Not saying its human. Its life.
Then so is a fetus. In order for it to be "human" is to be completely developed.
@Aiko_E_Lara Sure, but obviously not all life is on the same level. We care more for a fetus and restrict women’s rights.
And it only depends on people on how much default values on it. And that doesn't mean they have to push their point of view into the law book. Pro choice doesn't even try to get pro-life arrested.
@Aiko_E_Lara They shouldn’t be. Just don’t push pro life beliefs onto pro choicers. Obviously Planned Parenthood has demand.
@OddBeMe how is saying your not allowed to kill some one a restriction on women's rights? Does the fetus just appear? No, she has to have sex in order for it to exist so she made it come into existence. She also has the right to use any of the many different forms of birth control to prevent pregnancy. So clearly its not her rights that are being violated, she is violating the rights of the fetus by creating it and then murdering it because its to inconvient to care for. I mean if we argue development determines whether or not something is human then by that reasoning any one under the age of 23 is not human as they have not fully developed. The mental gymnastics required for your world view seems really exhausting.
And that's a human just appear? No. She has to let it grow first in order for it to become a human being. It is still on you if you want to put a value on a fetus but you can speak for yourself because not everyone think the same way you do. How about if i put lost for prolife trying to force a girl to give birth even if she doesn't want to? Now it would be fair. It's not your rights to actually force someone to keep something she don't want.
*Does a human just appear?
@Aiko_E_Lara No, she just has to have her egg fertilized. Again, if your going by your reasoning their is no such thing as a human being that is under the age of 23, either it happens at conception or it happens at full development, you can't play it both ways, you can't say that they need time to develop but only a certain amount of time for development but not another. If an undeveloped person is not in fact a person then being undeveloped is your criteria for non person hood and that means every one under the age of 23 is not a person ergo killing a child who is ten years old is not murder, its abortion. Or you go by how science defines it and acknowledge its a person at conception because that is where its genetic profile says its a human being.
@hellionthesagereborn "she just has to have her egg fertilized." In your point of view. However anyone can disagree. And since when was age even talked about here? I mean you're the one who's comparing an under 22 years old to something that can't even talk, say anything, make a sound, remember stuff, having a reputation, social image nor even a name. All im saying is if that fetus isn't out yet. And not all countries even have a fetal certificate but a birth certificate is a universal thing. Im not talking about age here so that's like a terrible comparison. So if that's the case, then each time a sperm is produced is going to be considered a human because a sperm is still produced. They don't appear for no reason. They are produced FYI. Yeah your science when it's convent for you. All what science said that a fetus is a life form but it's pro lifes like you who just wanna make a strawman argument saying it is a human life. What if I told you, even a scientist can be a pro choice because it's still only a matter of point of view.
And also it takes a live human being to make a sperm and an egg cell. So what are you thinking? They're made in factories that they don't really value the same as a fetus?
@Aiko_E_Lara No you can't disagree, that is science. I mean you can disagree but your going to be wrong, its kind of like arguing that the world is flat, you can do it but every one who understand reality is going to look at you like your insane (because you will be). No you didn't talk about age, that was my point. You said "In order for it to be "human" is to be completely developed." And I was pointing out that by that reasoning anyone under the age of 23 is NOT human as they haven't fully developed according to scientific data. So either you believe that every single person under the age of 23 isn't human and therefore you can kill them at whim just like you can with a fetus, or you go with science and agree that life starts at conception as that is when the genetics show it as a distinct living organism and by extension person. Its one or the other, you don't get to just choose your rules arbitrarily (at least while still remaining logical and rational), you must adhere to that reasoning one way or another. So is a ten year old child not a person or is a fetus a person? Its one or the other.
@Aiko_E_Lara As for your second statement, I have no idea what your talking about, no one said anything even remotely close to what your suggesting so why are you saying it? Are you trying to argue that sperm is a human? Because its not, it doesn't reproduce, it doesn't consume resources and produce waste etc. It does not have any of the traits that would define it as a living organism, just tissue. Again, this is science (and something you should have been taught in grade school).
@hellionthesagereborn Again. all science had said that it's a living thing. They never said it's a human life. You're the one whos saying it. You're bringing up a new irrelevant topic here when im talking about a fetus. Ok go ahead and explain how a flat earther and a pro choice are thesame? Go a head and explain how a fetus have something to do with earth? "In order for it to be "human" is to be completely developed." <-- because that's a point of view just like how you said "in order for it to become a human, it has to be a fetus" <-- because that's also your point of view and that's not a fact. Because if you keep justifying it's a fact then I can do the same thing. If i have to sound like you, you're just disagreeing with science saying it's not a human if it's not born. It's not even science that agree that life starts at conception it's just people like you just because it has those criteria you consider. But what in fact it still doesn't have is a shape of a human being. "Its one or the other, you don't get to just choose your rules arbitrarily (at least while still remaining logical and rational), you must adhere to that reasoning one way or another." <--- that's your qualification. Not everyone else's qualification.
@hellionthesagereborn "So is a ten year old child not a person or is a fetus a person?" <-- do you think a 10 year old is a fetus? Tell me how that's a valid comparison?
@hellionthesagereborn Anyone can make their own qualification. Anyone can make their own criteria. "Its one or the other, you don't get to just choose your rules arbitrarily (at least while still remaining logical and rational), you must adhere to that reasoning one way or another." Sure science said that but according to pro lifes, that's what makes it a human. Not science. They provide data that's objective and they don't interfere with point of views. And you're still ignoring the fact that pro choice scientists still exist.
@hellionthesagereborn "As for your second statement, I have no idea what your talking about, no one said anything even remotely close to what your suggesting so why are you saying it? Are you trying to argue that sperm is a human?" <-- for the same reason you're strawmanning about a fetus being a human. Because it's not.
@hellionthesagereborn Look. No one gives a damn about what you believe. We do give a damn if you're such an anti choice because of your feelings. What if you believe it's a human life just because of what science provided? Science also provided that a fetus don't function like a born human being. You're entitled to your own criteria for it but pushing your beliefs in the law book is crossing the line. How about we arrest people like you for having that view? That would still be fair
@Aiko_E_Lara No science does say its a human being, its alive based upon how we define "living" and it is genetically human ergo it is a living human. This is not rocket science, its just seeing the definitions and applying them. As for your flat earther comment, I have already explained how they are the same, they both ignore scientific data so they can hold onto a belief they like more. Its very straightforward (as all of this is).As for your other "arguments", your wrong. You stated it has to be (fully) developed, I pointed out by that rational every one under the age of 23 is not human by YOUR LOGIC. This is a fact, humans do not finish their development until about 23 so this is based upon, again, YOUR LOGIC. Your the one arguing against your own argument. For the second part, no, again, according to scientific data a fetus is alive and is a human being based upon its genetic code ergo it is a living human being. By SCIENTIFIC FACT. So that is not an opinion, that is a fact. Again, this is incredibly straightforward and the only reason why your struggling with this is because your desperately trying to rationalize your position that is flying in the face of reason and facts. Accept the truth and you won't have to do all of these mental gymnastics to try and justify your postion, you can just state the truth (its much easier). So again, their is no argument here, their is what the science says and then their is what you are saying, so either you are pro science or you are anti science, this is the argument and you have chosen to be antiscience.
It is your science that said it. You're still ignoring the fact that there exists a lot of pro-choice scientists. Yes that's what they say it is a living thing but for you because it is a living thing that is how you qualify why you say it is a human being. And little do you know that a sperm cell is also a living thing and it's not a rocket science.What science provide is objective facts that anyone can see. Earth is round objectively therefore earth is round. On the other hand saying a fetus is a human because it's a living thing just doesn't make it a human because it's a fetus. Is the very same thing why sperm is a living thing and we don't consider it as a human life. It's only you who consider a fetus a human life. That was science only talk about it is a living thing but it's you who saying it's a human life. There are still many scientist who say it is not a human life just like what no choice believe but yeah you only wanna believe it a fact on what is convenient to you. What are you a narcissist?But you're the one who is saying that a 22 year-old is not a human being if that is the case but however i am only saying that it is not a human being if it's not born yet. So it is basically you who is comparing a fetus to a 22 year old. my qualification says a fetus being unborn is not a human being or a human life.
Yeah you're just repeating what you said at this point. You know what? I can keep repeating the part where i said that it is a human being according to you not according to science because objective reality says that it is alive but it's up to you on how you consider it to be. Like a fetus can't even talk or think or even remember anything and it has no certificate or whatever. that is nothing compared to a 22 year old example you're trying to give. You can search a scientific fact all you want because it's convenient for you but however i can also say the scientific fact that what makes a human being is to be born. How about if i say it a fact because that is what pro-choice scientists said. So it's really easy to make a no true scotsman fallacy out of it just make a science and it is a living thing to your going to put your notion saying it is a human being already and that a no true scotsman fallacy. Anyone can also say hitler likes dogs and you like dogs too that means you're a nazi. But that's not how the world works and even social science proves that fallacy.
Another point would be you're the one who is saying a fetus and a human is the same, because science and so that i can say a fetus and a sperm and an egg is this same because science said so.This is another point about the point of view of i'm talking about and you're not the only one with point of views. In this argument you still failed to see what social science have to offer. So what you think this is no argument? Well it is only an argument if you say things do you? It's only an argument if it's your point of view or if it appeals to you but not if you disagree. like a narcissist
@Aiko_E_Lara No. This isn't a pro choice argument, some one asked when does some one start being a human being and according to science that is at conception. Again , this isn't an argument. I get it, you want to be able to escape from a stupid choice you made, you want to be able to murder your offspring (murder accordign to law as under any other circumstance killing a fetus is recognized as murder) so you dont have to be responsible adult, I get it but that doesn't alter the science. Your not understanding because you have chosen not to understand. Science isn't an opinion, its facts so when I state that science recognizes something as separate and distinct through genetics, that is a fact, science recognizes speices based upon genetics, that is a fact, science recognizes something as alive based upon several criteria (which i have already listed), that is a fact. Their was no opinions given, only facts. I'm sorry science doesn't say what you want it to say but that is life, science is science opinion is opinion and your arguing opinion while I'm arguing science. So again, you are wrong across the board and at every level according to science. If you wanted to argue you personally don't se a person as a person until they are fully developed fine, but you would also have to say that murdering your seventeen or twenty year old child is abortion not murder. You obviously can't make that argument (because even you know that, that would be crossing a line) so now your trying to claim that since their are some scientists that are "pro choice"(pro abortion, you choose to get pregnant, its not something that just happens) that all of science is wrong. That is not how it works, you need to do a lot more research on science if you think that opinion sways scientific facts.
@hellionthesagereborn It's not a pro choice argument only because you're just being comfortable at your own views at this point. If it's not with an argument then there would be no pro life and pro choice happening. But it does happened because everybody has their own point of view. Anyone can also see your point of view is an obsolete religious point of view when only trying to use the word science to make your feelings seem more valid. Literally this is like one of those supremacist saying that anyone who is not a christian should go to hell and you can just say it is proven by science instead and of course you still don't realize how wrong you are. What you still don't realize is sure you are giving scientific facts with your OPINION as the conclusion. There is still a difference between data given your conclusion. The data maybe a fact but your conclusion is not and science is not exactly saying your conclusion is a fact because again there are still many features scientists out there which you still fail to acknowledge and you just want to ignore. Also science never said anyone's point of view is a fact. The data science give is not a point of view but your conclusion is. This is why you still fail to see the difference between pro choice and pro abortion. Even if the pregnancy was an accident and the girl chose to keep the "child". Do we actually care? No because that's their choice. And this is why we are pro choice for a reason unlike the other way around. So yes saying "because Science said so" not how things work. No true scotsman fallacy is also not how things work. So what's next? "But the fetus will turn into a human" <--- the kind of statement can basically be debunked by English itself. So if it "will" be, that just means it's not "yet" So saying "will" is just gonna prove our point.
"many pro choice scientists out there" Here you go. This is also what science said blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../
@hellionthesagereborn I see you're talking about "murder" again. Still tho, most of your statments are still basing it in your point of views. It's kinda like circular reasoning at this point. "it's murder because it's a human life because science said so it's a human life and so on" But still what you only gave to justify your circular reasoning is yeah you can give something a fetus have humans also have. I can also say "sperm moves and humans move so that means sperm is a human" and that's a no true scots man fallacy. You're still ignoring the fact about what a fetus don't have but a human have which is what I use to justify my point of view to stop circular reasoning. And sure go be a supremacist without thinking about how evil you are just like those "holy" roman empires crucifying people who don't believe in Christ. You're basically sounding like them. Remember when you said "You're not giving any argument" Which is ironic. All i see are fallacies from you. All you do is "just because" fallacy. So im basically using English, Social Science and Biology to prove my point. I don't see anything else from you other than just saying "It's a fact because science said so"
@Aiko_E_Lara @Aiko_E_Lara By law it is murder, thats why I said it. I even clarified it, by law if a man attacks a pregnant woman and she loses the baby as a result it is considered murder ergo killing a fetus under the law is murder. So legally abortion, which is killing a fetus, is murder. You don't have to like the word (of course you don't, it says what it is and it doesn't sound good and thats why your upset with the term), but that is precisely what it is under the law. My statements are not based upon my point of view yours are. When I state that based upon scientific facts that a fetus is a human life, thats not an opinion. What defines something as being a living thing? Its able to maintain hemostasis, it consumes "food/nutrients" and produces waste, it has the capacity to reproduce etc. Does a fetus have these things? Yes. SO it is BY SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION a living thing (not a tissue). How does science define something as human or not? By genetics, does a fetus have human genetic code? Yes. Is it alive? Yes. Ergo based upon scientific data, it is a living human. Again, this is not opinion. The only one spouting opinion is you. Your saying that its not murder because you say so, its not human because you say so. These are not scientific facts, they are not legal facts, they are opinions and poorly argued ones at that. You are wrong, this is a fact.
@Aiko_E_Lara IF your going to argue that its not alive you have to be able to understand what the difference between alive and not alive are and define them, you haven't done that. You need to explain why the scientific definition is not correct, you haven't done that. You need to understand how we define someone as human or not, you haven't done that. You have to then explain why the way science does it is wrong, you haven't done that. You need to create a cogent argument that is consistent in application (i. e. back to your "fully developed" argument), you haven't done that. So you are spewing out an opinion because you don't like the idea of being responsible for your actions because your argument by its nature is about avoiding responsibility as it constantly shifts and the only consistency within it is the argument that you should be allowed to abort a child because you don't want to be responsible for it, thats the only thing consistent within your arguments. So again, you are wrong, this is a scientific fact you don't have to like it, you don't even have to claim to believe it, but it will never the less always be true and you opposing it is opposing science and the truth.
@hellionthesagereborn It's not alive vs not alive. Its body autonomy over violation.
@hellionthesagereborn And there are also other regions where it is completely legal to abort because it's not murder by law. On the other hand it's people like using it "should" be murder because there are society where we don't consider it as murder. And they don't consider it as murder for reasons and i ready give you reasons why. Oh yes i see that argument a lot saying that if you kill a girl with a fetus and it, you're going to be charged twice. However you can be charged over something that isn't even a living thing. So a fetus may not be a human but it is still considered as someone else's property which you destroyed. You can get charged for killing your neighbors chicken but you don't get charged for slaughtering your own. If i talk about something that isn't even a living thing, if you destroy a car with a person inside of it then you're going to be charged double for destroying the car which is not your property and that person.
@hellionthesagereborn "My statements are not based upon my point of view yours are." <-- it's easy for you to say that you are still ignoring the fact that not all society is the same of the also society where it is completely legal abort. and it is not even just USA i'm talking about. So what? It is only a point of view if we disagree with you but it's not a point of you if you say so? What is the hypocrisy game you're trying to pull?
@hellionthesagereborn It is in fact that he still has a genetic by the way of fetus lives is not the same as how i human live and it is also proven by science and in fact they don't participate in our real world which is why they don't have any official records society have for them in order for them to have human rights. Because if that is the case a, jailed mother for "killing her child (fetus)" should be free after giving birth because she is basically bringing a new life so it just means he is an opposite of a villain who just destroyed her fetus. Or even if she wasn't jailed she should be rewarded tons of dollars for bringing a new life. However society don't do that but all you pro life care is if she kills. You don't really care that she actually gives birth because if you really do then you should make them entitled for it. If you get to choose, should they deserve money for giving birth or make abortion legal? Because if i have to choose, i would choose the abortion making legal just like the rest of the world because that is an easier solution. One more thing is you don't really care if a child is going to be depressed or malnourished going up because he is being unwanted from the start and ignoring the fact how many children in orphanage waiting to be adopted. You don't care about the population being over 7.5 billion people around this planet. All you do care is as long as he is born but you don't care about the population polluting the world killing more other animals than you think. All that for giving a fetus a human rights. And it is not that hard to understand even if you are going to argue.
@Aiko_E_Lara doesn’t the Bible not count a person until like month 2 after birth?
And isn't the bible itself full of notions?
Who cares what the bible says? I'm talking science not religion. As for the fetus not living the same way, okay, but why? Because the mother and father created it and it is dependent on the mother and father until it reaches full maturity. By your reasoning an infant isn't a full human because it doesn't live the same way a "human" does i. e. entirely dependent on breastmilk to live and for others to literally do everything but breath for it. By your reasoning any child under the age of ten isn't a human because they also don't live like "humans" do. Which if that is your argument fine, I think its fucked up but at least its logically consistent. The problem is this ISN"T what your arguing, your arguing that because a fetus isn't fully developed it isn't human but a child that isn't fully developed is because. . . you say so. That is completely inconsistent reasoning. If you argued that because a fetus is dependent on its mother that it is legally allowed to be murdered/killed/what ever pretty word you want to use to try and convince yourself its not the taking of a human life so you can live with yourself, that would be fine if you also said the same about infants and invalids who are in the same exact situation. But your not arguing that, your arguing that it applies to the fetus but the same exact reasoning doesn't apply to anyone else. Your logically inconsistent i. e. illogical. Your also ignoring scientific data, yet again, because you don't want to be responsible you just want to do what ever you want without consequence and/or seem moral by allowing some one else to be irresponsible (since the fetus doesn't exist unless the mother and father make it exist (so you could avoid the entire situation just by not having sex or using contraceptive which is insanely commonplace and cheap).
@hellionthesagereborn But enough the one exactly using the bible to reason things out. I'm also using science and thats why i had a good reason not to use the bible. And there you are again talking about infants here. So are basically comparing a fetus to an infant. This is why if i have to argue at your level i can also compare a fetus to a sperm cell. As I already told you that the fetus is also a living thing according to science it also came from a human being. Only because it has no qualification from you does it make it a human being because there are also many things that a fetus don't have that an infant have that you like to compare so much. "Your arguing that because a fetus isn't fully developed it isn't human but a child that isn't fully developed is because. . . you say so" You know it is the very same thing. You are saying that a fetus is already a human life because you said so. And of course you don't think you are being inconsistent for whatever reason. Oh now what? you're just going to say "It's not because I said so" Then same here. it's not because i said so i'm already proven to you. there are a lot of societies out there that are even pro choice and i already told you that there are also pro choice scientist which is still failed to acknowledge. What i'm still saying that this is still in fact a point of view. I'm not even saying that mine is a fact. Your opinion is not a fact either. There are still many mysteries science can solve but you can jump to your own conclusion saying it a fact. Anyone can say that god created earth is a fact for anyone can see that a big bang theory is a fact despite not even being there to witness it themselves. Those are still point of you and you are so entitled to yours that you are so desperate to push your beliefs into the law book.
@hellionthesagereborn "so you could avoid the entire situation just by not having sex or using contraceptive which is insanely commonplace and cheap" <-- Then in that case, if you're such a pro choice, go fuck and impregnate all girls. Now does that mean so?
@Aiko_E_Lara I have no idea what your talking about. As stated pregnancy is a choice, you choose to engage in the reproductive act and we have multiple ways to avoid the consequences of it so at that point if your pregnant you wanted it to happen or didn't care that it would happen so its a moot point even if we ignored everything else. The fact that your trying to sidestep and move the goal post shows that you have no argument here (and you don't). So either admit to what it is or change your view but stop lying to yourself and every one else because no one, yourself included isn't buying it.
It doesn't take a genius to understand what i'm talking about because i'm also saying that abortion is a choice. If you have the choice to make something then you also the choice to destroy it. It is their choice to avoid their own consequences. What are you still thinking? We are pro abortion? Again since when do we even care if the mother chooses to keep her child as a choice? As far as we know, only you care if they abort them. We don't really care if it's the other way around. And isn't actually trying to put your point of view into the law book using your no true scotsman fallacy not even an argument itself? Again why do you still think that other countries don't believe that abortion should be illegal and why do you even think that there are scientist who are pro choice? You have been dodging that question ever since because all you wanna give is your own circular reasoning. So if you are saying i am wrong then you're also wrong and if we are both wrong then we are both opinionated in fact. Your conclusion is nowhere near truthful that is just your theory. And if you keep saying because science and so, you still keep failing to realize that science can theories too. https://ncse.ngo/theory-and-fact as for your strawman argument saying no one would agree with me, i just prove you wrong few replies ago so how about you stop lying to yourself and admit you're just being a narcissist and a supremacist at this point?
Also another common argument i'd like to highlight is when you talk about "If you don't want to be pregnant and keep your legs closed" <--- that is basically what you are saying if you are talking about "choice". So how about if i see if you're such a pro life, why don't you go and fuck and impregnate as many girls as you want? If we aren't pro choice then we're not going to give you the choice but we're just going to force you to. There are going to be consequences in abortion which i am aware of but law should have nothing to do with that. There is going to be hormonal imbalances, the risk of death and even the cost of it. Those are consequences enough but you still wanna includes a law because "notions"
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Or they never existed since brain activity is non existent.
Well with tuition prices these days I would too.
I'd kill it even if it was the next Stephen Hawking. Haha
But, the problem with masturbation (that you infer) is when you ejaculates, the sperm goes to a paper towel and and to the garbage. Without any purpose spermatozoids will die wasted. But, if the guy instead of this just swallows his own sperm, the little ones will be reabsorb by the body and transforms in energy
Or be eaten alive by stomach acid.
And then retransform into Energy by the body
In any case isn't a lost
Sperm is life. It sniffs!
Hey, look if it got up your nose that's my issue lol. You should probably go blow that..
No... sperm cells sniff. They have old factory glands.
And a fetus doesn’t gain consciousness until the third trimester.
Genetically it's half a life.
And children have dna from their parents. It’s all life and should be protected. Masturbation is murder!
Stop killing random cells in your body then. Scratching is murder too
Yeah you’re right. Let’s just stop telling people what to do with their bodies.
As long as it doesn't harm another person I'm down
whats a person? right now its birth.
In my belief conception is life
When is conception? I don’t think even scientists can pinpoint it.
I'm not sure, but I know it happens within a week usually.
You monster. Eggs are life.
@Anonymous GREAT RETORT to an obvious IDIOT!!! LOL!! You rock!!If this idiot had his way, the Earth would be overpopulated, and everyone would be dying of starvation, with all the children using EVERY Egg!! LOL!!
@JackSmy You obviously don’t recognize a sarcastic post.
@OddBeMe And MANY studies have said, that text is a problem, and causes confusion, as the vocal inflections, the looks, the body language is not there!Don't judge me, for not understanding your sarcasm, and maybe Dark Whit! I mean no offense, and I relied as to what I interpreted! However, in this case, the way you said it, and with both, eggs, and sperm, I think now, when at least two have called you out, you are trying to pretend you 'didn't mean it' and calling it sarcasm! That EVIL, is not 'Sarcasm', but pure hatred, and something you need to get help with, before you do something really angry and bad!Posts like this, and maybe your next, will get you on Government "Watch Lists!!"
You enabled genocide you monster!
And another time we did anal... oh the humanity.
All those poor children in your gf’s butt.