, if one is amongst friends, rather than amongst enemies. Certainly this position of mine can be considered pie-in-the-sky, given the exceedingly politized world we inhabit. Nonetheless, I advocate sticking to your own kind, and letting the other kind live their life the way they wish, never allowing the mutual disrespect to develop into tyranny, or violence.

[Hilary]

I don't accept the idea of unalienable rights, as used within liberty, because there exists no person, nor any group of persons, with the authority to bestow such rights on anyone. Each of us is born into this world, and eventually lives life, receiving only those rights that are given to us by those who had the ability to dispense such rights. One person may give another person the right to live on land owned by the first, or the right to receive a certain amount of money in exchange for work, etc. No person can give another person the right to live, however, because no one holds such authority. Therefore, I do not accept the idea that an unborn baby has the right to live. However, it is not lost on me that grown people also don't hold the right to live, nor that it would be brutish and destructive if people went about killing one another. Killing the unborn is simply another example of such brutish and destructive behavior. What I would advocate is that no law prevents abortion to those women who seek it, but also that that these two groups of people, who so fiercely dislike the ideals of their opposing group agree to segregate themselves adequately such that contact between the groups is minimized, and agree not to attack each other. Life is easier for everyone, if one is amongst friends, rather than amongst enemies. Certainly this position of mine can be considered pie-in-the-sky, given the exceedingly politized world we inhabit. Nonetheless, I advocate sticking to your own kind, and letting the other kind live their life the way they wish, never allowing the mutual disrespect to develop into tyranny, or violence. So here's what I would say to that. There are moral rights and wrongs, and that has nothing to do with religion (I'm not religious as many of you know). And you yourself, admit this, when you say that some people may kill others, and that's brutish. You understand the morality not murdering adults. But, to be consistent with your argument, no one should have limitations, and therefore murder should be legal among adults. Brutish, yes, but legal. With that thinking, can genocide be legal too? Do you see the flaw in that thinking? If you see the flaw in that, and you think "Well, let's have a law preventing murder of adults"... then That's basically saying: it's OK to kill one group of people, but not another. One group of people gets a right to not be murdered, but not another group of people. Unless you're making the argument that unborn babies aren't people, and therefore do not deserve equal treatment or rights at all. At which point, I would point you to my above post on the science behind it. Science supports unborn babies as being human beings. So, either, you believe that murder should be allowed (and other atrocities), because no one should have rights, and we should have complete freedom. OR, you argue that some people are deserving of rights, while others aren't - a human rights violation, an injustice (just like slavery and the holocaust). Or you argue against science that babies aren't human beings, therefore don't deserve any rights. This goes straight back to my main point, the foundation of being pro-life: ALL humans are deserving of the same right to life. So it's either all humans (dignity), no humans (anarchy, whoever's strongest rules), or some humans over other humans (injustice).

[DarkestDarkness]

I'm a bit like Voldmer on this matter. I have noticed for years that this topic seems to have a lot of weight in particular in the USA. In any place I've lived, this has never been a particularly topical issue within the culture, at least to my awareness of it. I don't particularly have a position on the matter since I'm pretty much detached from it, though I find Voldmer's points about freedom and liberty as distinct concepts to be interesting and possibly relevant. People have a basic human right to life, yes, though in some lawful jurisdictions and under some circumstances, rights can sometimes be rescinded. The possibility of a right to life being rescinded is serious on its own given that there's no return from these decisions once carried out, though I also find it curious that there seems to be such a huge debate on abortion while a death penalty is still legal in (some parts?) of the USA, which is effectively a case where a right of life is to be rescinded. This isn't a judgment or anything, I just find it interesting that these two situations do exist in parallel there since they have a shared element (even if distant at the same time). I would personally think that abortion should not be necessary in general, except in some cases such as ones you've already brought up, Hilary. I do think that people should be careful and considerate about conception in the first place so that abortion shouldn't be required in unless there truly is a good reason for it. While I think the point you've put forward has value, the one that pro-life should mean that the pregnant women could only be required to carry to term rather than to actually become the child's mother, I do wonder on the specifics of how this might work. Could you expand on this?

[Voldmer]

... But, to be consistent with your argument, no one should have limitations, and therefore murder should be legal among adults. Brutish, yes, but legal. [/B]With that thinking, can genocide be legal too? ... If you follow my argument to its logical conclusion you would find that I am opposed to forcing anyone to live under rules they find unacceptable. However I am not opposed to allowing people to live under rules which they find acceptable. I believe that our moral positions have much in common, but I favour forming communities of like-minded people with rules applying only to those who voluntarily accepted the rules, and everyone else being excluded, allowing these to form communities for their kind. I do not like to see rules where one-size-fits-all, because this inevitably leads to oppression. To spell it out into great detail, I advocate splitting states into entirely separate mini states for the various groups, such that no one is forced to live in a state whose laws they disagree with. If people are adequately obstinate they could form their own one-person states. I also advocate that each mini state prepare itself to defend against attacks from other states, until such a time when everyone has become so enlightened as to not engage in war and violence.

[Hilary]

I'm a bit like Voldmer on this matter. I have noticed for years that this topic seems to have a lot of weight in particular in the USA. In any place I've lived, this has never been a particularly topical issue within the culture, at least to my awareness of it. I don't particularly have a position on the matter since I'm pretty much detached from it, though I find Voldmer's points about freedom and liberty as distinct concepts to be interesting and possibly relevant. People have a basic human right to life, yes, though in some lawful jurisdictions and under some circumstances, rights can sometimes be rescinded. The possibility of a right to life being rescinded is serious on its own given that there's no return from these decisions once carried out, though I also find it curious that there seems to be such a huge debate on abortion while a death penalty is still legal in (some parts?) of the USA, which is effectively a case where a right of life is to be rescinded. This isn't a judgment or anything, I just find it interesting that these two situations do exist in parallel there since they have a shared element (even if distant at the same time). I would personally think that abortion should not be necessary in general, except in some cases such as ones you've already brought up, Hilary. I do think that people should be careful and considerate about conception in the first place so that abortion shouldn't be required in unless there truly is a good reason for it. While I think the point you've put forward has value, the one that pro-life should mean that the pregnant women could only be required to carry to term rather than to actually become the child's mother, I do wonder on the specifics of how this might work. Could you expand on this? So, you're arguing that because in some jurisdictions under some circumstances, rights can sometimes be rescinded, this justifies allowing some humans to have a right to live, and some humans not a right to live. I would argue that is a social injustice, a human rights violation, of the highest moral crime - the taking of life. This is the "some humans over other humans" argument. Now, as to the death penalty, I absolutely agree with you. I don't support that, either. We do need to have a system in place to protect people from dangerous criminals. But I agree that the death penalty is not the answer. Killing, outside of self-defense, is never the answer. Unfortunately, although you may feel that people should be careful and considering, they are not. Unfortunately, although you feel that it should be not necessary and therefore uncommon, it is not. Unfortunately, we can ask people not to do something, but without the rule of law, people are going to do what they want, or what other people tell them to do. And the people who are paying the price are innocent human beings. Is it going to stop people from doing things that may harm themselves? (illegal abortions) No. Although I will argue that there's a lot of misinformation about the numbers of unsafe "back-alley" abortions that have led to maternal death pre Roe v. Wade. If you want information on that, just ask, and I'll provide you with a link to someone who can explain it much better than I can. But that's besides the point. Just because some people make the choice to break a law, and do something potentially dangerous to themselves, does not justify not having a law in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that some women may harm themselves does not justify not having laws that will protect many babies. This aside form the point that the law should treat all humans with as much equality as possible. Some people are going to break the law. We still need to have it. Now to your last point: "While I think the point you've put forward has value, the one that pro-life should mean that the pregnant women could only be required to carry to term rather than to actually become the child's mother, I do wonder on the specifics of how this might work. Could you expand on this?" We only ask that women carry to term, not become mothers. But, of course, should they decide that they do want to keep their baby, that is supported too! Just to clear that up. Now, you're asking specifics from me. Did you watch my video I posted yesterday (the first one), where the pro-life presenter gets asked how the pro-life movement is going to solve every world problem essentially? That's unrealistic to expect of us. Yes, we want to see MORE support and MORE funding for these children and mothers. Yes, we want to see a better adoption system that has LESS regulation so that people can actually adopt within a reasonable time frame (and by the way, there are VERY long wait lists for adoption due to higher demand than supply. And, that includes adoption of babies with special needs like Downs Syndrome). Yes, we want to see the foster care system improved. These are great issues that I think all pro-life people want to see improved. That said, it's not all on us. Just because we support a human rights violation ENDING, does not mean we have to solve every world problem. That's not fair. And, how can we solve the problems if, right now, we just kill the babies rather than solve the problems. Kill the sufferer, don't bother fixing the suffering, as that would require more work. Do you see the flaw in that thinking? We're never going to solve all of the world's problems. That should not determine whether or not someone has a right to life. Just because they may suffer. Guess what. Talk to anyone in the foster care system. The vast majority will tell you that yes, life was hard for them. Some will even say they experienced abuse. But they will also say they are glad to be alive. People come out of adversity. We shouldn't decide for them that their life isn't worth living... merely because their existence is an inconvenience to the rest of us. --------------------------------------------------- If you follow my argument to its logical conclusion you would find that I am opposed to forcing anyone to live under rules they find unacceptable. However I am not opposed to allowing people to live under rules which they find acceptable. I believe that our moral positions have much in common, but I favour forming communities of like-minded people with rules applying only to those who voluntarily accepted the rules, and everyone else being excluded, allowing these to form communities for their kind. I do not like to see rules where one-size-fits-all, because this inevitably leads to oppression. To spell it out into great detail, I advocate splitting states into entirely separate mini states for the various groups, such that no one is forced to live in a state whose laws they disagree with. If people are adequately obstinate they could form their own one-person states. I also advocate that each mini state prepare itself to defend against attacks from other states, until such a time when everyone has become so enlightened as to not engage in war and violence. OK, so let's look at your argument again. You're saying that people should be allowed to live under any rules they find acceptable. The problem is, in every community, you're going to have people who feel differently about issues. You will never have a group of people who all think the same on every issue. So how do we decide? How do we determine what is legal and what is illegal when we don't agree? Do you also see how this opens the door for great tragedies to occur? If some groups of people decide that they view murder as OK, genocide as OK, rape as OK, the weaker will be destroyed in that group, and in other groups. You're essentially saying the Holocaust was OK because Germany agreed to it. We should have turned a blind eye. Or the Rwandan Genocide. It's OK because that group of people agreed to it. So no one should speak up against it. Slavery should be allowed in the South, they should have seceded successfully - we shouldn't have stopped them. After all, they all agreed to it.. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing that I am OK with others committing great crimes. That's essentially turning a blind eye to injustice. Main Point: Personal freedom STOPS when it actively harms another person. And... that leads straight back to abortion. Personal freedom ("my body my choice") should STOP when it actively harms another person (violent ending of a pre-born human's life).

[Voldmer]

OK, so let's look at your argument again. You're saying that people should be allowed to live under rules they find acceptable. The problem is, in every community, you're going to have people who feel differently about issues. You will never have a group of people who all think the same on every issue. So how do we decide? How do we determine what is legal and what is illegal when we don't agree? Do you also see how this opens the door for great tragedies to occur? If some groups of people decide that they view murder as OK, genocide as OK, rape as OK, incest as OK, the weaker will be destroyed in that group. You're essentially saying the Holocaust was OK because Germany agreed to it. Or the Rwandan Genocide. It's OK because that group of people agreed to it. So no one should speak up against it. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing that I am OK with others committing great crimes. That's essentially turning a blind eye to injustice. Main Point: Personal freedom STOPS when it actively harms another person. And... that leads straight back to abortion. Personal freedom ("my body my choice") should STOP when it actively harms another person (violent ending of a pre-born human's life). Okay, let's assume that in some state the idea of allowing murder becomes popular. What then?, you ask. My answer is that this state should then be split into two states, with one allowing murder, and the other one not allowing it. And each person gets to chose which state to belong to henceforth. And might I add that I think it particularly sound to distance oneself from those who are in favour of atrocities. In none of the examples you mentioned was the action "ok", because the victims hadn't agreed to them. These victims were simply oppressed by insane rulers, the way insane rulers apparently like to do things in this crazy world. Personally, I would wish to live in a state where murder and the like is not allowed, but I would not force my views unto those who do not wish them.

[Hilary]

Okay, let's assume that in some state the idea of allowing murder becomes popular. What then?, you ask. My answer is that this state should then be split into two states, with one allowing murder, and the other one not allowing it. And each person gets to chose which state to belong to henceforth. And might I add that I think it particularly sound to distance oneself from those who are in favour of atrocities. In none of the examples you mentioned was the action "ok", because the victims hadn't agreed to them. These victims were simply oppressed by insane rulers, the way insane rulers apparently like to do things in this crazy world. Personally, I would wish to live in a state where murder and the like is not allowed, but I would not force my views unto those who do not wish them. And, eventually, with this type of "government", constantly splitting whenever people disagree on issues, you would have very very small governments (1 person each?). I would argue that there's a better way. That better way is working out issues, via a rule of law, and rights, rather than forming new governments every time there's a disagreement. "In none of the examples you mentioned was the action "ok", because the victims hadn't agreed to them. These victims were simply oppressed by insane rulers, the way insane rulers apparently like to do things in this crazy world." It doesn't matter, because the victims don't get rights. Because in their group, they say only some people get rights and other don't. And, the weak people [Jews, Black slaves, etc,] couldn't leave and form their own group. It wasn't possible. But since their group is not our group, we shouldn't say anything or do anything about the atrocities being committed. After all, "but I would not force my views unto those who do not wish them." And that apparently includes when other's free will negatively affects other people, after all. Abortion victims don't agree to abortion, either. They don't want to have their lives ended. But they don't get to have a voice. They don't get to form their own group. They just get preyed upon. Without rights, you will have strong preying on the weak. Eventually, the weaker people just simply do not have a voice in a society like this. People need others to survive, after all. They can't simply live on their own. Especially people with disabilities. So they will sacrifice their beliefs in order to survive in the group. But now they're in a group that has no rights for them, so they are not protected. They will be preyed upon, by those in other groups, and those within their own group. OK. I choose to be in the group that has rule of law and rights for citizens. -- Now to your other point. "Personally, I would wish to live in a state where murder and the like is not allowed, but I would not force my views unto those who do not wish them." So you're basically saying that you do want to see murder not allowed. Because you understand that the taking of life isn't just, and you wouldn't want your life taken from someone else, after all. It's good that you have a voice and can speak up for yourself and your views. Unfortunately, not everyone gets their voice heard. You don't want murder in your society, but you're OK with abortion. I would ask you - put yourself in the shoes of a pre-born human where abortion is being considered. How would that feel if that was you? Would you feel that is fair and just? Your life is being taken away by another. It is a form of murder. It's no different. So, if a person would want to live in a society without murder, I would think that would include murder via abortion as well. Otherwise, again, it is the "some humans over other humans" argument. Basically, this is abortion: People who are stronger, and can speak up for themselves, get to decide the fate of people who are weaker and cannot speak up for themselves.

[Occipitalred]

I admit to having only read the first few posts. Here's my two cents: Whatever wordplay you use, a fetus is not a person. It's not a subject. It's an object. (We're all objects, but we are also subjects). A fetus' life has no value from it's nonexistent perspective. It has nothing to lose. It cannot experience death. Those for whom this object has the most value is the parents and family who may be awed by their participation in the creation of life. The excitement of a journey into parenthood. The anticipation of the person it will become. I find it repulsive that people make themselves believe they can care more about hypothetical fetuses more than the biological progenitors who are living the reality of it. It's easy to pretend to be a compassionate person by supporting an idea instead of real human beings. Why people are so bent on creating undesired children is insane to me. Please support the creation of desired children. If you care at all about the beauty of life, you should support willing parents instead of forcing them into the nightmare of creating an undesired child who doesn't exist yet. I don't find the abortion debate enriching at all. It's a non-issue that only exists to create division between political party supporters. If you sincerely care about the cells in a women's uterus and claim to be pro-life, please do focus your strength on the life that already exists. Stop eating the meat of conscious mature animals, protect the environment. Support services that help the living. Hell, don't kill the mites in your bed linen. If you believe in eternal souls, you have no reason to care. The eternal soul will continue it's path if it even already latched to hibernate in a bundle of cells. Please let those who actually care for the bundle of cells and will actually be responsible for the person it will become make that choice, so that souls can emerge in their best possible bodies and environments.

[Hilary]

I admit to having only read the first few posts. Here's my two cents: Whatever wordplay you use, a fetus is not a person. It's not a subject. It's an object. (We're all objects, but we are also subjects). A fetus' life has no value from it's nonexistent perspective. It has nothing to lose. It cannot experience death. Those for whom this object has the most value is the parents and family who may be awed by their participation in the creation of life. The excitement of a journey into parenthood. The anticipation of the person it will become. I find it repulsive that people make themselves believe they can care more about hypothetical fetuses more than the biological progenitors who are living the reality of it. It's easy to pretend to be a compassionate person by supporting an idea instead of real human beings. Why people are so bent on creating undesired children is insane to me. Please support the creation of desired children. If you care at all about the beauty of life, you should support willing parents instead of forcing them into the nightmare of creating an undesired child who doesn't exist yet. I don't find the abortion debate enriching at all. It's a non-issue that only exists to create division between political party supporters. If you sincerely care about the cells in a women's uterus and claim to be pro-life, please do focus your strength on the life that already exists. Stop eating the meat of conscious mature animals, protect the environment. Support services that help the living. Hell, don't kill the mites in your bed linen. If you believe in eternal souls, you have no reason to care. The eternal soul will continue it's path if it even already latched to hibernate in a bundle of cells. Please let those who actually care for the bundle of cells and will actually be responsible for the person it will become make that choice, so that souls can emerge in their best possible bodies and environments. You're so very very wrong on that. They absolutely are people. Let's get this straight. You did not come FROM a fetus, Occipitalred. You WERE a fetus. You did not come from a baby, you WERE a baby. You did not come from a child, you WERE a child. You did not come from a teenager. You WERE a teenager. It's a stage of development. Are babies people? Are teenagers people? Are children people? Yes. The only difference is that they have traveled through a birth canal. Do you see the flaw in your thinking? When you were a baby, you experienced life. You may not remember it, but you experienced it. I argue that when you were a fetus, you also experienced life. Fetuses are humans. They are persons. And science is not on your side on that one, Occipitalred. She is not an object. A fetus' life has no value from it's nonexistent perspective. A fetus' life has no value, to you, and that is very sad thing. It has value to me, because I see them as human. You can choose to see someone however you want. Let's just look at history, for example. You can choose to see a black person as human, or not. Slavery. A Jewish person as human, or not. Holocaust. Etc. That's up to you. I see fetuses as human, because, that's what they are. Or.. I'm sorry... were they koala bears? I find it repulsive that people make themselves believe they can care more about hypothetical fetuses more than the biological progenitors who are living the reality of it. Once again. Wrong. We don't advocate that babies are more valuable than mothers. We advocate that they are equal. Right now? Pre-born humans have NO value. AT ALL. NO voice. AT ALL. Not even a bit. They can be aborted [murdered] all the way through 9 months, up to birth, for any reason in this country. Yes, even after Roe v. Wade overturned, thanks to the democrats in various states. And, politicians and abortionists in some states have been trying to get abortion legalized AFTER birth. It's called "Partial Birth Abortion". This is where they crush the skull of the newborn as it's exiting it's mother's birth canal. Because after all, a newborn baby, isn't a person yet. It's easy to pretend to be a compassionate person by supporting an idea instead of real human beings. So wait - a fetus is an idea now? That's nice of you to say. How can you possibly suggest that because a person is pro-life, that they are pretending to be compassionate? Do you know every pro-life person? We are often very compassionate people. What it seems to me is that you cannot understand how someone can empathize with a pre-born child. At all. I find it repulsive that people make themselves believe they can care more about hypothetical fetuses more than the biological progenitors who are living the reality of it. And I find it repulsive when people are blind to the murder of children. "Hypothetical" fetuses? When do they get to be real fetuses? Why people are so bent on creating undesired children is insane to me. Please support the creation of desired children. If you care at all about the beauty of life, you should support willing parents instead of forcing them into the nightmare of creating an undesired child who doesn't exist yet. The child does exist. That's like saying, a baby doesn't exist yet, because it's not a child. A teenager doesn't exist yet, because it's not an adult. A fetus exists. It is human. I totally support the creation of desired children. But I do not think the undesired children shouldn't have the right to live. Once again, that's the "some humans get the right to live, but not others" argument. That's like saying... in order to have the basic human right to life, you have to be human PLUS desired by your birth parents. I say, get rid of the PLUS. Human. That's it. Kill the sufferer, don't bother solving the problems of suffering. That's your answer. They might suffer in the foster care system, or some other point, I guess, so they should die. They don't deserve a right to life. You haven't met many adults who've gone through the foster care system, have you? Ask them: are you glad your mom didn't abort you, even though you were unwanted and had to go through hardship? I'm not forcing anyone "into the nightmare of creating an undesired child who doesn't exist yet".... they do that themselves when people have hetereosexual intercourse without taking proper precautions and understanding the risks involved. But, and I know exceptions happen with rape (less than 1% of abortions), so I will say this: We're not asking people to raise children. We're asking them to carry them to term for 9 months of their life. Why? Because: The burden of being pregnant (mostly due to irresponsibility) is LESS than the burden of being murdered, and having your life taken away from you. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In. That. Order. Spoiler for Meme: And I love this one: Spoiler for Meme: Inconvenience to others might be a determining factor into whether or not they are considered human by some. Spoiler for Really great meme:

[IAmCoder]

I find it repulsive that people make themselves believe they can care more about hypothetical fetuses more than the biological progenitors who are living the reality of it. [...] I don't find the abortion debate enriching at all. It's a non-issue that only exists to create division between political party supporters. Thanks Occipitalred! I've reported the first posts as religious / right-wing propaganda to help Hilary see how extreme the position is. @Hilary, your main point is that "Personal freedom STOPS when it actively harms another person", but you also said: The pro-life stance is only asking that these women carry their babies to term. That's it. I know it's still a big ask for victims of rape and incest. But I do think these women, with the correct support, have the strength to do it. And, I also think that promoting abortion for these women only compounds and adds to their trauma. [...] How can a teenage girl who's been raped make that choice? Can you tell me how imposing your belief here does not actively harm the child that has already gone through such trauma!? You want them to just deal with it and live with it for another 9 months!? Then give birth even if they might not be ready for it, physically or otherwise!? Sorry, but that is active harming another person no matter how you spin it. But, please - be my guest and help me understand how you are not actively harming the victim here with your beliefs. On the subject of actively harming other people: what if not getting an abortion endangers the life of the mother? Do you expect her to carry to term no matter the risk and still maintain that imposing your belief on other's bodies somehow doesn't actively harm them? See here and get back to me please: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/w...wade-rcna35431 There can't be a discussion if your reasoning is irrational and incorrect. Your beliefs on this were politically manufactured and paid for so you vote against your own interests.

[Voldmer]

Thanks Occipitalred! I've reported the first posts as religious / right-wing propaganda to help Hilary see how extreme the position is. I think this is uncalled for; Hilary's first post was clearly a statement of a point of view. It had clear arguments in support of it. That is not propaganda. And it should not matter whether a position is extreme, or not.

[Lang]

I've reported the first posts as religious / right-wing propaganda to help Hilary see how extreme the position is. I agree with Voldmer here. Guys!! Here is a reminder: Please Don't Abuse the report button just to make a political statement that is not what is for. When replying to someone in order to express your differing opinion, show respect and tolerance for that user; if you disagree with them, state why. Do not simply denounce the poster and ridicule their ideas. Keep in mind they may likely believe with the same passion as you. Thank you for understanding. ~Lang. Okay back on topic.

[IAmCoder]

I think this is uncalled for; Hilary's first post was clearly a statement of a point of view. Ok, that may have been uncalled for. Thought it would be interesting because she is a mod. My bad. I'll try to keep my feelings in check and hopefully we can find some middle ground and de-polarize this political discussion. I agree with Voldmer here. Guys!! Here is a reminder: Please Don't Abuse the report button just to make a political statement that is not what is for. When replying to someone in order to express your differing opinion, show respect and tolerance for that user; if you disagree with them, state why. Do not simply denounce the poster and ridicule their ideas. Keep in mind they may likely believe with the same passion as you. Thank you for understanding. ~Lang. Okay back on topic. Ok, sorry about that. Pretty sure this is the first time in over a decade that I've reported anything. I have stated why I disagree and will keep trying to understand so hopefully we can change another vote.

[DarkestDarkness]

I have stated why I disagree and will keep trying to understand so hopefully we can change another vote. I don't believe there's much point in engaging in discussion if all you want to do is "change someone's vote". I do not personally agree entirely with Hilary, but I also do not disagree. I feel she has a right to think what she likes and in this case this has to do with her view of what she believes to be considered just (Hilary, do correct me if I'm mistaken). We all tend to develop different views of what is just. You're saying that people should be allowed to live under any rules they find acceptable. The problem is, in every community, you're going to have people who feel differently about issues. You will never have a group of people who all think the same on every issue. So how do we decide? How do we determine what is legal and what is illegal when we don't agree? (...) Main Point: Personal freedom STOPS when it actively harms another person. I agree with you here. The only way this would realistically work is in a utopia scenario, which seems unlikely to ever really happen. I think human life will likely always be so complex that disagreements are bound to always occur, especially as different individuals will always have different experiences which will influence why someone feels a certain why about a certain issue in the first place. So, you're arguing that because in some jurisdictions under some circumstances, rights can sometimes be rescinded, this justifies allowing some humans to have a right to live, and some humans not a right to live. I would argue that is a social injustice, a human rights violation, of the highest moral crime - the taking of life. (...) That said, it's not all on us. Just because we support a human rights violation ENDING, does not mean we have to solve every world problem. That's not fair. And, how can we solve the problems if, right now, we just kill the babies rather than solve the problems. Kill the sufferer, don't bother fixing the suffering, as that would require more work. Hm, I don't think I meant to argue that it would be justified, though I should mention that I do not mean to really argue for/against anything in particular, as I cannot be coherent enough to really do that. I don't believe that just because it's being applied in one scenario that it needs to apply in another scenario too. As I said, I mostly find it curious that these two situations exist in parallel over there. You've expressed that you're against a death penalty too, so that all makes sense to me there. By the way, Hilary, I was not suggesting before that the onus for what should happen after the term should be with the pro-life movement. I was mostly curious if you'd had any thoughts about this yourself at any point. If you didn't, that's fine too. I had some other thought but I'm out of time just at the moment, so might come back to this.

[IAmCoder]

I'd like to try again. I apologize that I was not very courteous in my initial response. I am from the country with the highest rate of sexual violence in the world, where a woman is raped every 30 seconds. Maybe that is part of why my opinion on both rape and abortion is so different to yours. I'd also like to get back on topic: Main Point: Personal freedom STOPS when it actively harms another person. I'd like to point out that criminalizing abortion does not stop abortions, it just makes abortion less safe. And that goes against your main point. So from my perspective it looks you are actively harming people by being anti-choice. Here are some sources with more details on the main counterpoint: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/fe...-implications/ Restricting women’s access to safe and legal abortion services has important negative health implications. We’ve seen that these laws do not result in fewer abortions. Instead, they compel women to risk their lives and health by seeking out unsafe abortion care. According to the World Health Organization, 23,000 women die from unsafe abortions each year and tens of thousands more experience significant health complications globally. A recent study estimated that banning abortion in the U.S. would lead to a 21% increase in the number of pregnancy-related deaths overall and a 33% increase among Black women, simply because staying pregnant is more dangerous than having an abortion. Increased deaths due to unsafe abortions or attempted abortions would be in addition to these estimates. If the current trend in the U.S. persists, “back alley” abortions will be the last resource for women with no access to safe and legal services, and the horrific consequences of such abortions will become a major cause of death and severe health complications for some of the most vulnerable women in this country. The legal status of abortion also defines whether girls will be able to complete their educations and whether women will be able to participate in the workforce, and in public and political life. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-d...bortion-facts/ Firstly, the denial of medical services, including reproductive health services that only certain individuals need is a form of discrimination. Preventing women and girls from accessing an abortion does not mean they stop needing one. That’s why attempts to ban or restrict abortions do nothing to reduce the number of abortions, it only forces people to seek out unsafe abortions. Unsafe abortions are defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “a procedure for terminating an unintended pregnancy carried out either by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not confirm to minimal medical standards, or both.” They estimate that 25 million unsafe abortions take place each year, the vast majority of them in developing countries. In contrast to a legal abortion that is carried out by a trained medical provider, unsafe abortions can have fatal consequences. So much so that unsafe abortions are the third leading cause of maternal deaths worldwide and lead to an additional five million largely preventable disabilities, according to the WHO. Human rights law clearly spells out that decisions about your body are yours alone – this is what is known as bodily autonomy. Forcing someone to carry on an unwanted pregnancy, or forcing them to seek out an unsafe abortion, is a violation of their human rights, including the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy. In many circumstances, those who have no choice but to resort to unsafe abortions also risk prosecution and punishment, including imprisonment, and can face cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and discrimination in, and exclusion from, vital post-abortion health care. Access to abortion is therefore fundamentally linked to protecting and upholding the human rights of women, girls and others who can become pregnant, and thus for achieving social and gender justice. Amnesty International believes that everyone should be free to exercise their bodily autonomy and make their own decisions about their reproductive lives including when and if they have children. It is essential that laws relating to abortion respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of pregnant persons and not force them to seek out unsafe abortions.

[Hilary]

Guys, I would love to get back to you all and respond to every post on here, but I have to go on a trip today. I will be back in about 5 days. So, if you're wondering why I haven't responded, that's why. I am very used to being discriminated against since I've come out as pro life. It just ignites my fire more. What I say bothers people. That's a good thing. It brings a much needed issue to light, an issue people don't really want to look at. Anyway, you're forgiven IAmCoder. I find it funny that you consider my position extreme. You don't have to agree with me, but, I would think that wanting to find other solutions instead, rather than violently ending the life of young humans, is understandable. Thanks Occipitalred! I've reported the first posts as religious / right-wing propaganda to help Hilary see how extreme the position is. @Hilary, your main point is that "Personal freedom STOPS when it actively harms another person", but you also said: Can you tell me how imposing your belief here does not actively harm the child that has already gone through such trauma!? You want them to just deal with it and live with it for another 9 months!? Then give birth even if they might not be ready for it, physically or otherwise!? Sorry, but that is active harming another person no matter how you spin it. But, please - be my guest and help me understand how you are not actively harming the victim here with your beliefs. On the subject of actively harming other people: what if not getting an abortion endangers the life of the mother? Do you expect her to carry to term no matter the risk and still maintain that imposing your belief on other's bodies somehow doesn't actively harm them? See here and get back to me please: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/w...wade-rcna35431 There can't be a discussion if your reasoning is irrational and incorrect. Your beliefs on this were politically manufactured and paid for so you vote against your own interests. Yes, freedom does stop when it harms another person. When you're dealing with a pregnancy, most of the time not from rape, but from irresponsibility, this is what I say: The burden of being pregnant for 9 months is LESS of a burden than being murdered violently, and having your life taken away from you. Life, liberty, happiness - in that order. I argue that in the case of rape, our efforts should be at SUPPORTING the mother, not terminating the baby. Yes, it isn't fair. But, it also isn't fair to put a condition of any kind on the human right to life. And that includes the circumstance of a person's conception. Like I said before, I think most pro-lifers would be PRETTY HAPPY with abortion bans that have exceptions for rape and incest. That's still a huge step forward toward ending a human rights violation. So you guys keep arguing that, but at the end of the day, it's less than 1% of abortions. It's another smoke-and-mirrors argument to distract from the real issue: that 99% of abortions have nothing to do with rape, and are elective. Now, to address your last part. If the mother's life is endangered, NO ONE is suggesting she die. Just so you know, every doctor, outside of an abortionist, is legally required to view a pregnant woman as 2 patients with equal value. Not one patient. If it's a case of ectopic pregnancy, because the mother's life is savable, and the baby's life is not, the doctor is required to save the mother. If a mother's life is at risk, and the baby has reached the age of viability, 20 weeks or older, then the doctor is required to attempt to deliver the baby, via C-section or otherwise, while saving the mother. Once again, I don't know ANY pro lifers who want to see a mother's life jeopardized because of a pregnancy. All pro lifers agree that if a mother's life is in jeopardy, she should be saved. This is another smoke and mirrors distraction from the real issue: elective abortion. "Your beliefs on this were politically manufactured and paid for so you vote against your own interests." My beliefs on this did not come from any political party. Although, I would argue that it is true that many people are so identified with their political party that they cannot, due to ego, actually consider another argument that might be platformed by the opposite political party. That happens on both sides, by the way. I think outside my party. I am pro-environment, I am worried about global warming. I am against the death penalty. I believe in increasing gun regulation to some degree. I support Ukraine. I believe trans-gender people deserve equal rights; I believe ALL people are deserving of equal rights (including pre-born people!). My beliefs come from within myself - from my inner moral compass. That's the only place beliefs should come from. --------------------- I'd like to try again. I apologize that I was not very courteous in my initial response. I am from the country with the highest rate of sexual violence in the world, where a woman is raped every 30 seconds. Maybe that is part of why my opinion on both rape and abortion is so different to yours. I'd also like to get back on topic: I'd like to point out that criminalizing abortion does not stop abortions, it just makes abortion less safe. And that goes against your main point. So from my perspective it looks you are actively harming people by being anti-choice. Here are some sources with more details on the main counterpoint: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/fe...-implications/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-d...bortion-facts/ I am sorry that your country experiences such a high rape incidence. That is awful. As someone who has been sexually assaulted in my lifetime (when I was a child), I feel very much for people who have gone through similar things. It is one of the worst crimes in the world. My argument to that is that two wrongs don't make a right. You don't fix rape by murdering a baby if one is conceived in that rape. Often, that brings even more pain to the woman, because these decisions - they are often put on her. She is pressured, she is coerced sometimes, to do that. Boyfriends, parents, friends, husbands, bosses. These people make the decision for her when she is vulnerable. Many women don't actually want the abortion that they get. I know a study was done that in places where abortion was not an option, the #1 emotion expectant mothers felt was: .... relief. Relief. Not disappointment, not anger. Relief. Now, it is true that there are women, who are raped, and genuinely feel that abortion is what they want to do. I think I've argued this enough in my previous post. But basically, to re-iterate, I believe that a human's being worth, and right to life, should not be based solely on the circumstance of their conception. That's discrimination. Is that fair to the mother? No. But that's brings me to my next point: The burden to carry a baby to term is less than the taking away of life. And, of course, the last point being that most pro-life people would be pretty happy with an abortion ban that allowed exceptions for rape victims. It's a very small percentage of abortions - 1% or less. So, how about we stop focusing on this extreme situation, and focus on the main issue: elective abortion. I'd like to point out that criminalizing abortion does not stop abortions, it just makes abortion less safe. And that goes against your main point. This is true, although I will say that the person who did the famous study about illegal abortions causing 10,000 deaths before Roe v. Wade admitted to "making up" those statistics. He also became pro-life later in his career. Additionally, he has come forward and said that the actual numbers were more like 1000 women. Why is that? Because even before Roe v. Wade, when illegal abortions were happening, that vast majority of them were performed in an illegal clinic by abortionists, in much the same way that legal abortions were performed. They were not often performed by coat hangers. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it's been exaggerated to once again, steer the conversation away from the real issue: the morality of taking a pre-born fetus' life. At the end of the day, a law should not be stricken null and void just because some people are going to break it. Some people are going to buy illegal guns, too. And illegal drugs. Does this mean we should legalize all guns, including military grade fully automatic machine guns because some people are going to buy them on the black market anyway? No. We don't make it legal. We keep a law, and do our best to enforce it. We need to provide SUPPORT for these girls and women, and change the stigma around underage pregnancy. That's where the real solution lies. In making abortion illegal AND unthinkable. You can say that I am actively harming people. I would say that being pro-abortion is actively harming people. Harming pre-born babies, AND harming women. Abortion is traumatizing to both.

[IAmCoder]

I pointed out that criminalizing abortion does not stop abortions, it just makes them less safe. And you said that "This is true", yet went on and made an effort to refute it by claiming someone in the 70s lied even though I never quoted any studies from the 70s. So I suspect you are still in denial about it even though you said it was true. For the sake of the discussion we need to come to an agreement on this. Because it determines if the main point is invalid and your thoughts on being Pro-Life are based on incorrect data. Here are some links, articles and recent studies (nothing from before Roe v. Wade) - please let me know if you can now see that you can't stop abortions by criminalizing them: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-s...etail/abortion Unsafe abortion is a leading – but preventable – cause of maternal deaths and morbidities. It can lead to physical and mental health complications and social and financial burdens for women, communities and health systems. Around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year. Six out of 10 (61%) of all unintended pregnancies, and 3 out of 10 (29%) of all pregnancies, end in induced abortion. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ons-says-study https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/21/h...aws/index.html Nearly $300m is spent each year on treating the complications from unsafe abortions. The obvious interpretation is that criminalizing abortion does not prevent it but, rather, drives women to seek illegal services or methods. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...794-4/fulltext Despite scientific advances that enable the provision of safe abortion at the primary care level, unsafe abortions persist and result in a high burden of complications; maternal death; and substantial costs to women, families, and health systems. You also said that two wrongs don't make a right. If you leave it to the medical professionals there will be only one wrong according to your belief. But when your belief is imposed on society two wrongs are created. Can you see that now? Abortions don't stop but mothers start getting harmed and dying! A preventable wrong is compounded on top of the original wrong which is not stopped. I am sorry to hear that you were assaulted as a child. Thank you for sharing that. I am so sorry that happened to you and I hope you know that it was not your fault. May I ask if the perpetrator was arrested and if they were an authority figure? Please do not feel obligated to answer. I think outside my party. I am pro-environment, I am worried about global warming. I am against the death penalty. I believe in increasing gun regulation to some degree. I support Ukraine. I believe trans-gender people deserve equal rights I vote red I am sorry but you are voting against your interests.

[Hilary]

I pointed out that criminalizing abortion does not stop abortions, it just makes them less safe. And you said that "This is true", yet went on and made an effort to refute it by claiming someone in the 70s lied even though I never quoted any studies from the 70s. So I suspect you are still in denial about it even though you said it was true. For the sake of the discussion we need to come to an agreement on this. Because it determines if the main point is invalid and your thoughts on being Pro-Life are based on incorrect data. Here are some links, articles and recent studies (nothing from before Roe v. Wade) - please let me know if you can now see that you can't stop abortions by criminalizing them: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-s...etail/abortion https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ons-says-study https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/21/h...aws/index.html https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...794-4/fulltext You also said that two wrongs don't make a right. If you leave it to the medical professionals there will be only one wrong according to your belief. But when your belief is imposed on society two wrongs are created. Can you see that now? Abortions don't stop but mothers start getting harmed and dying! A preventable wrong is compounded on top of the original wrong which is not stopped. I am sorry to hear that you were assaulted as a child. Thank you for sharing that. I am so sorry that happened to you and I hope you know that it was not your fault. May I ask if the perpetrator was arrested and if they were an authority figure? Please do not feel obligated to answer. I am sorry but you are voting against your interests. OK. Let's address your points one by one. So, to clarify, what I said was that there is misinformation in the abortion community as to how many abortions that ended in maternal death were committed pre-Roe v. Wade, when it was illegal. The statistics used were fabricated, and admitted to fabrication, by Former NARAL founder Bernard Nathanson, which much of the claim about illegal abortions being unsafe comes from. Link to article. I also got it from a video, I can post if you want but it is quite lengthy. In the US, these numbers were lower than developing nations because illegal abortions were predominately committed in abortion clinics - illegal ones, but still clinics, by abortionists. Unsafe abortion is a leading – but preventable – cause of maternal deaths and morbidities. It can lead to physical and mental health complications and social and financial burdens for women, communities and health systems. You talk about what illegal abortions do to the mother (which, by the way, is completely preventable by people not committing illegal abortions in the first place), but you don't talk about what legal abortions do to the baby. My main point is this: The fact that some people will break the law and commit abortions that may be unsafe does not justify the violent taking of life from human beings. and The fact that some people will break the law does not justify not having the law. Yes, some people may hurt themselves. No one wants that. However, that doesn't justify not having the law. Human rights are human rights. We shouldn't prevent some humans from having the same rights as other humans simply because some people may choose to hurt themselves by breaking the law. The law will also save many lives, as right now 930,160 abortions are committed in the U.S. each year. In Texas, where they have a heartbeat law, the abortion rate dropped in half after passing the law. This was before Roe v. Wade was overturned by the way. I'm not even advocating for laws, though. They're great, but I'd like to see a constitutional amendment that guarantees the same basic human rights to pre-born humans that it bestows to born humans. What we need to do is focus on supporting women who are feeling scared, and considering performing an illegal abortion. We need more crisis centers, we need resources allocated to people, people connected to the resources and crisis centers that are already available to them that they might not know about, and other supportive programs. I am all for that. We need to change the cultural mindset from a "culture of death" that is completely desensitized to what abortion actually is, to a society that celebrates life. Also one where there is no stigma or shame for pregnant girls. It would be great if we could reroute the $$$ going into Planned Parenthood (your tax dollars, btw) to actual SOLUTIONS for women who are in this situation. Because abortion isn't the solution. It doesn't solve the problems. It doesn't solve the suffering. It just kills a potential sufferer. I agree that we need to solve the problems. But we can't get anywhere as long as the "solution" is simply kill the children. ----- Next question. Two wrong don't make a right - that is true. I'm assuming you're talking about babies conceived through rape and incest. A woman or girl who has suffered sexual violence has experienced a wrong. Dismembering and/or lethally injecting a preborn human does not make the situation right. It adds another wrong because now we've just killed a human being. Often the mother experiences great trauma at this, and guilt too. Adoption is a much more loving answer in these cases. It's two wrongs. Wrong 1 - rape. Wrong 2 - killing an unborn child. But once again we're arguing for less than 1% of all abortions. I was listening to a podcast today, in Florida, apparently, rape/incest abortions account for 0.2% of all abortions. So you think we should legalize ALL abortion because 0.2% of them are from rape and incest? ---- Thanks for asking about me. Here's my story if you're interested. (Edit, shortened, tmi) It was my step-grandfather. He is still alive, but I haven't seen him in years. I vividly remember my step-grandfather saying: "If you tell anyone, I will kill you". So I said nothing until 19. When I was 28 or 29, my cousin posted on Facebook that he was going to stay a few nights at my step-grandfather's house with his new girlfriend and her 4 year old twins. I sent a private Facebook message to her to warn her about him. It was the hardest thing I ever did at that time in my life. It was social suicide. You see, my grandparents were very well off, and that gave my step-grandfather a lot of power over family members. When my cousin and his girlfriend got that message, they immediately told my step-grandfather. They all blocked me on Facebook, and pretty sure I've been taken out of the will. That's OK. I would rather die knowing that I did everything I could to try and prevent that horror from happening to someone else. --- You say "I am sorry but you are voting against your interests." I beg to differ. I know my purpose on this planet. My purpose is very simple: I am here to help children. That's my cause. My dream guides have told me, my moldavite has told me, my heart has told me. As my moldavite said very clearly to me in a vivid dream "Nothing else matters". To me, pre-born children are no different than any other child. They are just a little younger. I will spend my entire life devoted to their wellbeing. For me, being pro-life is more important than other issues. It's the greatest human rights violation of our time. I will never vote blue as long as they are pro-abortion. (Also, to be fair, I have a LOT of other problems with the democratic party we haven't mentioned in this thread)

[Summerlander]

Very interesting debate but I can see that Hilary has completely strawmanned the sound pro-choice position which isn't necessarily pro-abortion and it is actually backed by science! I believe abortion should be avoided and certainly not used as a contraceptive; but the choice to abort as a last resort should be available and the procedure done as soon as possible in the shortest period of gestation if one can help it. Embryos are not human beings. At the initial stages of gestation, they are merely a conglomerate of pluripotent cells no different to those that one removes when scratching the surface of one's nose (which are far more numerous, by the way). What makes the difference in what these cells later turn into is the environment. Obviously, if left in the womb over time, it will develop into a foetus and then progressively into an unborn baby. Pluripotent means they have the capacity to turn into anything, for e.g., these cells can be cultured in vitro to become any type of organ or gestate in Vivo to become a living organism. I think the confusion of some pro-lifers (who are not necessarily religious) is to equate life with consciousness or sentience. Just because something is living doesn't perforce mean that it's aware of anything—be it unicellular or a conglomerate of a dozen cells. An embryo and a fetus is far from being a fully-fledged human being. Moreover, banning abortion will, over time, hamper stem cell research which has the potential to save millions of already born lives. I cannot believe that America has gone backwards on the soundest of default modes for a functional society in a country whose constitution prides itself on upholding the rights of its citizens, if you ask me! The unborn are not citizens let alone possess any sort of sentience capable of fathoming the very concept of rights. Abortion is not murder and to say so is preposterous. Another issue which I haven't seen addressed by the pro-life movement is the predicament of those unfortunate pregnant ladies with gestational complications who are told by medical professionals that they will die carrying out the birth and possibly kill the baby, too—not to mention the time it takes to investigate extenuating circumstances because clinical experts and institutions don't want to be prosecuted and the additional problem that by the time exceptional applications are processed it might be too late ... If you are against abortion as a last resort option, fine, don't have one, but don't dictate to others what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies and lives. Live and let live! You are entitled to choose when it comes to preserving your life and making it easier for yourself. Remember: abortions are not an easy choice and those poor pregnant women who resort to it don't need the aggro of being made to feel guiltier than they already do by the zealous anti-abortion lobby outside clinics. Here's an analogy: You walk into a hospital to make a blood donation to also discover that a number of adult human beings on an organ donation waiting list will die on that day unless matching volunteers donate organs on the spot. You are found to be the only one in the vicinity to be a match for all of them but in order to save the patients' lives you'd have to sacrifice your own as you'd literally be giving different parts of yourself away and would not survive the op. Should you be compelled to make such sacrifice? The answer is a big resounding NO because, as unfortunate as the circumstances of those needy patients are, you are not obliged to give your life to save them—even if your life wasn't at stake (and declining to help in such a drastic way wouldn't make you a bad person). As someone who's watching from the UK, I find the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade a sad one for the United States of America, the price it paid for having the Trump administration tamper with the Supreme Court and, as a result, an entire country now suffers the worst cons of a democracy obliged to endure dictatorial legislation for the next few years. Tragic.

[Hilary]

You are claiming that I "completely strawmanned" the "sound" pro-abortion position. Doesn't that statement sound just a little bit biased? By the way, no need to use the 3rd person. You can talk straight to me. I think it's unfair to accuse me of strawmanning as a generalization of all of my arguments. I think I've given a lot of valid reasons why I think and feel the way I do, and in my responses to other's arguments as well. You don't have to agree with me, but it's disrespectful to accuse someone of strawmanning just because you disagree. And that's what this is. The mature response is to not attack, but rather, just state your views, why you believe them, and counter other's arguments with points of your own. No need to insult. Now, let's go through your points one by one. If you can receive my counter arguments with respect, then we can have a meaningful discussion. I believe abortion should be avoided and certainly not used as a contraceptive; but the choice to abort as a last resort should be available and the procedure done as soon as possible in the shortest period of gestation if one can help it. Except that's how it's used currently. Abortions are given for any reason in states that allow them. In 7 states, and D.C., abortions are given for any reason up until the moment of birth. Unfortunately, you can hope people will do the right thing, but honestly? People don't. They get abortions for any and every reason under the sun. Even though adoption is always legally available to them (up to three after birth with no questions asked). Some reasons are better than others (I argue that none are great), but at the end of the day, no one is policing them. So what you are arguing for does not fit what the law currently is. You want to see them rare, but you support laws that allow abortions for any reason. And the pro-choice movement? They push for all 9 months. We're talking about newborns being aborted. Don't believe me? I can PM you a video that would shock you to your core and probably make you not want to eat lunch. I'm not going to post that on the forums. You research yourself if you like. Just google up "Late term abortion facilities" in YouTube or something. Embryos are not human beings. At the initial stages of gestation, they are merely a conglomerate of pluripotent cells no different to those that one removes when scratching the surface of one's nose (which are far more numerous, by the way). What makes the difference in what these cells later turn into is the environment. Obviously, if left in the womb over time, it will develop into a foetus and then progressively into an unborn baby. Science is not on your side on this one. Here's some examples: "Embryos are whole human beings, at the early stage of their maturation. The term 'embryo', similar to the terms 'infant' and 'adolescent', refers to a determinate and enduring organism at a particular stage of development." Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672893/ "II. When does a human being begin? Getting a handle on just a few basic human embryological terms accurately can considerably clarify the drastic difference between the "scientific" myths that are currently circulating, and the actual objective scientific facts. This would include such basic terms as: "gametogenesis," "oogenesis," "spermatogenesis," "fertilization," "zygote," "embryo," and "blastocyst." Only brief scientific descriptions will be given here for these terms. Further, more complicated, details can be obtained by investigating any well-established human embryology textbook in the library, such as some of those referenced below. Please note that the scientific facts presented here are not simply a matter of my own opinion. They are direct quotes and references from some of the most highly respected human embryology textbooks, and represent a consensus of human embryologists internationally. A. Basic human embryological facts To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced." Source: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html "Rather, the answer is to be found in the works of modern human embryology and developmental biology. In these texts, we find little or nothing in the way of scientific uncertainty: "…human development begins at fertilization…" write embryologists Keith Moore and T.V. N. Persaud in The Developing Human (7th edition, 2003), the most widely used textbook on human embryology." Source: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...toryId=4857703 I'm going to stop here, but I can grab you more if you like. Your argument is fighting science. What you might be arguing is something actually different, and that is the concept of "personhood" which is different than being a human. What you should be arguing is whether or not an embryo or fetus should be considered a person. Because they're definitely human. Pluripotent means they have the capacity to turn into anything, for e.g., these cells can be cultured in vitro to become any type of organ or gestate in Vivo to become a living organism. I think the confusion of some pro-lifers (who are not necessarily religious) is to equate life with consciousness or sentience. Just because something is living doesn't perforce mean that it's aware of anything—be it unicellular or a conglomerate of a dozen cells. An embryo and a fetus is far from being a fully-fledged human being. Yes, they can be anything, but they will all have the same DNA which is unique to them, and different than their mothers. Embryos and fetuses are also completely self-directed to become an adult given time and given that they are not aborted. You say a fetus is far from "a fully fledged human being". I argue that you could say the same thing about a baby. It's far from being an adult, isn't it? They can't talk yet. They have no long term memory yet, and yet, they are considered human, and they are protected - regardless of their differences. As to the fetus, or even the embryo, do we really know where consciousness begins? No. We don't. Because we do know that consciousness is not dependent on sensory organs. I argue that it's not dependent upon a brain even. Why? Look at lucid dreaming, near death experiences, meditation, and Tibetan yoga. Eastern thought suggests that consciousness is the primary factor, and the brain is secondary. We do know that a fetus is conscious and feeling way before abortion is made illegal. And they can feel in the 2nd trimester, as early as 11 weeks according to some studies. Other studies suggest 15 weeks to 20 weeks. Emerging science with improving technology keeps pushing this line back earlier and earlier. We do know that fetuses in the 1st trimester attempt to move away from abortion instruments. They attempt to fight for their lives as seen on ultrasound. We know that fetuses wince from pain caused by sharp objects. They experience the stress response cortisol. Additionally, should the ability to feel pain and or be "sentient" (as you describe it) really determine one's human right to life? I argue that it shouldn't. After all, there are adult humans who cannot feel pain. They have a disease called "Congenital insensitivity to pain and anhydrosis (CIPA)". Is their right to life suddenly null and void? The only requirement for the right to life is to be human. Otherwise, it's just age-related discrimination. These are actual humans, they just aren't fully developed yet. I'm going to quote this here: However, in reality, there is just one capacity for consciousness and just one capacity for each distinct type of living act. What is referred to as ‘the immediately exercisable capacity' for consciousness is the development of that single capacity. A capacity such as that for consciousness is a power to perform a specific type of action. The capacity develops and comes closer to being the performance of that action, with the development of the constitution of the organism; however, in a living being, the transition from the basic natural capacity to perform an action characteristic of living beings on the one hand, to the performance of that action on the other hand, is just the development of the basic power that the organism has from its beginning. The capacity for consciousness is gradually developed or brought towards maturation, through gestation, childhood, adolescence and so on. Proponents of an immediately exercisable capacity for mental functions as a criterion for having dignity and a right to life do not select one property or feature rather than another as a criterion for dignity and rights. Instead, they select a certain degree of a property. However, such a selection is inevitably arbitrary. For why should the nth degree of that property qualify one as having rights? Why not the nth + 1 degree or the nth + 2 degrees and so on? The difference between a being that deserves full moral respect and a being that does not—and might therefore legitimately be killed to benefit others—cannot consist only of the fact that, while both have some feature, one has more of it than the other—one has some arbitrarily selected degree of the development of some feature or property, whereas the other does not. This conclusion would follow no matter which of the acquired qualities proposed as qualifying some human beings or human beings at some developmental stages for full respect were selected. The criterion we propose—that of a creature being an individual with a rational nature—does not suffer from this problem of arbitrariness. There is a radical difference between individuals with a rational nature and other entities, and that difference is morally relevant—rational creatures, at all times that they exist, should be treated as we would have others treat us. It follows that it cannot be the case that some human beings and not others are intrinsically valuable, by virtue of a certain degree of development. Rather, human beings are intrinsically valuable in the way that allows us to ascribe to them equality and basic rights in virtue of what they are; and all human beings are intrinsically valuable. -Dr. Robert P. George and Dr. Patrick Lee Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672893/ Moreover, banning abortion will, over time, hamper stem cell research which has the potential to save millions of already born lives. I cannot believe that America has gone backwards on the soundest of default modes for a functional society in a country whose constitution prides itself on upholding the rights of its citizens, if you ask me! The unborn are not citizens let alone possess any sort of sentience capable of fathoming the very concept of rights. Abortion is not murder and to say so is preposterous. Hampering stem-cell research: For starters - I argue this is a tactic to distract people from the real issue: elective abortion. That said, I do argue that this is a very dangerous area for us as a species. Just like eugenics. It's quite a temptation! The end justifies the means, after all? Right? Right? No. Not right. We can use our youngest and most vulnerable members of our species for our advantage. Right? Right? We can, but.. does that make it right? No. Should we really be playing with human embryos and human fetuses this way? I'm all for helping people with diseases, but not if it comes at the cost of other human's lives. No matter how tempting it can be. At some point, we have to accept our own lives, our own deaths, and our own struggles. Yes, do what you can to help yourself and others, but never cross that line to do it. The end never justifies the means. Are "born" lives inherently more valuable than pre-born lives? I argue no. That 3 inch vaginal birth canal? That should not determine whether one's life has value. Being human is all that is needed. All human beings are intrinsically valuable. But, this takes away from the truth: abortion is killing 9 month old babies right now in 7 states! 7!! That is the real issue. Let's talk about that. Another issue which I haven't seen addressed by the pro-life movement is the predicament of those unfortunate pregnant ladies with gestational complications who are told by medical professionals that they will die carrying out the birth and possibly kill the baby, too—not to mention the time it takes to investigate extenuating circumstances because clinical experts and institutions don't want to be prosecuted and the additional problem that by the time exceptional applications are processed it might be too late ... OK. Time to repeat myself again. I posted a video and comment about this in the Political Videos thread. You're misunderstanding the medical science here. It's a common misconception. The vast majority of serious health issues occur in later pregnancy. If you're already in late 2nd-3rd trimester, you must deliver the baby. You can't have that baby sucked out of you like in an earlier abortion. So, either the baby is born alive, or born dead. It makes no difference to the mother's health. Should a woman's health deteriorate, the OB will simply immediately deliver early. Not abort. As most babies are viable at this point in pregnancy, letting them be born alive gives them a fighting chance. And, furthermore, abortion is more dangerous than a c-section because it takes 2-3 days to dilate the cervix for an abortion. For the record, abortion in the 3rd trimester is done by injecting the baby with a substance that puts her into cardiac arrest, OR by crushing her skull as she is delivered through the birth canal. You may argue that a woman who knows she has health issues should abort before the 2nd or 3rd trimester. I argue that most of the time the issues arise way past viability. There's no need for an abortion, but there IS a need for increased care and monitoring by the OB. And, in the very rare case of a true medical emergency before current viability [21 weeks], of course, I would stand by saving the mother's life. But again, that's not through abortion, that's through early delivery. No need to dismember her live first (because that's what happens in a 2nd trimester abortion). She can die in peace in the arms of her mother or a nurse if need be. In 7 states, 7!, and the District of Colombia, a woman can have a late-term abortion; up to 10 months pregnant, until the very moment of birth, for any reason. These abortions should be banned. But don't trust me. Here it from a HIGH RISK PREGNANCY OBGYN and former abortionist. VIDEO LINK : If you are against abortion as a last resort option, fine, don't have one, but don't dictate to others what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies and lives. Live and let live! You are entitled to choose when it comes to preserving your life and making it easier for yourself. Remember: abortions are not an easy choice and those poor pregnant women who resort to it don't need the aggro of being made to feel guiltier than they already do by the zealous anti-abortion lobby outside clinics. We dictate to others because this is a basic violation of human rights. Your stance that we shouldn't tell people what to do is very similar to how slavery was. Some people could be against it, but by your logic, we shouldn't tell other people not to own slaves. We should allow them to do it, because who are we to say what they can and can't do? And while I am generally in support of autonomy and freedom, I think we do have to draw lines when it affects other people negatively. We have draw lines when it's murder, genocide, slavery, or any other basic human rights violation. I am arguing that this is a basic human rights violation. I will not turn a blind eye. I will not stay silent for something I know is evil and wrong. I will defend those who can't speak up for themselves. What can I say? I am descended from abolitionists. My great great grandfather blew up the wall of a jail and freed all the Black slaves inside. He did this when it was very unpopular to be an abolitionist. Most people back then didn't think he was a hero. They thought he was an extremist. Not promoting violence or blowing up anything, but like him, I will always stand up for what I believe is right. And I'll do it in the face of adversity. In the face of an entire forum against 1 lady here. I guess it's just in my blood. I'm an abolitionist, too. An abortion abolitionist. Here's an analogy: You walk into a hospital to make a blood donation to also discover that a number of adult human beings on an organ donation waiting list will die on that day unless matching volunteers donate organs on the spot. You are found to be the only one in the vicinity to be a match for all of them but in order to save the patients' lives you'd have to sacrifice your own as you'd literally be giving different parts of yourself away and would not survive the op. Should you be compelled to make such sacrifice? The answer is a big resounding NO because, as unfortunate as the circumstances of those needy patients are, you are not obliged to give your life to save them—even if your life wasn't at stake (and declining to help in such a drastic way wouldn't make you a bad person). Yes, but that person wasn't involved in the CREATION of this said other person. In 99.8% of abortions (using Florida statistics), the woman was not raped. In 99.8% of abortions, the woman made the decision to put herself in a position to create a new human being. Some responsibility should be involved in this. That said, ADDITIONALLY, in the analogy you're giving, the person is required to give up his or her resources (in the form of organs) to another person to keep them alive. ABORTION, however, is not merely the removal of resources. ABORTION is an ACTIVE action, not a PASSIVE action. Abortion involves dismembering and killing that person. Not simply removing resources. Do you understand the difference here? Next. As someone who's watching from the UK, I find the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade a sad one for the United States of America, the price it paid for having the Trump administration tamper with the Supreme Court and, as a result, an entire country now suffers the worst cons of a democracy obliged to endure dictatorial legislation for the next few years. Tragic. I'm not sure how following the rules of assigning new Supreme Court Justices is tampering with the Supreme Court. If a SC Judge passes away during a president's term, that president is allowed to select the next SC Judge. And, furthermore, those judges are allowed to have opinions on any issue. Judges are also allowed to change their mind on issues over the course of their career. Like it or not, that is all legal.

[Summerlander]

@ Hilary: Unfortunately, you can hope people will do the right thing, but honestly? People don't. They get abortions for any and every reason under the sun. Even though adoption is always legally available to them (up to three after birth with no questions asked). Even if some people use it irresponsibly. It is none of your business. Some Muslim communities abort as soon as they find out it's a girl which I think is wrong. But it is their choice and many, especially in Europe, would lynch you for opposing their views. What are you going to do? There are billions of Muslims on the planet and they stick together. Banning abortion makes things worse because it won't stop abortions—it makes them riskier and more dangerous for those who actually need it. Yes ... Need it! You are merely opposing an extreme with another. And you did provide a strawman for the pro-choice argument because every statement you made is a misrepresentation or an incomplete account of the pro-choice stance as best as it has been expressed. It's not an attack on you as a person, it is merely stating a fact. I stated that you strawmanned the position because I felt you did not represent it well, not just because I disagree with you. I could equally play the same game and accuse you of immaturity and insulting those who are pro-choice or have had abortions themselves when you said, and I quote, '... abortion is the greatest human rights violation of our time'. (Preposterous when you consider what some serial killers do: rape, torture, kill ... And not necessarily in this order!) You ought to be careful as you are accusing a great many people of crime and, as a consequence, they should be stripped of their rights without even knowing their reasons or what they went through. Not very compassionate on your part, if you ask me. Furthermore, I can use whatever pronouns I like and don't have to address you directly. Last I checked, it's not a crime and if you took it as an insult, it is your problem, not mine. But here, now I am addressing your post personally ... Happy? As for being biased ... No more biased than you are. Think carefully about what you are projecting here, Hilary, as it can easily be reversed back to you. Remember, you are the one who has already been reported, right or wrongly, but most certainly due to your disrespectful tone and holier-than-thou attitude which begot an impulsive human reaction. You may argue that it was unnecessary or uncalled for, and it may be warranted, but you are certainly treading on toes and if you put something out there, be prepared to face the consequences instead of throwing your toys out of the pram and crying offence because someone disagrees with you. Take responsibility for your actions by realising that respect goes both ways and is very much earned ... By the way, not everyone wants to, or has the option to adopt as you seem to naively imply. Your view is very narrow-minded and inconsiderate of others. I wonder if you have kids and how you'd react with such lack of compassion if some of the problems faced by others befell your progeny. There are many reasons why adoption is not an option for some, from financial to felonious, the latter often venial and to do with disqualifiers perpetrated by them when they were young and immature. Remember, ideally, people should be rewarded for making self-improvements instead of being penalised for the rest of their lives by barring them from other self-fulfilling options. Others, still, wish to have their own offspring and actually give birth. Some reasons are better than others (I argue that none are great), but at the end of the day, no one is policing them. So what you are arguing for does not fit what the law currently is. You want to see them rare, but you support laws that allow abortions for any reason. And the pro-choice movement? They push for all 9 months. We're talking about newborns being aborted. What do you mean nobody is policing them? The new policy was passed when Rv.W was overturned and already people are suffering the consequences in your beloved country—or have I suddenly slipped into a parallel universe? Apart from the judgemental anti-abortion lobby many women endure when facing the prospect of abortion, they are now turned away and forced to gestate in states governed by pro-lifers or demagogues propitiating them for votes, not to mention clinics that now fear litigation. It is already happening! Please don't strawman me when I have already given you my nuanced opinion. If you reread my first post here you will realise I have mentioned that abortion should be avoided and, if people freely resort to it as the last option (a right I think they should have) it should be done in the shortest period of gestation possible if they can help it. Your problem, Hilary, is that you are conflating pro-choice with pro-abortion. One can be pro-choice and not necessarily be pro-abortion—although the same cannot be said the other way around. You are literally, and unfairly I might add, pigeonholing everybody with a pro-choice stance as an extremist regarding abortion. Please spare me the red herring of how obnoxious late-term abortions can be and therefore, because of it, my whole opinion on the matter is rendered untenable. That is simply weak to say the least. Abortions are safer the earlier they are carried out, so, inform yourself before engaging in a debate. I don't know about America, but in the UK, it is performed before 24 weeks and no later. If you are not happy about how long pregnant women are allowed to leave it (at their own peril, not yours, mind you!) in your country, perhaps you should contest it on the basis that an unborn baby at 9 months already has a formed brain, but if that's the reason then you have absolutely no leg to stand on in reasoning that all types of abortions must me outlawed. You are simply wrong when you include embryos because they are not people! They are not human beings and to say so is simply deluded. I don't know what pseudoscientific sources you are looking at but real science does not support your view. And the asinine article you provided conflates 'human beings' with 'human embryos' and is erroneously far from scientific consensus. But I don't even like to argue just from consensus because a cogent argument should always exalt the logo mode of persuasion over ethos. And sorry to tell you, but you fell for their semantic casuistry, too. What an appalling article expressing ludicrously flawed moral philosophy—not to mention that it starts with the word, 'if' as demonstrated in this excerpt (now who's biased?) and later claims its conjectures as certainties—a blatant leap of faith in violation of epistemology itself: If, as we believe, human embryos are human beings who deserve the same basic respect we accord to human beings at later developmental stages, then research that involves deliberately dismembering embryonic humans in order to use their cells for the benefit of others is inherently wrong. In short, cells don't have brains and, although considered organic matter which constitutes life (as opposed to inorganic) a dozen of them do not make a person—the levels of cognition that necessitate a brain are simply not present; embryos are merely a mechanism in potentia. As I explained before, a lifeform isn't necessarily conscious. You ought to look at neurological evidence: the embryo is not capable of suffering and to say so is baseless and goes against everything we know so far about functional cerebral matter and its mental faculties. Human development beginning at fertilisation does not support the erroneous notion that at the initial stages it is already a fully-fledged human being, as it were, it just says the cells mechanistically divide and could lead to a healthy baby if allowed to progress. (By the way, no guarantees the unborn will be healthy or optimally functional as a person to say nothing of the fact that nature has its miscarriages.) There is no divine, higher power driving the process of gestation, Hilary, no evidence that such is true whatsoever other than basic and molecular cause-and-effect. I know you said you are not religious but I suspect you are allowing your New Age beliefs, which, let's face it, are part of and influenced by religions such as Wicca and Madame Blavatsky's spiritualism, to cloud your judgement here. You claim that science supports you but it really doesn't and the epistemology of the articles you provided are fallacious. At heart, your stance comes from a position of sentimentalism and, in part, a phony kind of sanctimony. Yes, they can be anything, but they will all have*the same DNA which is unique to them, and different than their mothers. Embryos and fetuses are also*completely self-directed*to become an adult given time and given that they are not aborted. False and false again. DNA is nothing but molecular codes with 'instructions', so to speak, with the potential to lead to something else as I have already explained before. The precursor of the offspring is 50% the mother's genetic makeup and 50% the father's, which, having been shuffled leads to an original mitosis of new tissue growth not wholly or necessarily unlike that of the parents. It is, therefore, a fallacy to claim that embryos are completely self-directed. It is all a set of instructions from nature's structures whose action cascades through time in a deterministic process. You say a fetus is far from "a fully fledged human being". I argue that you could say the same thing about a baby. It's far from being an adult, isn't it? They can't talk yet. They have no long term memory yet, and yet, they are considered human, and they are protected - regardless of their differences. Let's make an important distinction here: I am the first one to say that generally you are not a fully mature/developed human being until you reach around the age of 25, when your cortex is fully formed and protected by myelin. But to all intents and purposes here, and if you insist on being pedantic, let us say that, when I refer to a baby as a fully-fledged human being I mean a physically recognisable anthropoid with developed and functional organs for his or her survival to bear fruit, albeit in their infancy. This does not, as far as I'm aware, take away from my argument. And it is not about talking—again you seem to deliberately misconstrue my argument—it is about sentience and awareness. Babies are already capable of suffering. The cry of a newborn says it all. As to the fetus, or even the embryo, do we really know where consciousness begins? No. We don't. Because we do know that consciousness is not dependent on sensory organs. I argue that it's not dependent upon a brain even. Why? Look at lucid dreaming, near death experiences, meditation, and Tibetan yoga. Eastern thought suggests that consciousness is the primary factor, and the brain is secondary. Is this the flimsy contention you provide? Really? A suggestion (you said it) isn't evidence and Eastern traditions are merely philosophical, not primarily scientific, and their impressions only derived from experience when we know the brain is susceptible to illusions and delusions. I am not saying it is necessarily the case that such traditions are deluded but there is, undeniably, an epistemological impasse when it comes to what can be claimed with certainty from mere meditative experience, just as the unfalsifiable brain in a vat scenario prevents us from asserting with absolute certainty that the Matrix isn't real. Even panpsychists will tell you that, if their premise turns out to be correct, the experience of an electron is far removed from that of human experience and would be best described as hypothetically proto-conscious, not conscious in the way we intimately know. But all of this is only hypothetical and doesn't even begin to explain consciousness if, as many critics point out, it starts with the very thing it tries to explain or something ineffably like it. What the hell is 'proto-consciousness'? And if we can't experience it, it might as well be unconscious to us. There is no evidence for panpsychism or animism whatsoever. It is an idea from limited human minds. That's it. We do know that a fetus is conscious and feeling way before abortion is made illegal.*And they can feel in the 2nd trimester, as early as 11 weeks according to some studies. Other studies suggest 15 weeks to 20 weeks. Emerging science with improving technology keeps pushing this line back earlier and earlier. We do know that fetuses in the 1st trimester attempt to move away from abortion instruments. They attempt to fight for their lives as seen on ultrasound. We know that fetuses wince from pain caused by sharp objects. They experience the stress response cortisol. Additionally, should the ability to feel pain and or be "sentient" (as you describe it) really determine one's human right to life? I argue that it shouldn't. After all, there are adult humans who cannot feel pain. They have a disease called "Congenital insensitivity to pain and anhydrosis (CIPA)". Is their right to life suddenly null and void? What studies? Hogwash. Sorry. Behaviourism does not evidence conscious states. Although movement can be evidence for life, it is not necessarily evidence of conscious life. Sleepwalkers are a great example of this as they can perform complex tasks in Delta sleep somnambulism, i.e., unconsciously. Conversely, people under failed anaesthesia have consciously experienced the horror of enduring surgery whilst paralysed and unable to alert the doctors who assumed they were completely under. Right there, your argument falls apart. By the way, there are many forms of suffering that don't involve physical pain so just because someone has CIPA doesn't mean they are incapable of suffering or that they don't value their lives. By the way, I'm detecting a propensity for non sequiturs and post hoc fallacies. I suggest you refine your debating skills and perhaps this rebuttal will help. I'm not being funny, Hilary, but you are getting totally impugned and refuted here. The only requirement for the right to life is to be human.*Otherwise, it's just age-related discrimination.*These are actual humans, they just aren't fully developed yet. No, it's not. Should a serial killer have a right to live when he has no respect for life? What about the murder victims? Why should the human monster get a second chance? Why should someone like that retain the right to breathe? Why should taxpayers sustain him in prison when he could still have a ball incarcerated by torturing other inmates and mocking the families of victims from jail? I'm not necessarily arguing here for capital punishment, but these are questions to make you think before you make spurious or questionable asseverations. And besides, your age starts when you are born. Another untenable assumption you've made there. I'm going to quote this here: ... I don't give a toss where you are quoting it from. Your sources are wrong. Their interpretations and conclusions of scientific data are epistemologically flawed. Are "born" lives inherently more valuable than pre-born lives? Yeah, they are. For starters, born lives are more productive—they have already found, in Sartrian principle, their purpose. To quote the great existentialist philosopher, when it comes to human beings, existence precedes essence. You may argue that a woman who knows she has health issues should abort before the 2nd or 3rd trimester. I argue that most of the time the issues arise way past viability. There's no need for an abortion, but there IS a need for increased care and monitoring by the OB. You make me laugh. 'Most of the time'? Really? Besides, increased care won't guarantee jack—hence the dissuading medical advice which qualifies against natal deliveries in some cases that all of a sudden you seem to be an expert on overruling but naively cannot grasp the myriad problems faced by different individuals. (I won't even go into the added pressure of new COVID-19 variants already evading immunity and the added pressure this ongoing pandemic continues to inflict on healthcare.) Seriously, Hilary, don't embarrass yourself any further ... Yes, but that person wasn't involved in the CREATION of this said other person. In 99.2% of pregnancies (using Florida statistics), the woman was not raped, and it was not incest. In 99.2% of pregnancies, the woman made the decision to put herself in a position to create a new human being. Some responsibility should be involved in this. That said, ADDITIONALLY, in the analogy you're giving, the person is required to give up his or her resources (in the form of organs) to another person to keep them alive.*ABORTION, however, is not merely the removal of resources.*ABORTION is an ACTIVE action, not a PASSIVE action.*Abortion involves dismembering and killing that person.*Not simply removing resources. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I cannot believe your line of reasoning. To paraphrase and steelman you in a few words: 'I didn't create you therefore I won't save you.' You have actually betrayed your egotistical contempt for human life if this is the reason you give for not saving them. I merely argued that you don't have to save anybody if your life is at stake and even if it isn't. It is your life and abortion is not murder. Hell, if right now I discovered that an adult (same age as me) dwarf was living in my belly (hypothetically speaking, of course), and removing him from my body meant that he would most certainly die but leaving him alive inside me meant my imminent death in a few months, I wouldn't hesitate to request the parasite's surgical removal even if this one could think and speak and suffer. Sorry! Better him than me! It's my life and I also have people who care about me and I never wanted the bastard inside me even if I had somehow contracted him as some unknown tadpole by swallowing water whilst pleasurably plunging into a river. And this is the crux of my argument. Would I take a dive there again? Probably not just as I wouldn't want to undergo the risky surgical procedure again! Human beings cannot help but go through a heuristic process throughout their lives. We can't just be deemed to be entirely responsible for everything that happens to us in our lives and be blamed for the oft-uninformed choices we make precisely because we inevitably learn from trial and error. Sorry but your argument couldn't be more obnoxious! By the way, regardless of the statistics, you admit that there is a problem with rape and incest, and clearly dismiss these victims without providing any real solution or consolation for them. On one hand, teenage girls are told to avoid pregnancies lest they have a baby they can't support, on the other, according to your worldview, if they are raped they must have the baby regardless and the rapist will have parental rights—not to mention the fact that victims will be tied to the rapist forever. Your worldview is a bed of roses, Hilary! And then there's the problem of offspring as a result from incest with increased risk of disabilities and health problems not to mention the social opprobrium endured by mother and child! This is your extreme pro-life dystopia playing out ... My analogy, which you were too obtuse to grasp, demonstrates how some mothers willingly sacrifice their lives for their offspring in those cases where, in all likelihood, they will die at childbirth. But this is and should always be a choice. A pregnant woman should not be obliged to see gestation till the end if her life is at risk. What is a violation of human rights—in particular, women's rights and you, as a woman, should know better!—is forcing someone to sacrifice their life for another, which is the context I was referring to with my analogy to demonstrate how inconsistent you have been with your pro-lifeism. You completely missed the point as I thought you would, and in doing so, you expressed absolute contempt and an absence of compassion for, women who find themselves in such a life-or-death situation. You are practically saying to a raped pregnant teenager with life-threatening gestational complications, 'Sorry, but you must die in order to give birth to your offspring. It's not the baby's fault that you put yourself in a situation where you were raped. You should have known better.' And if you want to take the rape out of the equation, you are still saying to that girl or young woman who should be forgiven for making a mistake (be that a wrong choice of partner or what have you), 'It's your fault and now you must die as a result in the knowledge that an abortion could have saved you but it's outlawed.' What do you think many young women are going to do when you make them feel like in their pardonably immature phase they should have been infallible human beings? They will commit suicide or seek truly dangerous and noxious abortion methods, i.e., using hooks and hangers, that's what they will do, Hilary. I am very disappointed in you and cannot express enough how abhorrent I think your extremely dictatorial right-wing views are. You have just declared that women have no rights over their bodies nor their own lives. Pro-life is a new form of fascism with a holier-than-thou visage. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not sure how following the rules of assigning new Supreme Court Justices is tampering with the Supreme Court. If a SC Judge passes away during a president's term, that president is allowed to select the next SC Judge. And, furthermore, those judges are allowed to have opinions on any issue. Judges are also allowed to change their mind. Like it or not, that is all legal. As I said, which, as usual, you appear to have missed or overlooked, it's the price to pay as the cons of a democracy. I just wonder how comfortable you are with the fact that the overwhelming majority of Justices who voted to overturn RvW and the senators who confirmed it were male. If you call yourself a feminist ... Stop.

[Hilary]

OK Let's start from the bottom up. I'm so tired. But I will not let any points rest without a response. As I said, which, as usual, you appear to have missed or overlooked, it's the price to pay as the cons of a democracy. I just wonder how comfortable you are with the fact that the overwhelming majority of Justices who voted to overturn RvW and the senators who confirmed it were male. If you call yourself a feminist ... Stop. Did you know that the group of Supreme Court Justices that voted IN FAVOR of Roe v. Wade was ENTIRELY MALE! Not a single female. At least the group that overturned Roe did have 1 female voting to overturn. <3 <3 Justice Amy Coney Barrett <3 <3 That's one more than your group! I never said I was a feminist. Because I'm not. I DO believe in supporting women. But that has nothing to do with modern feminism. Next. Even if some people use it irresponsibly. It is none of your business. Some Muslim communities abort as soon as they find out it's a girl which I think is wrong. But it is their choice and many, especially in Europe, would lynch you for opposing their views. What are you going to do? There are billions of Muslims on the planet and they stick together. Banning abortion makes things worse because it won't stop abortions—it makes them riskier and more dangerous for those who actually need it. Yes ... Need it! So I think we have a major major difference in morality. Because I would NEVER BE OKAY with sex-selection based abortion. Not for anyone, me or others. That is discrimination against females, and an absolute atrocity. It should be illegal. I'm going to speak out, that's what I'm going to do. A quick story. When I was pregnant with my son and getting the gender-revealing ultrasound, there was another woman there getting her ultrasound. She was having twins. Well, when she found out they were both girls, she aborted both of them. 2nd trimester abortion. That's where they dismember them live in the womb with a sopher clamp, with no pain meds, just local anesthetic for the mother. And of course, science shows us that babies at that age are capable of feeling pain. Your argument is that we should turn a blind eye to other people committing atrocities. Because it's none of our business. With that argument, you're OK with other people owning slaves? Are you okay with other people committing murder? An individual's right to freedom ENDS when it harms another person. That's why you can't smoke in public buildings. Moving on. You are merely opposing an extreme with another. And you did provide a strawman for the pro-choice argument because every statement you made is a misrepresentation or an incomplete account of the pro-choice stance as best as it has been expressed. It's not an attack on you as a person, it is merely stating a fact. I stated that you strawmanned the position because I felt you did not represent it well, not just because I disagree with you. No, that is not fact. That is opinion. If you want to say that a particular thing I said was strawmanning, be my guest, point it out. But to generalize and blanket-statement say that I've "completely strawmanned" everything is just a way of disrespecting someone with different views. One thing you have to consider is that the pro-abortion and pro-life movements have entirely different frameworks. We are coming at this issue from entirely different angles. It is not strawmanning to explain my angle on issues. You may not understand that angle, but just because you don't understand it, does not make it invalid. And also? If your goal was to help me to understand your views better, invalidating my points with a blanket-statement is not going to help. Just some truth for you. ---- I could equally play the same game and accuse you of immaturity and insulting those who are pro-choice or have had abortions themselves when you said, and I quote, '... abortion is the greatest human rights violation of our time'. (Preposterous when you consider what some serial killers do: rape, torture, kill ... And not necessarily in this order!) The reason I say that it is the greatest human rights violation of our time is because of the sheer numbers of babies being killed. Over 63 million since Roe v. Wade was passed. That's why. Do you understand now? You ought to be careful as you are accusing a great many people of crime and, as a consequence, they should be stripped of their rights without even knowing their reasons or what they went through. Not very compassionate on your part, if you ask me. You're the one strawmanning here. You've twisted my words. I never said we should punish anyone who has had an abortion. YOU said that, NOT ME. I don't feel that way. I don't think they need more trauma on top of what they've already been through by having an abortion - because heaven knows that's not an easy thing for anyone to go through. If anything, I want to see these women given support and therapy if they need it. I DO think abortionists who are committing late term abortions and partial birth abortions should be in jail. Those people, the ones crushing newborns' skulls as they exit the birth canal? Those are the criminals. Furthermore, I can use whatever pronouns I like and don't have to address you directly. Last I checked, it's not a crime and if you took it as an insult, it is your problem, not mine. No you don't have to. You can continue to refer to me in the 3rd person. But, it's rude. Remember, you are the one who has already been reported, right or wrongly, but most certainly due to your disrespectful tone and holier-than-thou attitude which begot an impulsive human reaction. Which words of mine are disrespectful? "Remember, you are the one who has already been reported"? Because I have different views. Politics always gets some people upset. Just because my viewpoint is different from yours, does not make it a disrespectful tone or holier-than-thou attitude. I respect people who have different views. I respect people who are pro choice. I love my pro-choice friends. However, that doesn't make me less pro-life. And being pro-life doesn't make me disrespectful. --- You may argue that it was unnecessary or uncalled for, and it may be warranted, but you are certainly treading on toes and if you put something out there, be prepared to face the consequences instead of throwing your toys out of the pram and crying offence because someone disagrees with you. Take responsibility for your actions by realising that respect goes both ways and is very much earned ... Prepared to face what consequences? Please respond with respect when discussing with me. I don't believe respect must be earned. I think respectful language and actions toward others is a basic human decency. That does not have to be earned. Admiration - now that, yes, that is earned. But not respect. All humans deserve respect. You say it goes both ways. Do you feel I disrespected you? What words did I say to you that you consider to be disrespectful? ---- [B]By the way, not everyone wants to, or has the option to adopt as you seem to naively imply. Your view is very narrow-minded and inconsiderate of others. No, everyone in the United States is legally allowed to give up their baby to the State up until 3 days after birth. "To date, all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico have enacted safe haven legislation.1 The focus of these laws is on protecting newborns from endangerment by providing parents with an alternative to criminal abandonment; therefore, the laws are generally limited to very young children. For example, in approximately seven States and Puerto Rico, only infants 72 hours old or younger may be relinquished to a designated safe haven. Approximately 23 States and Guam accept infants up to 30 days old. Other States specify varying age limits in their statutes." Source: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/safehaven.pdf I wonder if you have kids and how you'd react with such lack of compassion if some of the problems faced by others befell your progeny. Are you done disrespecting me yet? I've already talked to my daughter. I told her that if she ever got pregnant, that she could come to me. That she would NOT be in trouble. That I would help her take care of the baby if that happened. I would take on the responsibility for her. There are many reasons why adoption is not an option for some, from financial to felonious, the latter often venial and to do with disqualifiers perpetrated they when they were young and immature. Remember, ideally, people should be rewarded for making self-improvements instead of being penalised for the rest of their lives by barring them from other self-fulfilling options. Others, still, wish to have their own offspring and actually give birth. I'm talking about a mother giving up a baby for adoption - which is free for the mother. Not about people trying to adopt. There are already very long waiting lists in this country for adoption. This includes adoption of babies with special needs. So much so, that many people seek adoptions outside of our country - it's often a quicker process. There's more demand than supply. I do agree with you that the process needs to be easier. Some of the hangups are unnecessary. From same-sex parents to people adopting babies of a different race, I think we need to be more liberal in allowing these adoptions to happen. ----- What do you mean nobody is policing them? The new policy was passed when Rv.W was overturned and already people are suffering the consequences in your beloved country—or have I suddenly slipped into a parallel universe? I'm talking about the states where it is still legal to abort a baby for any reason. And especially so for the 7 states, plus D.C., that allows abortion in the 9th month of pregnancy for any reason. Roe v. Wade did not abolish abortion, Summerlander. It just made it a State decision. Some states allow it, and some don't. Many states have little to no restrictions, OR, the restrictions are worded such as to include any "mental, physical, emotional, financial, or social" "health" issue related to the pregnancy... which is so broad of a guideline, with little to no actual specification, that an expectant mother can claim any reason and get an abortion. If one doctor won't do it, the next one will. Apart from the judgemental anti-abortion lobby many women endure when facing the prospect of abortion, they are now turned away and forced to gestate in states governed by pro-lifers or demagogues propitiating them for votes, not to mention clinics that now fear litigation. It is already happening! So are you OK with your taxpayer dollars funding abortions? Just curious. Because I'm not. Planned Parenthood is partially funded by the government. In some states, taxpayer dollars cover abortions for women who may be using them as a form of contraception. I don't think that's fair. ----- Please don't strawman me when I have already given you my nuanced opinion. If you reread my first post here you will realise I have mentioned that abortion should be avoided and, if people freely resort to it as the last option (a right I think they should have) it should be done in the shortest period of gestation possible if they can help it. Your problem, Hilary, is that you are conflating pro-choice with pro-abortion. One can be pro-choice and not necessarily be pro-abortion—although the same cannot be said the other way around. You are literally, and unfairly I might add, pigeonholing everybody with a pro-choice stance as an extremist regarding abortion. Please spare me the red herring of how obnoxious late-term abortions can be and therefore, because of it, my whole opinion on the matter is rendered untenable. That is simply weak to say the least. Your nuanced opinion is OK, but when I give mine, it's strawmanning. Don't you think that's biased? Maybe we just happen to see things very differently. I'm not going to see it your way. I see it as being pro-abortion. Why? Things like this: These centers are set up to provide free and low cost OBGYN care to women in need. We're trying to be part of the solution. To give women an actual CHOICE other than abortion. Yet shutting them down would only serve to take away choice. It takes away resources being given to low income women. How is that part of the solution? How is that not pro-abortion? Because it's certainly not pro-choice. Now, to be fair, you are not Senator Warren, or Senator Menendez. Perhaps you feel differently than them. I understand that most pro-choice people are "somewhere in the middle". Most pro-choice people aren't in favor of abortions all the way through the 9th month. Most pro-choice people don't want babies to have their skulls crushed as they are born. I get that. And these people are mostly OK with me. I will tell you. Even though I am 100% pro-life, if we lived in a world where abortion after 6 weeks was banned, I wouldn't be fighting right now. I'd be pretty dang happy. I still think all human life should be protected and is deserving of rights. BUT, my issue right now is that even though these people are moderate, the laws are not. 7 states! And D.C.! Abortion is legal throughout all 9-10 months. So until the democratic party and pro-choice movement changes their stance here, I view this as extremist. All 9 months is extremist in my view. What counts are the laws people vote for. And sadly, I think many are unaware. ---- Abortions are safer the earlier they are carried out, so, inform yourself before engaging in a debate. So I will say again as I guess you missed it. There is no need to abort a baby early because the mother might experience problems later in pregnancy. There's a good chance that if problems arise, the baby will already be viable. If and when problems arise, the baby can be delivered early, based on an OB's medical assessment. If the baby is viable, then they have a fighting chance. If the baby is not viable, then at least everyone tried and did the best they could. The baby can die in peace rather than be dismembered. No one is suggesting a woman die from pregnancy. Did you watch the video I posted? I don't know about America, but in the UK, it is performed before 24 weeks and no later. 24 weeks is 6 months pregnant. The baby is capable of feeling, is conscious, and experiences pain. That is atrocious to me. Do you know how a 24 week baby is aborted? Firstly, the cervix is dilated 24-72 hours in advance. Then, the mother receives local anesthesia (nothing for the baby). Then, a weighted speculum is used to open the birth canal. Then, a sopher clamp is used to dismember the limbs of the baby, starting with the legs, then the arms, the torso, and lastly the head, which is then crushed. All while the baby is still alive. Lastly, the abortionist must assemble all of the limbs and baby parts to make sure the entire baby is removed from the mother, and nothing left behind that could cause infection. If you are not happy about how long pregnant women are allowed to leave it (at their own peril, not yours, mind you!) in your country, perhaps you should contest it on the basis that an unborn baby at 9 months already has a formed brain, but if that's the reason then you have absolutely no leg to stand on in reasoning that all types of abortions must me outlawed. I contest it on the basis that ALL humans deserve equal rights. 9 months, 6 months, 13 years, and 2 weeks old. Whether or not the baby has a formed brain does not change my opinion, however, there is no question that it is worse. Simply because not ONLY are we stealing a life, but now we are adding suffering and cruelty on top of it. You are simply wrong when you include embryos because they are not people! They are not human beings and to say so is simply deluded. I don't know what pseudoscientific sources you are looking are but real science does not support your view. OK, I guess you need more? Princeton University is pseudoscience? Doctors are pseudoscience? Biologists are pseudoscience? "When Does Human Life Begin? Fertilization Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception. "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote." "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)." Source: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/a...yoquotes2.html From the American College of Pediatricians: "ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins." Source: https://acpeds.org/position-statemen...an-life-begins American College of Pediatricians is pseudoscience? If an embryo or a fetus is not human, then what is it? We know it's alive. We know it's growing. We know it's self directed. We know it can't be a member of any other species. We know it's DNA is unique. We know it's not part of the mother or father. So what is it then? Now, the argument of personhood, as I said before, is very different from the argument of being a human. This argument can be made. I disagree with this argument, and I think it's full of slippery slopes, but it can be made. If, as we believe, human embryos are human beings who deserve the same basic respect we accord to human beings at later developmental stages, then research that involves deliberately dismembering embryonic humans in order to use their cells for the benefit of others is inherently wrong. I agree. I don't think we should be playing with human life like that. But once again, we're really straying from the issue of elective abortion. In short, cells don't have brains and, although considered organic matter which constitutes life (as opposed to inorganic) a dozen of them do not make a person—the levels of cognition that necessitate a brain are simply not present; embryos are merely a mechanism in potentia. As I explained before, a lifeform isn't necessarily conscious. You ought to look at neurological evidence: the embryo is not capable of suffering and to say so is baseless and goes against everything we know so far about functional cerebral matter and its mental faculties. Human development beginning at fertilisation does not support the erroneous notion that at the initial stages it is already a fully-fledged human being, as it were, it just says the cells mechanistically divide and could lead to a healthy baby if allowed to progress. (By the way, no guarantees the unborn will be healthy or optimally functional as a person to say nothing of the fact that nature has its miscarriages.) So you agree that they are alive - good start. As I said before, and as I quoted that beautiful text earlier, "It follows that it cannot be the case that some human beings and not others are intrinsically valuable, by virtue of a certain degree of development. Rather, human beings are intrinsically valuable in the way that allows us to ascribe to them equality and basic rights in virtue of what they are; and all human beings are intrinsically valuable." I don't ascribe human value to how developed ones brain is, or any other condition. I ascribe human value based simply on what they are (human). Not what they can do or cannot do. That's a slippery slope. By the way, no guarantees the unborn will be healthy or optimally functional as a person to say nothing of the fact that nature has its miscarriages. That doesn't take away ones humanity. ----------- There is no divine, higher power driving the process of gestation, Hilary, no evidence that such is true whatsoever other than basic and molecular cause-and-effect. And you say that as fact? You can prove it? You can prove there's no divine source of any kind? Because you're stating it like fact rather than a viewpoint. At least I stated mine as a viewpoint, and admittedly, not fact. I can't prove there's any divine nature just as you can't prove there isn't. I know you said you are not religious but I suspect you are allowing your New Age beliefs, which, let's face it, are part of and influenced by religions such as Wicca and Madame Blavatsky's spiritualism, to cloud your judgement here. You claim that science supports you but it really doesn't and the epistemology of the articles you provided are fallacious. At heart, your stance comes from a position of sentimentalism and, in part, a phony kind of sanctimony. I have spiritual views. My spiritual views shouldn't be coming into this discussion. For me, this issue is about human rights, and the fact that abortion is a moral wrong. Believe it or not, people's views ARE allowed to be affected by their spiritual or religious beliefs, no matter what they are. And that does NOT make their views wrong, as you are suggesting. Perhaps you might need to do a little bit of soul searching to come to an understanding of other points of views out there in the world. Maybe you are a little biased as an atheist. Possible? False and false again. DNA is nothing but molecular codes with 'instructions', so to speak, with the potential to lead to something else as I have already explained before. The precursor of the offspring is 50% the mother's genetic makeup and 50% the father's, which, having been shuffled leads to an original mitosis of new tissue growth not wholly or necessarily unlike that of the parents. It is, therefore, a fallacy to claim that embryos are completely self-directed. It is all a set of instructions from nature's structures whose action cascades through time in a deterministic process. It's not 50/50 actually, there are mutations that are entirely unique to the child. So you're wrong on that one. "Embryonic development has been traditionally seen as an inductive process directed by exogenous maternal inputs and extra-embryonic signals. Increasing evidence, however, is showing that, in addition to exogenous signals, the development of the embryo involves endogenous self-organization." Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8185431/ Self-direction is helpful because it shows to us that the embryo is NOT a part of the mother's body, but rather a separate entity. Are you arguing that an embryo is part of the mother's body? Let's make an important distinction here: I am the first one to say that generally you are not a fully mature/developed human being until you reach around the age of 25, when your cortex is fully formed and protected by myelin. But to all intents and purposes here, and if you insist on being pedantic, let us say that, when I refer to a baby as a fully-fledged human being I mean a physically recognisable anthropoid with developed and functional organs for his or her survival to bear fruit, albeit in their infancy. This does not, as far as I'm aware, take away from my argument. And it is not about talking—again you seem to deliberately misconstrue my argument—it is about sentience and awareness. Babies are already capable of suffering. The cry of a newborn says it all. Fetuses are also capable of suffering. Some emerging science is showing as early as 11 weeks gestation. Most science shows from 15-20 weeks. Starting in the later first trimester, during an abortion, the fetus will move away from abortion instruments and attempt to fight for its life. You say it doesn't take away from your argument. But it's a slippery slope. At what point does a human become a human? When they're born? That's a very grey line. Babies can be born at 30 weeks, 40 weeks, 25 weeks. Natural or induced. Why is it that the 3 inch birth canal (or C-section) determines ones species? Sentience and awareness happen before birth. We don't know exactly when. I say, let's err on the side of caution. There's nothing that says there isn't some form of human consciousness at conception. There very well might be, even if there are not sensory inputs or brain to interpret the consciousness. Not a human? No consciousness yet? This is different from a newborn baby? The cry of a newborn says it all. "In 2005 New Zealand researchers conducted one of the most influential studies Trusted Source on babies crying in the womb, providing an ultrasound video of what they interpreted to be a crying baby. They broke the cry down into multiple steps, or a series of body motions and breathing (rather than just sound) to confirm that the baby was crying. Before this study, only four behavioral, fetal states had been proven to exist, including quiet, active, sleep, and awake states. However, the findings revealed a new state, referred to as 5F, which is the state of crying behaviors." Source -------------------- I will continue this discussion with you later. Really, this has taken my whole day. And it's the last thing I've wanted to do. But, I will do it, because other opinions need to be heard. I am very disappointed in you and cannot express enough how abhorrent I think your extremely dictatorial right-wing views are. I kindly ask that you increase the level of respect in your following posts to me.