«12. . .2,4612,4622,4632,4642,4652,4662,467. . .2,5142,515»
I just got a strange thought, you know the "Vat Produced Infants" idea that you see as a policy in NS? I wonder if the "Vat Grown Infants" actually have a soul and go to heaven or hell... and if not, are they really human?
It's a far-fetched thought of mine, but I feel like there's a whole can of worms to be opened on ethics and spirituality, that is going to have to be tackled at some point
(And Incase you are wondering, I am a Christian for some context)
Um, I don't think that using any kind of womb replacement technology would affect the child's conception.
That born people can vote to deny the rights of the voiceless unborn is as much a flaw in a conception of democracy as to have masters democratically vote to deny the rights of voiceless slaves.
*Opens Twitter*
NHS is trying to take a baby girl off life support instead of being allowed to seek treatment in Italy
*Closes Twitter*
*Opens Reddit*
Is Vivek Ramaswamy the Anti-Christ
*Closes Reddit*
*Opens Ground News*
Alabama is going to execute a man like he’s poultry
Yeah, that’s enough Internet for the day
Horatius Cocles, Coal Belt, New Kiwis, Steel Belt Empire, and 2 othersFallen Babylon, and Lobbelliessunzolord
The Internet can be a strange place. Pretty much a computerized Twilight Zone.
Watched the GOP debate last night, first one I have gone through the full thing of. Was fine. Plenty of hedging on the life issue, could have been worse, certainly could have been better. Nikki Haley, though, is certainly off the table for me after that performance. Saying "I don't judge anyone for being pro-choice and I hope they don't judge me for being pro-life" is just incredible weak on its face. Even if one does not agree with the position, that framing wins no-one, it makes the position seem like something you are ashamed of and hope can just be tolerated.
On its own, that is just weak, but contrasted with Haley's hyperaggression on foreign intervention and Ukraine, it just rings as absurd. She went out of her way in the debate on Ukraine funding to crow about how Putin and Xi would love to have Ramaswamy in the White House, and was spitting fire on that topic the entire segment. I am on record as being outright against Ramaswamy, but the idea that if someone says it should be legal to kill a child you don't judge them, but if someone doesn't want the U.S. involved in spending domestic tax revenues on overseas conflicts you consider them a dictatorial stooge is just caricature. It is transparently obvious that Haley is entirely willing to harshly judge someone who disagrees with her, she just does not have the spine to offer anything above mewling when it comes to abortion.
Coal Belt, New Kiwis, Steel Belt Empire, and Pax et deus
2 things before i leave
1. unborn babys are unborn meaning they dont get rights because they aint human yet
2. abortion is healthcare and must always be legal
Interesting that you still refer to them as babies...
Im new here and dont know much about abortion topic, so ill just use simple logic, common sense and general knowledge to try defeat your argument:
- You say babies are not human before they are born, is that your view or view of majority?
- The baby is alive, eats and kicks in the womb, isnt this enough proof it is human already?
- It takes two humans to create new human, can we say the conception is already human, in formation phase?
- If majority agrees ending human life is wrong, then this appies to unborn humans as well, therefore it cant be part of healthcare, let alone healthcare. You cant care for their health if you just ended their life.
- Healthcare should not be politicized, therefore it is redudant to talk about abortion legality
And if all this is not enough;
- Abortion reduces the chances of next conception
- Increases risk of diseases
- Can ruin your body processes because your body prepared for pregnancy and now it suddenly isnt
- Can create mental problems as the mind prepared for pregnancy and childbirth but now it is suddenly cut short
they become babies when they are born aka when they start being alive
well being alive really starts at the first breath aka after birth
1. yes its my view even if i was alone in my view i would believe it
2. abortion is around before and during the 9 week stage aka when there basically cells only
the only point i will concede is during the 15 week stage the body starts to take shape but around 3 percent of abortions happen here so not that important to my argument.
3. no its still just a group of cells immediately after conception
4. if its unborn it isnt murder
5. ...no? should the president ban medical drugs because "HeAlThCaRe ShOuLd NoT bE pOlItIcIzEd"
also according to the NHS "Having an abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer or mental health issues.
Having an abortion will not affect your chances of becoming pregnant and having normal pregnancies in the future.
Many women are able to get pregnant immediately afterwards, so you should start using contraception right away if you do not want to get pregnant.
You should be offered the chance to talk about contraception at the time you have the abortion. If you choose a method of contraception, you should be able to get it from the hospital or clinic that provides your abortion.
There's a very small risk to your fertility and future pregnancies if you develop a womb infection that is not treated quickly. The infection could spread to your fallopian tubes and ovaries – known as pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).
PID can increase the risk of infertility or ectopic pregnancy, where an egg implants itself outside of the womb.
But most infections are treated before they reach this stage."
source:https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/abortion/risks/
Post self-deleted by Culture of Life.
Relegalization of abortion passed with 56.6% support, and legalization of marijuana passed with 57.0% support. Looking at the county-by-county map, I can't help but think that the voters who favored each referendum were pretty much the same people. You wouldn't think that the two issues would be connected. But given that they are, the takeaway seems profoundly negative. We live in a society where getting high and killing one's children is a socially acceptable way of getting on in the world. It's a legally protected and even celebrated way of life.
I thought her arguments were deeply problematic. They had a Mario Cuomo feel -- i.e., I'm personally pro-life, but I don't judge other people who kill their kids. Why should I have the right to impose my views about murder on others? Or maybe worse, a Stephen Douglas feel -- i.e., There's no such thing as objective right and wrong. Right and wrong are whatever the majority says they are. Just let voters decide.
The argument -- I respect other people's views about [insert horrific practice] -- is really just a stepping stone to engaging in the horrific practice for oneself. You can and should respect the person, but it's morally imperative to reject the person's position when it comes up as an issue.
Haley didn't do that in the debate. She treated a person's opinion about abortion as no different than a person's opinion about the best flavor of ice cream, or a preferred genre of music, or one's favorite season of the year.
This is a textbook example of a circular argument.
Does that make pregnancy a disease?
Do you have any science to back this up, or is this purely a religious claim?
I know that Stoics thought that 2,000 years ago, but how do you defend it today?
That argument could be made about any human being.
These are the seven characteristics of life that all living beings possess: Cellular organization, the ability to reproduce, growth & development, energy use, homeostasis, response to their environment, and the ability to adapt. Babies in the womb are made up of cells, are the product of reproduction, they grow, they use and require energy, their body needs maintain a stable equilibrium, and they respond to things around them. A baby, while still in its mother’s womb, possesses all seven characteristics of life. Meaning that by all biological standards, an unborn baby is alive and functioning, and therefore should be protected by law.
I found this piece from the BBC today on rising antisemitism/anti-Israel sentiment in Germany frustrating: it was clear that the undercurrent and origin of most of what it was talking about are attacks, protests, etc by Arabs and other Muslims who live in Germany (whether citizens or migrants), but they refused to in any way admit this and even casually pointed the finger at the far right at one point. This dishonestly creates a perception that a large part of the German population is Nazi-sympathetic (a certainly some are) just to avoid the real question: are the values and culture ideas of the large Arab/Muslim population that lives in Germany (and the rest of Europe) at odds with their historic culture and so-called 'western values'?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67368409
first off before any argument i have like 8 pages of ebay listings for fallout manuals anyway back to the regularly scheduled abortion debates
i will concede that after around 20-30 weeks pregnant the baby is alive but most abortions happen before that so not something we worry about.
no it doesnt. my claim is that abortion is healthcare and a choice for the mother to make it does not say that pregnancies are diseases.
ill skip the third entry thing because i conceded that point earlier (guess i am becoming more american yeehaw the joke is saying babies before birth are alive which is a american conservative point)
well no not really. the baby before 10-15 weeks does not have hard bones (for a unborn baby that is) does not have kidneys doesnt really have anything so it really is just a clump of cells
again i will concede that after around 20-30 weeks pregnant the baby is alive but most abortions happen before that so not something we worry about.
You say that before 20-30 weeks, the baby is not alive, with no evidence or argument to back up your claim. The baby is alive from the first cell. Cells are alive, this is basic biology. All living things are made out of them. The first cell grows, and then reproduces into more cells, these cells require energy to function. The individual cells adapt to more specific forms. This is the pattern of all living things. Your argument that consists of “no, because I said so” is incoherent.
The final tallies relative to each other are a bit interesting, abortion was leading marijuana by a decent margin, a few points, through the night, and was the first to be called, but apparently the later-reporting votes skewed more anti-abortion and pro-marijuana. Probably just a quirk of the data, but mildly notable. There was very slightly higher turnout on abortion, some people skipped the marijuana question, apparently.
I suppose the argument for the two issues being connected would be a broad sense of 'bodily autonomy', but if there was a third referendum on the ballot that night about vaccination mandates, that would most certainly reverse.
In regards to the issues winning with the same people/same areas, though, there is more differentiation than one might think, and there are two opposite trends. The most urban, liberal areas of the state, while voting in favor of both, had a gap in favoring abortion more than marijuana. Franklin County (Columbus) had abortion support as five points higher than marijuana, Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) was six points higher for abortion. (Cincinnati was about even, not sure what that means). On the flip side, the most conservative counties in the west of the state, rural, lower populations, not one county reached 70% opposition for cannabis, but seven had more than 70% opposition on abortion, one county broke 80%. Or to put it another way, abortion had a majority in 25 of the 88 counties, but marijuana did in 40 of 88. Of the 45 counties with under 25,000 votes cast, abortion was 2-for-45, and 0-for-33 in those below 15,000. Marijuana won 11 and 7, respectively. The least populous county in the state, Vinson County, rejected abortion by a 26-point margin, but actually approved marijuana by 4 points, which is a massive spread for two issues that ended up with about the same statewide percentage.
I am not quite sure offhand the reason for the urban/liberal areas favoring abortion more than marijuana. Perhaps there are some anti-marijuana votes in areas dealing with greater crime/gang violence, but that is frankly just speculation. For the flip side, marijuana votes in rural/conservative areas, that makes more sense. The typical stereotype is the young libertarian-ish conservative who is still likely anti-abortion but more into drug legalization, but while this is also somewhat speculative, there seems to be a more significant growing trend towards openness to marijuana among especially older conservative voters. Post-'reefer madness' it seems to be rising in popularity for 'casual' medicinal use, i.e., painkiller with 'bonus', more culturally accepted than it used to be.
This is purely anecdotal, but I had a recent experience at a gun-related event in a rural area, attendees were pretty much exclusively old and white, seemed broadly conservative, not just on guns, I would imagine that a strong majority of them would be anti-abortion, but just in casual conversation I had multiple people independently bring up their sort of 'casual medicinal' use of marijuana. It was surprising for the obvious reason of the remaining federal illegality, but there was no cultural stigma that I could detect, it seems like there is increasingly a shift away from the more traditional conservative 'hard-on-drugs' mindset. Could potentially have some tangential relation to fentanyl being seen as primarily an epidemic/health problem rather than a criminal/addict problem as drugs were more commonly viewed on the right in the 90s, but I think it is moreso just that marijuana's spread and diversification has itself softened opposition.
Before 20 weeks most of the baby is not developed so its not really alive but hell the general consensus is before the first breath the baby isn't alive
I'm going to assume that by "alive" you mean "a person", because the most intelligent arguments for abortion focus on personhood or human rights rather than trying to redefine the scientific concepts of "life" or "human being". So, what's the significance of the first breath? Are you basing personhood on viability? And what's with the first part of your comment? What's the significance of 20 weeks, and what do you mean by "most of the baby"?
Perhaps you will find this page helpful: https://secularprolife.org/index
How’s this for consensus:
“Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/
That's the thing. When abortion's supporters recite the slogan "abortion is healthcare," they either don't know what abortion is, they don't know what healthcare is, or they're changing healthcare's definition. Wikipedia's definition of healthcare is pretty standard (and doesn't require an online subscription to see): "Health care, or healthcare, is the improvement of health via the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, amelioration or cure of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairments in people."
I will acknowledge that some abortions are healthcare -- e.g., the removal of an ectopic pregnancy or of a prenatal child who has died. These sorts of abortions are performed to prevent an infection, which could potentially be deadly to the mother.
But in the vast majority of cases, abortions are not performed to care for someone's health. They are performed for a variety of reasons that are plainly elective. A medical doctor (M.D.) might perform the procedure, but he's not doing it for health reasons.
The difference between a therapeutic abortion and an elective abortion isn't difficult to understand. It's similar to, though morally more consequential than, the difference between breast reconstruction and breast augmentation. Both procedures look similar, and both are performed by a plastic surgeon. However, one is performed as part of treatment for disease, and the other is performed for elective reasons.
In the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, there's a very troubling phrase: "capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb." As far as I can tell, many pro-abortion arguments, including yours here, try to draw a line between "meaningful life" and unmeaningful life. I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to draw such a line -- not a judge, not a legislator, not a voter, and not an individual person. There should be a broad presumption in favor of human life, regardless of how "meaningful" or unmeaningful other people think it is. No one has the right to declare another's life unmeaningful.
Denying that unborn children are alive is really just another way of saying that their lives are unmeaningful to you. You're entitled to that opinion, but you should not impose it on the unborn children. They should have a chance to live as much as anyone else.
New Dolgaria, Horatius Cocles, Phydios, Imperii Ecclesia, and 6 othersCoal Belt, Francis, New Kiwis, Steel Belt Empire, Hrizion, and Pax et deus
while arguing abortion is cool and all imma head out of here so please ban me i dont want to come back here bye
«12. . .2,4612,4622,4632,4642,4652,4662,467. . .2,5142,515»
Advertisement
