Why do these so called pro lifers kill animals if they are against murder?

[Anonymous]

I mean if abortion is murder, so is killing animals are muder. After all these animals can breath, can feel pain, the hearts pounds. So why are pro lifers hypocritical?

Updates

+1 y

Would you be ok if someone use an organ against your will? If not , why should an embryo use my uterus aka my organ against my will? If I can't use any organ of you, why should anybody control over my body?

Updates

+1 y

And what is the point of bringing a mental and physical ill human being into a life? A pregnant woman need to be physically and mentally healthy and a forced pregnant woman can't be and would have mental problems which would affect the baby. And nobody adopt an ill kid and nobody of you evrn have adopted a healthy kid.

[Anonymous]

What I really don't understand about pro-lifers, is that they have such dedicated and profound interest in what is taking place inside a woman's womb, and profess such sacred interest in it. But once it's born, they let it suffer and have a miserable life. It's like they want to force a birth, so it can suffer. I see no humanity is that, I see no Christianity in that. I see no morality in that.

[PondyPand]

Aside from the Christianity comment though many are religious, you sir earn the award for being the first male Anon with a brain. I congratulate you.

[Opinion Owner]

@PondyPand : You may think otherwise, when I explain I am a Christian, and a fundamental Christian at that. I fully believe in the bible, and it being the word of God. I don't apologize for that.

[PondyPand]

I gathered you were. My issue is just adding about it being Christian or not. Plenty people aren't. That's all. I don't hate religious people outright, so you still have the award.

[Opinion Owner]

@PondyPand : )

[morimeme1]

Sadly it is true, I have had several in depth discussions with different pro-lifers, some tried different mental gymnastics to avoid the truth but some were honest enough about it - it alaays came down to the conclusion cause it's not really about the child but about the wish to punish the woman in that way for her choices (having sex). One of the few christians I have seen who do not fully agree with pro-lifers, reminded me of a christian youtuber God is Grey :)

[Wont-b-silenced]

50% of people are female. Life is suffering.

[morimeme1]

@Wont-b-silenced What does gender have to do with anything said on this thread?

[Wont-b-silenced]

@morimeme1 "What I really don't understand about pro-lifers, is that they have such dedicated and profound interest in what is taking place inside a woman's womb"

[morimeme1]

@Wont-b-silenced It appeads you did not understand the point of what he was saying cause it had nothing to do with actual interest in women's wellbeing.

[morimeme1]

*appears

[MackToday]

Because they don't use logic any more than the lunatics that think men can become women. They're nuts af.

[On_cloud_wine]

Some people were born with boobs and penises, and until they receive a DNA test, no one should assume what gender they really are.

[ObscuredBeyond]

To assume a woman in a ditch is of as little value as a deer in the field is as irrational as the trans lunatics.

[On_cloud_wine]

@ObscuredBeyond I’ve known people who’ve struggled with their identity their whole life. Science has backed them up with a simple test. All in all, I don’t know why God would allow it to happen. It’s the food we eat, the air we breathe. The devil’s work for sure.

[MackToday]

@On_cloud_wine Was good up until the devils work part obvious troll shit , gave the whole thing away.

[On_cloud_wine]

I’m a troll because I believe in God and you don’t. Okay.

[MackToday]

@On_cloud_wine Sure you do.

[On_cloud_wine]

I admit, I’ve had a falling out and I don’t feel as close to him anymore, but I’ve experienced enough to never question his existence.

[ObscuredBeyond]

@On_cloud_wine: Show me the chromosome fax is only necessary because we live in a cursed world. Every action, word, and thought that deviates from his plan for us, exacerbates that curse. Damages the very information making up our universe at the subatomic level. But we must be vigilant. Men will claim to feel like a woman just to gain access to children. Several library drag performers for kids have since been revealed to be registered sex offenders, who were using drag performances just to get away with violating restraining orders that forbade them to be within several miles of institutions where young children were present.

Since the 90s, it has been their ploy to repackage predation as "education. " This is right out of the old Kinsey playbook.

Our old rebel nature keeps trying to force God out of the world. But the second it gets even an inch closer to expelling him, the Devil tries to run the whole show. And the Old Adam is mide locked into being unable to learn anything from this, ever. So inside each of us lives a retarded demon. Stuck on stupid, but industrious to the extreme.

It's only God's refusal to completely leave, that the strong and weak nuclear forces haven't ceased to exist because of us. (Hebrews 1:3.)

[On_cloud_wine]

@ObscuredBeyond that’s disgusting. Do all trans know about this? Is this their reputation?

[morimeme1]

@On_cloud_wine Sadly due to certain disgusting individuals they do have a poor reputation and the community itself is very segmented. Many are just self diagnosed, do it for attention etc and many regret transitioning. Sadly due to all the push for tolerance and acceptance we are forced to accept it or be called transphobic and stuff while there are individuals who suffer as a result of it cause they have been actually medically diagnosed with gender dysphoria for which the only currently available treatment is gender reassingment. If you want to find some more from a voice of reason from that very community I suggest watch some videos of Blair White on youtube.

[On_cloud_wine]

@morimeme1 Blair White. Gotcha, TY

[jennifer_bloom]

Abortion MIGHT be murder but there is no scientific or biblical evidence that abortion is the same as murder. What there is obvious evidence of is that people in this world are starving because rich people in rich countries refuse to send them foreign aid. Before you tell me abortion is murder - I will ask you - how many starving kids in Africa did you kill by not sending them foreign aid?

[8balls]

So that is your excuse you tell yourself? I believe humans are the highest in the food chain, that gives us a right to choose over the rest, more or less. As long as the kill was made for survival, it is understandable, however if the kill was made out of vanity, whatever you tell yourself, you are just pushing your fingers into your eyes so you dont get to see the truth, but even so, you know it... so, instead of thinking of the kids in africa (not that this is not a huge issue) you should start thinking about those near you... people like you always try to point fingers and talk about other peoples pain, but ignore all the facts that prove you are just as bad as any other

[morimeme1]

@8balls The people who are the best at pointing fingers are pro-lifers though. And often reasons for abortions do involve the fear of the person not being able to feed themselves if they have an extra mouth in their house which is basic survival soooo.

[morimeme1]

Because they do not accept the view that a fetus is not equal to a grown human being yet think that animals are inferior to humans therefore can be killed with no remorse.

[dangerDoge]

I find fault with your argument. It's a false equivalence, like saying there is no difference between a human and non-human animal.

[For reference, I'm just going to refer to non-human animals as just 'animals' for brevity. Also, I'm referring to 'murder' to mean 'an intentional killing of a life.' I'm not applying the legal view of it.]

1.) Be it a speciest mentality or for justifications of personhood, I believe human lives are fundamentally greater than that of an animal. If you're looking for a more clear distinction apart from personhood, there is the difference in consciousness. A human being can look at him/herself in retrospection or reflection. You can also find evidence for the lack of this in animals through peoples' attempts to teach animals a human-isque form of language. It points to animals living only in the present. If you want to debate this specific point, I'm sure I can dig up my old class notes, but for now I'll move on. In the classic thought experiment: 'my pet and stranger are drowning in the river but I can only save one,' I'd save the stranger. It's a morally wrong decision otherwise. I love my dogs, and of course, I'd be sad, but that's a separate issue.2.) The argument for pro life vs choice is different than the argument for whether killing an animal is wrong. The argument for abortion is whether or not it is wrong to kill a human life while the life is still in the womb. You took the word 'murder' and generalized it past the original arguments' contexts. The argument for the morality behind killing an animal is a more general view of whether it's wrong to take a life and also whether that life is equivalent to that of a human. Now, if someone is simply saying 'human murder is morally ok,' I acknowledge I don't really have a readymade response to that, but I don't think we'll see eye to eye on the subject anyway.

3.) Furthermore, I do consider it wrong to kill or injure or abuse an animal if there is no justification for it. While I do not place an animal equal or above that of a human, I still think there is significant value in a life. Hence, something like dog fighting is morally wrong. It's not hypocritical to place different values for clearly distinctly different things (i.e. an animal without personhood/consciousness and a human with personhood/consciousness).

Now, I'll address the argument I see in the horizon, "But hey, you said, "It's not hypocritical to place different values for clearly distinctly different things." Why can't you apply that argument to a fetus and attribute a different value of life for that?" To that, I'd say that there is no clear distinct difference to be had here. If we say killing a baby is wrong, what makes killing a baby a day before being due 'ok'? Or, if that's wrong, what separates that from a when it is 'ok'? The only time that it makes sense to decide when something gains personhood / a morally significant life equivalent to that of a human is at conception.

[Asker]

It is an embryo, not a baby

[dangerDoge]

I feel like that is just a matter semantics. Embryo vs baby vs unborn baby vs fetus-- the argument applies the same.

[dangerDoge]

matter *of semantics

[Asker]

It is not the same

[dangerDoge]

Could you clarify how the argument applies differently then?

[Texaskid1]

Well said.

[Asker]

Embryo is not even a full developed human being. Even it is nobody has a right to use your organ against your will

[dangerDoge]

"Embryo is not even a full developed human being"
The first issue with this is that men aren't fully grown until age 18ish, and women 14ish, and it's clearly wrong to kill someone before then. Even though, we're constantly changing, whether through effects of age or whatnot (i.e. gaining knowledge, becoming old and decrepit, etc.). The wording of a 'full developed human being' is therefore too vague. Could you clarify your wording?

"Even [if] it is nobody has a right to use your organ against your will."
I'll disregard what a fully developed human is for the sake of the argument here. Firstly though, I'm a bit confused what using your organ against your will means. In the update you mentioned an unborn baby using the woman's uterus. If I understand your argument correctly, you are stating that, since the baby needs to use the mother's uterus to be born, the mother's uterus is being used against her will, and that is therefore a legitimate reason to abort. In other words...
P1: Women have uteruses.
P2: Disregarding c-section, an unborn baby needs a woman's uterus to be naturally born.
P3: A baby's use of the uterus for birth is involuntary for the mother.
C1: The mother's organ is being used against her will.

Does that sum up your viewpoint correctly?
Well, I agree with the conclusion-- when a baby is going to be born, it's going to be born, but I don’t think it supports your overall argument. Your argument refers to the biological nature of pregnancy, but it does not take into account the voluntary nature of sex which leads to the pregnancy. Once the pregnancy starts, one cannot stop it, but the decision to become pregnant (i.e. have sex) is voluntary. This goes back to my original opinion. If one absolutely does not want a baby no matter what, he/she should not have sex.

[dangerDoge]

[continued]
If I had to liken it to something, it’s like a contract. By consenting and having sex, it’s like signing the terms of a deal that you accept the risk and implications of the pregnancy. If pregnancies just occurred by random, i believe your point would be valid. However, since they do not, the point loses its credibility. One cannot just take a kidney from me. However, if I signed a contract for them to take my kidney, then they could.

Likewise, this is completely disregarding whether or not abortion is wrong in the first place. If abortion is akin to killing a person, then it leads to a quandary of whether or not ‘forced organ usage’ is really worse than the loss of human life.

[vlati]

A worm can feel pain but doesn't have a brain. Plus people like Ben Shapiro are pro life but say killing 100s of innocent Iranians would be good. Plus abortion has lowered poverty and crime rates. Why just have a baby if your gonna throw him into the system where there are so many cases of abuse or have him exist in poverty with a horrible life when he could- not saying they feel it but if they did- have it last a few seconds if that instead of a lifetime.

[Asker]

Not having sex is not realistic. That is like saying you shouod eat and drink and still nobody give you a right to use someones organ

[Asker]

"Likewise, this is completely disregarding whether or not abortion is wrong in the first place. If abortion is akin to killing a person, then it leads to a quandary of whether or not ‘forced organ usage’ is really worse than the loss of human life." By that logic we should take organs from you so that the other one can survive

[morimeme1]

I really liked your paragraph up until you said that there is no clear distinct difference between a fetus and a person while there clearly is, and it does have to do with the same difference in consciousness that you provided as an argument for animals vs. humans. I get that for humans it is pretty hard to ddaw a line where consciousness starts so in my opinion it makes sense to draw it where the pain perception starts so at least no oneis really hurt in the process. And I deeply disagree when people say that having sex is consent to pregnancy, it's a risk, just like a car crash is a risk of driving but in that case nobody is denied dealing with and eliminating those consequences as much as possible via healthcare.

[dangerDoge]

Ok, I'll try to respond to everyone, but there are now 3 people responding, so I'll be slower:

@vlati I'm not sure what your "A worm can feel pain but doesn't have a brain" or Ben Shapiro line are suggesting. Just because I'm pro life doesn't make me Ben Shapiro, nor are people worms.
"Plus abortion has lowered poverty and crime rates." Frankly, I don't know the statistics behind to say this more than a spurious correlation. (A source or citation would be appreciated if you have it.) However, even assuming it's true, it still does not justify abortion. If we also assume abortion to be an evil act as per my original argument, it leads to a situation where one is trying to justify the ends despite the means to get there. If I view abortion equivalent to killing a person, looking at it ‘for the greater good’ doesn’t change that viewpoint.

"Why just have a baby if your gonna throw him into the system where there are so many cases of abuse or have him exist in poverty with a horrible life when he could- not saying they feel it but if they did- have it last a few seconds if that instead of a lifetime."
1.) How do you know for certain the child's life is going to be bad? Because the child is likely to be poor? Because of a statistic of abuse in orphanages or something? Not every life falls into this assumption, as you imply by “so many cases.” Firstly, you don’t have to necessarily be born rich and in a loving family to find happiness sometime in your lifetime that is greater than the want of death. Secondly, I'd argue that everyone has the potential for happiness. There is no such thing as fate or destiny.
2.) Presuming it's bad, how do you know the child's life is going to be *bad enough* to where the child would rather not live?

[dangerDoge]

[also to vlati]
3.) I never made a statement on 'the system,' but I'm certain there are points of improvement for that too. I don't think the system is perfect or even necessarily good, but it's significantly better than an abortion, which I consider a morally wrong act. Again, if I equate abortion to killing a person, that weights as more significantly evil than a vague sense of facing hardship.

[dangerDoge]

@ asker
“Not having sex is not realistic. That is like saying you shouod eat and drink and still nobody give you a right to use someones organ”
Do you mean “shouldn’t?” To clarify, I never made a statement saying one should not have sex. I’m not preaching abstinence similar to religious groups. If someone wants to have sex, I say go for it. People who have sex more than likely already are aware that pregnancy, when it does occur, results naturally from sex. My argument is saying that people are responsible for weighing their chances of pregnancy occurring with their want of having sex. If the person is using contraception, it’s a much lower chance. It’s a chance nonetheless to consider, but it may seem trivial and thus most would proceed with sex. We make risk assessments constantly in our lives, and sex should be one of them.

“By that logic we should take organs from you so that the other one can survive”
Seems like a bit of a over-personalized response, but in any case, I said it was a quandary… in other words, questionable. It’s a topic up for debate. I was thinking of it something akin to certain death vs possible death (depending on what “forced organ usage” even means). Nevertheless, that was only one point to the argument presented.

[dangerDoge]

@morimeme1
Regarding the first point, the “difference in consciousness”
I agree that a single cell's level of 'consciousness' (or as referred to in the original opinion: Self reflection) is debatable at best, and non-existent for all intents and purposes. However, the difference between human fetuses specifically and animals would be the potential for self-reflection. Admittedly, I did not get into DNA coding in my opinion on humans vs animals opinion on this page like I should have. However, I did go on about this in my original opinion on With or against abortion? ↗ when it was brought up, so I’m going to copy/paste the comment here:

"I suppose what makes a person in a moral sense is what it comes down to then. If I understand the implications of your argument correctly, you are determining personhood based on the idea of Functionalism. That is, personhood is not just determined by biological components but rather, personhood is made by function— or mental states. Within this, the argument is that some cells cannot think or reason or be self-aware, so therefore they cannot have personhood.

I would question exactly what a person is then. If personhood is based on consciously doing something, that does not include people sleeping as having personhood, but if based on ability to do something, that doesn’t include people in coma. If based on past, that would imply someone who is born in a coma, lives for 10+ years, and wakes up is not a person until they wake up. If based on future acts, someone on their deathbed isn’t a person. Thus, they’d all be permissible to kill. However, common sense dictates that the people mentioned are indeed people. If we are saying that the ability to consciously perform “human” acts must be inherent, it leads to a circling argument, because it could be said that very trait is born from personhood.

[dangerDoge]

[continued]
The fetus has no brain, sure, but it has the potential for it. The fetus already has the DNA code for a full person and, if all goes to plan, will carry out said DNA coding. I concede that this growth of the brain and such is gradual, but the gradual nature of it also makes conception the most clear time to determine personhood. If we determine personhood-growth as a gradual process, that would mean we’re never person’s because we’re always growing/changing.

If we base things on functionality and say that a fetus has less value than an infant due to personhood and therefore an adult women (say 25 years old), then that leads into other issues. It would imply, for instance, that a 3 year old is worth less than a 20 year old because the 3 year old can do less things than a 20 year old.”

“And I deeply disagree when people say that having sex is consent to pregnancy”
I believe this is a slight misrepresentation of my argument. My argument falls similar to what you said— except it’s not just a risk, it’s a consent to the risk.
Even though cars are perhaps different than the debate for morality of life, I’ll use your car crash example…
Say I own a car, but I do not want to get into a car crash. Right then and there, I have the option of not taking a car or taking one. I know that cars can get into crashes. If I absolutely want to avoid a crash, I won’t drive. That being said, maybe I like driving, so I decide to take a car, knowing the potential risks. I also recognize though that the risks are low enough via my safe driving, well maintained car, etc. that I judge the risks of a crash lower than my want to drive. Hence, I also may not drive in high floods and hurricanes, since the risk is much higher and overcomes my want to drive.

[dangerDoge]

[continued]
I think the comparison between abortion and cars starts to fall apart when we look at it closer with things things like healthcare, because then we have things like whose fault the crash was or how much the crash cost vs your insurance. A crash is going to be more focused on financial aspects vs morality of life. Since it’s hard to place a figure on what a life is worth, it’s hard to compare that deeply.

[morimeme1]

@dangerDoge So if I understand correctly, you argument is based on the fact that a human fetus has the potential to become a person yet I personally disagree with that usage as we literally never adhere to it in real life, a child is not treated the same as an adult just because they will most likely become and adult one day too, a medical student is not treated as a doctor just becuase they have great potential to become one etc So the value of "potential" is debatable and open to personal interpretation. With the case of sleep we know that a person is already inside, same with a coma patient (although we do pull the plug if there is no hope of them waking up). I did not really understand why you used a deathbed patient unless they are in a sleep and you know they will never wake up and it is not permissible to kill them just because they have earned respect with their life while a fetus is but an empty vessel with no one inside yet to be hurt, nothing to be taken away from them cause there simply is nothing but potential. And then come the question: why should all potential be realised? That is not how mother nature ever intended it (adhering to natural selection which we have mostly irradicated and it makes sense for something artificial as abortion to take it's place). And frankly, I do agree with that system as when someone is in row for an organ transplant I would say that it is better to prioritize a 20 year old before a 3 yr old as in such cases rationality is better than emotion based judgement or even lucky chance.

[morimeme1]

[continued]
Yes the car analogy is flawed but if we wish to debate morality we must recognise it's source - our natural inclination to continue our species which is really of no use today as 1) we have enough humans for our existence not to be threatened 2) in most cases it is more beneficial to our society for that baby not to be born as it leads an already functioning memeber into poverty, poverty leads to more crime or/and the child is just another strain on the system. Yet morality is debatable and we can all hold different views so I think it makes sense to just go with the neutral: asessing the possible outcomes. What good would banning abortions do? That is proven time and time again not to be an effective method to prevent them while there are things that actually work and maybe more effort should be put into improving the system, providing education and support instead of spreading hate and going home feeling like you achieved something by doing that.

[dangerDoge]

@morimeme1 Again, pardon my wordiness— a lot to unpack here, and I feel like you’ll tear me apart if I screw up my wording too badly haha

A.) Responding to… “you[r] argument is based on the fact that a human fetus has the potential to become a person” and the argument of “a child is not treated the same as an adult just because they will most likely become and adult one day too”
I believe we’re looking at the word ‘potential’ in a different way. The way you referred to as potential seemed to more so a qualification, like something based on knowledge or skill. Again, that seems to be more towards something of Functionalism, discussed earlier. I do not believe the comparison made with a medical student being treated as doctor is compatible. A fetus has all the DNA coding it needs to grow already, and apart from something extreme happening to it, it is going to grow and develop regardless. Unlike a medical student becoming a doctor, the potential to personhood is coded in.

With regards to a child to adult, we already do treat children and adults with a basic respect of life. Often times, we even treat children as having more life-value.
I will say though that my personal viewpoint up to interpretation is that I see ‘human worth’ as a core element, and then knowledge, actions, skills, etc. vary the worth afterwards. In that sense, I would view humans as created equally, but not forever valued equally.

“With the case of sleep we know that a person is already inside, same with a coma patient”
I mentioned it earlier, but for fetuses, we also have science, providing knowledge of DNA. We also have the large history of birth plus further knowledge of the birthing cycle to have an incredibly high chance of predicting how a fetus will develop.

[dangerDoge]

[continued]
“I did not really understand why you used a deathbed patient unless they are in a sleep and you know they will never wake up and it is not permissible to kill them just because they have earned respect with their life while a fetus is but an empty vessel with no one inside yet to be hurt, nothing to be taken away from them cause there simply is nothing but potential.”
Could you grammatically rephrase your sentence? I’m not sure I’m quite following what you’re saying here.

“And then come the question: why should all potential be realised? That is not how mother nature ever intended it (adhering to natural selection which we have mostly irradicated and it makes sense for something artificial as abortion to take it's place)”
I’m a bit confused exactly what you’re stating here. Could you clarify? Are you trying to state that humankind is meant to eradicate natural selection with abortion? Given that mother nature is not an entity nor has a will, what do you mean by what ‘mother nature’ intended?

“I do agree with that system as when someone is in row for an organ transplant I would say that it is better to prioritize a 20 year old before a 3 yr old as in such cases rationality is better than emotion based judgement or even lucky chance.”
Well, I am admittedly not a doctor so I don’t know about survival chances or organ donation. If we equate human life to a cupcake, I personally subscribe to a viewpoint where ‘personhood’ is like the cupcake breading, and then the things we do are more like the icing on top. We all have the cupcake breading as humans, but we all have different sorts of icing. (That was a weird example, but it’s 3AM and I am hungry, so that’s what I thought of haha) Arguably, years left to live is one factor for overall value, but I feel like I’m then beginning to get off topic with this.

[dangerDoge]

[last piece, continued]
“our natural inclination to continue our species which is really of no use today 1) we have enough humans for our existence not to be threatened”
Well, yes. I agree with the statement as is, but I don’t think it justifies abortion or affects the issue at hand. Furthermore, I’d even say culling the population one way another, whether by abortion, mass murder, genocide, war, disease, etc.. may, in a way, help out humankind live on the planet. I.e. it may solve future issues of housing or clean water. However, I don’t agree with ‘fixing’ the issue in such a non-ethical way. It’s similar to the argument made by vlati earlier. If we make an assumption that life begins at conception, then we are killing a person. I will say though that my argument does fall apart if you state that killing a person is justifiably ok ‘for the greater good’ or whatnot. Then, we’d have to just agree to disagree.

To also note, I have no issue with contraception. I support it and am all for it. If we’re worried about overpopulation that extensively, we should invest more time/effort into contraception, like teaching it in schools more properly, maybe even further developing the equivalent of birth control for men— things like that.

“2) in most cases it is more beneficial to our society for that baby not to be born as it leads an already functioning memeber into poverty, poverty leads to more crime or/and the child is just another strain on the system. “
This is similar to the argument vlati made earlier. I’ll just refer to that response (beginning with the “Why just have a baby…”) instead of retyping it all again and making this reply even longer.

[morimeme1]

@dangerDoge It seems that you are every focused on the idea that just having some DNA should grant you human rights. Again maybe that is just my interpretation but to me a human is a bit more than just their DNA, when you get human DNA in a lab you don't call it a person. It's kind of like a blueprint for a house - just because it exists doesn't mean the house has to absolutely be made. "I would view humans as created equally, but not forever valued equally" and this my friend is the same logic I am trying fo dsfend in this debate. Glad we agree. Again, in the case of a person sleeping the person is already developed, has memories, hopes, dreams, feelings, people who care about them while a fetus only has potential to develop a personality to have all that, it doesn't mean that it necessarily needs to happen by some God's plan and we have no right to inteviene in this process and prevent it feom happeneing for a variety of reasons as it does not hurt anyone, only a potential person but if we care about that then we might as well forbid masturbation as that hurts potenrial people - sperms that could have fertilized an egg.
In that paragraph I was basically just trying to grasp what you meant by saying a deathbed patient would not be considered a person and the reasoning behind that statement.
I didn't say that we are meant to eradicate natural selsction with abortion, I said that we have already eradicated it with modern medicine and it only makes sense that an artificial alternative came into place (even though abortions have always existed, just not safe ones).
I found the cupcake analogy weird but ok, again it is a question of phylosophical nature - why should every breading get an icing? Why is it entitled to it? But this only works if the icing has to be taken from other cupcakes to give to the new one so why should they give their own icing if there are already enough cupcakes? Or maybe they barely have enough icing for themselves.

[morimeme1]

[continued]
Again even if we do agree that life begins at conception - it does not mean personhood does so it seems a bit of a strech to me to equal murdering an actual human and a small clump of cells in the first trimester, I think those two are simply on different leves and it seems to be the point on which we disagree. And you did not answed to the last part of my comment. Nobody really likes abortion or wants abortion to happen and if you want to fight against it so bad - might as well use methods that actually work (which abortion ban and shaming does not).

[dangerDoge]

@morimeme1 Firstly, I feel like we do have some common ground, which is nice. On a sidenote, I also am appreciative of us being able to have a respectful debate on the topic. Thank you for that.

"human is a bit more than just their DNA, when you get human DNA in a lab you don't call it a person. It's kind of like a blueprint for a house - just because it exists doesn't mean the house has to absolutely be made."
I agree with humans being more than DNA. However, we're not talking purely DNA as having importance, but also in conjunction with a separate life. Hence, I don't think a man ejaculating is murder. [Note: using murder in a more liberally mean killing a person]. The sperm are presumably alive, but they're not a new life. 20 million+ sperm dying does not signify the end of the man's life. The cell(s) is/are the main thing, but the DNA reconfirms the importance of the embryo. With that in mind, an embryo with DNA coding will, unless something went extremely wrong somewhere, grow properly. I don’t think “just having some DNA should grant you human rights,” but rather, being biologically alive as a human AND having DNA coding should grant one human rights.

If I use the house analogy, I think of the fact of there being a separate human life as a foundation, while a blueprint is the DNA coding. We can debate whether or not the 'foundation' is more or less important than the structure (i.e. human growth), but I suppose that's somewhat irrelevant for the debate. The foundation is still part of the house, and as such, it has importance.

“in the case of a person sleeping the person is already developed, has memories, hopes, dreams, feelings, people who care about them while a fetus only has potential to develop a personality to have all that”
Regarding that, I would refer the memories/hopes/dremas/feeling/people who care about them as additional things added onto a person. It’s a separate case from personhood, or whether it is wrong or acceptable to kill a person.

[dangerDoge]

[Continued]
“I didn't say that we are meant to eradicate natural selsction with abortion, I said that we have already eradicated it with modern medicine and it only makes sense that an artificial alternative came into place (even though abortions have always existed, just not safe ones).”
I’m confused what exactly ‘makes sense.’ A trend growing over years does not necessarily mean that trend needs to be expanded upon. Likewise— at least what I can think of, the scientific achievements associated with natural selection are almost all associated with preserving life rather than ending it. Of course, this is somewhat anecdotal, but the only ones I can think of are drugs associated with death penalty, euthanasia, and war-related items. These topics are already ethically debatable. There are scientific achievements with preventing life, or contraception, is fundamentally different from abortion, because there is no new life involved.

“I found the cupcake analogy weird but ok, again it is a question of phylosophical nature - why should every breading get an icing? Why is it entitled to it? But this only works if the icing has to be taken from other cupcakes to give to the new one so why should they give their own icing if there are already enough cupcakes? Or maybe they barely have enough icing for themselves.”
It’s a bit of embarrassing for me to get lost in my own analogy, but let me get this straight and breathes down piece by piece:
-“why should every breading get an icing? “ If the breading is personhood, and icing are the experiences acquired and growth throughout life, I don’t think a person necessarily needs icing, but it just naturally accumulates. After all, there is the foundational breading there. What’s wrong is to take away the breading via abortion… which I can’t really think of an equivalent for cupcakes. The analogy isn't perfect, after all.

[dangerDoge]

-“But this only works if the icing has to be taken from other cupcakes to give to the new one so why should they give their own icing if there are already enough cupcakes?” Were you referring to icing here as meaning life, like referring to things such as overpopulation? In cases of mother vs baby, where the pregnancy goes wrong and the mother will likely die without abortion, I concede an abortion is justifiable. Regarding overpopulation, I discussed it earlier. If overpopulation is an issue, and it may or may not be (though it probably is), abortion does not need to be the answer, and it shouldn’t given the evil act of it.

“Again even if we do agree that life begins at conception - it does not mean personhood does so it seems a bit of a strech to me to equal murdering an actual human and a small clump of cells in the first trimester, I think those two are simply on different leves and it seems to be the point on which we disagree”
Yes, I believe you’re right on the disagree part, and this is the center of the debate. I don’t think we have any issue with a group of cells being biologically alive or not. We take issue with where that group of cells gains personhood, aka when it is actually wrong to kill said group of cells. We're both on the page with murder of someone with personhood being wrong, it's more so a matter of when the personhood exists.

“Nobody really likes abortion or wants abortion to happen and if you want to fight against it so bad - might as well use methods that actually work (which abortion ban and shaming does not).”
I don’t about people liking/disliking abortion, since I don’t have any statistics on that. From what I can tell from the rest of the statement (correct me if I’m wrong), you are referring to the back alley abortion argument from a legal standpoint. In other words, women who want abortions will get one regardless, and we legally need safe and clean abortion centers for the health of the mother. Does that summarize the argument?

[dangerDoge]

To that, I made a response in the old opinion on the question linked earlier. This was the second reply under the question, where I addressed popular pro-choice arguments.
“”Abortion will be done regardless. Making it legal lets women get abortion done in a safe and clean environment.”
To this, I will ask the purpose of what a law is. I propose that a law has two main purposes: to prevent people from doing something (with punishment as an incentive) and as a societal statement that more-or-less states that an action is morally wrong and should not be done. Making abortion illegal would first and foremost dissuade many women from getting one.

It's like if you hated your neighbor for whatever reason. Would you kill him? Chances are, you wouldn't, right? (Well, hopefully you wouldn't!) Why? Well, I'm guessing your big reason first and foremost is that it is illegal and punishable by jail time and what have you. However, if you wouldn't be punished for it, how about now? Still, although more would say "Yes, I'd kill em" here, many others would say they wouldn't due to the morally wrongness of the situation. If we lived in a world where it was morally acceptable and not illegal to kill though, many more would be fine with killing the neighbor.

And yes, there are some who would indeed kill the neighbor regardless of law or morality. We still have murders happen today after all. However, the law dissuades the vast majority of people of committing murder both from a punishment standpoint and additionally from a morality standpoint. Just because some will murder doesn't mean murder should be legalized.

[dangerDoge]

Translated to the argument with abortion, as mentioned before, some will get an abortion regardless. However, just because some will get an abortion does not mean abortion should be legalized (and thus publicly condoned) for the nation. A smaller percentage of people does not justify affecting the larger percentage. Likewise, the responsibility of the baby should be accepted before the pregnancy to begin with.”

[that was the end of my response here]

[morimeme1]

@dangerDoge
I'm not really sure what you meant by "DNA in conjunction with a separate life", if you mean those few cells that come with it I don't think you can really call it a separe life if it can not exist separately from the host organism. Plus it is all just subjective speculation: you can say that killing a fetus is wrong cause it would potentially become a human if all goes well, then I for the arguments sake could extend that and say that wasting sperm is a crime too cause if everything goes well - it could become a fetus and make a human. But that is ridiculous as we don't feel the need to create as many new fetuses as we can, the other side of this argument just takes this a bit further and states that we don't need to create as many humans as we can by letting every singe unwanted fetus grow. Even though I am curious what is your stance on the morning after pill as technically it is made to prevent a fertilized egg from becoming a fetus.
If you say that hopes/dreams/feelings/people who care about you are just additional things that don't make up personhood then I truly am confused what you understanding of personhood is cause that sounds like all that's left is the DNA and maybe a body in ove stage of development or another (and a corpse technically has those things too).

[morimeme1]

[continued]
By "makes sense" I meant that it is only natural that when we get rid of something - something else will inevitably take it's place. Just like if we were to learn how to cure all cancer - I'm sure something else would appear in it's stead.
Again you see that we have the same reasoning but just different levels of it: you say that if the mothers life is in danger and she will die without an abortion - it is justifiable; I say that not merely survival matters, the huge irreversible negative impact an unwanted pregnancy can have on the woman's life is also equally important, in many instances it also has to do with basic survival as many have to choose who will get to eat today - the baby or them. And I think such life conditions are unacceptable in this day and age so until we can reach a point where struggling people get adequate support - I will stand for legal safe abortions. You also use the word "evil" but then again, I disagree cause that is a highly subjective opinion and sometimes people still have to choose between two evils and you can't really expect people to always sacrifice themselves for another as that is just not how our psychology of self preservation works.

[morimeme1]

[continued]
You talk about the law but it is also debatable as there are limits to how much we can limit our own choices and lives, we can put bans on whatever, just like they tried to ban alcohol - it didn't work and brought way more problems than good which is also the case for abortion, we lived without safe legal abortions for most of our existence and in modern society we understood the harms it brough to the society as a whole and decided that such barbaric practices have no place in this time, we can't preach the gospels of equality, prosperity and what not and turn a blind eye on women who are so desperate they are wiling to risk their lives and just not to have that baby and often die for it. Killing a neighbour is harmful to society as we couldn't co-exist effectively and has very different implications when compared to abortions so that's a poor argument.
"A responsibility for the baby should be accepted before the pregnancy to begin with" that's very easy to say when you stand on the sidelines, as I said - I disagree cause it's just not how real life works (which is often very different from the perfect rheory as we know), just because a person chooses to engage in sexual relations with their partner does not mean they are ready to take care of a disabled child for example, that is not in their plans especially if they take all precautions not to get pregnant but things happen and the way I see it - abortion is also a form of taking respinsibility vause it still is a decisions you have to carry with you for the rest of your life.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Because killing animals is not the same as killing your child? How is that not understood? The real question is how can pro-abortion people be anti-death penalty, I mean there is a contradiction if I have ever heard of one, a murderes life is precious and cannot be ended but a unborn child is a parasite (despite being created by the person claiming they are a parasite) and needs to be slaughtered? You people are so hypocritical and you cannot even come up with a rational argument if your life depended on it.

[Asker]

An embryo is not even a kid

[Asker]

Also not a human being.

[Asker]

If someone can use my uterus aka an organ against my will, I should have a right to do to you too.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Except its not an embryo its a fetus that has nerve endings and a heart beat. Also it was created by the woman and the man who took part in the reproductive act (then have the nerve to act shocked that reproduction resulted in reproduction in the same way a fat person acts shocked that eating obscene quantities of fat and sugar made them fat. Its idiotically stupid).

Second, again, an animal is not a human, those are different things so its not even comparable. Third, why would you assume every pro lifer is for hunting? They could very well be vegetarians. Fourth, you very conviently ignored my statement (because you cannot answer it), that is how can a pro abortion person be anti death penalty? Fifth, a fetus is not using your uterus without your consent, that is idotically stupid. How the hell do you think it got their? Magic? Did it crawl up your vagina and make your uterus its home while you where sleeping? No, it did none of those things. It was created because a stupid woman and a stupid man decided to partake in reproduction without any kind of the MANY different and cheap forms of contraceptives which resulted in it being created AGAINST its will. Your then claiming to be the victim of your OWN ACTIONS, while proclaiming you have the right to kill YOUR VICTIM, and your trying to morally justify that? That's a whole other level of stupid.

[Asker]

It is in her uterus and nobody has a right to live in you

[hellionthesagereborn]

And no one has the right to commit murder? You consented to the child being inside of you when you LITERALLY FUCKING CREATED IT. So your saying that you should be able to do what ever you want when ever you want without consequences up to and including murdering your baby because you where to stupid to use a condom, that's a fucking idiotically stupid argument on every level. Also again, you did not address any of my points because you know you can't because all this argument is, essentially, is me saying that you need to act like an adult and take responsibility for your actions and your counter to this is stomping on the ground screaming "I don't wanna I don't wanna I don't wanna!". In short if you can't handle having sex responsibility you shouldn't be allowed to have it at all and you sure as hell don't deserve the right to kill some one if you find it convient to do so.

[Asker]

It is not murder 'cause it does not count as a human

[Asker]

I can do whatever i want to my body. So i can remove an embryo from my body period. I i dont have to borrow my uterus.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Okay your not smart are you? How did the embryo get their? Hmmm? How did it get their? You put it their, you created it and you put it their and then you want to say that its your choice to murder a living being if you want because you where to fucking stupid to understand that the reproductive act results in reproduction. Again, if you are that incredibly stupid (and you seem to be considering your argument is again, equivalent to a childs temper tantrum when they don't get their own way), then you shouldn't be reproducing PERIOD. So do the right thing and get sterilized because your not smart enough to use contraceptive and your definitely not smart enough to ever raise children.

[Asker]

Does not matter how it is created.

[Asker]

It is only a livin cell like cancer cells

[motownplayer2000]

Everyone is hypocritical in some capacity. The problem is if it is blatant or not. I don’t think they blatantly mean to be! Pro lifers also tend to encourage war! Which (since most are conservative or republican) is contrary to there belief as well! But it’s pointless to point that out to them when they always think they are absolutely right!

[Asker]

You are right. Everyone is hypocritical

[WhiteSteve]

Pro-Lifers are very often Christian, and the Christian Bible basically proposes
that humans are not an equal part of nature, but rather superior to all other organisms, and in fact, their god has supposedly created all those other organisms simply to either sustain humans, or second-handedly sustain that which gives humans sustenance. So to kill an animal, to them, is doing what god intended, whereas humans are some special organism that that shouldn’t be done to.

[ObscuredBeyond]

The intent of this inanity is what's important. Is this the ravings of an insane vegan? Genuine infantile inability to tell the difference between a creature capable of putting things in space versus a goose? Or are you just a plant put here by the global adenochrome racket to silence / identify opposition, so you know whom to report to the UN if someone even crazier than Northam wins the White House?

[Asker]

Abortion is a need

[ObscuredBeyond]

In what universe? Are you that incapable of finding a more dignified way to make money?

[Asker]

To not bring miserable humans into a miserable life

[ObscuredBeyond]

www.realclearpolitics.com/.../...rment_142182.html

Also, they already are. You really want to spare them from cruelty, keep your legs shut.

[Asker]

And you should stop mastrubating because you kill potential lifes by that logic

[ObscuredBeyond]

Sperm are not zygotes. Your argument is invalid.

[Asker]

As soon as it use my organ, i can remove it.

[Stoner710]

We’re talking about human life or not talking about deer Life we need meet do you survive we eat what we kill you don’t eat your fetus And yet you’ve killed your fetus Look who’s the hypocrite now I was taught never to kill something unless you plan to eat it I don’t plan on eating a fetus so I don’t plan on killing it

[Asker]

You can live without meat

[Stoner710]

If you don’t want to pop a bunch of supplements a day you didn’t need meat you need Protane you need omega-3‘s none of these to get from plants. A 8 ounces steak has The same amount of protein as 50 bowls of beans I can’t eat 50 bowls of beans can you so if I don’t want to be a pill popper then I cannot survive without meat

[On_cloud_wine]

I’m against abortion, and eating baby animals, but I’ll kill for food.

They’re my main source of energy, which in return, gives them a reason to live until they grow to their full capacity so I can kill, skin and preserve until my next feeding time.

[SpacedCharr]

I'm pro choice, but even I have to disagree with your logic.

Pro life is about humans, not animals. For a pro lifer, killing an animal isn't likely to register the same as their perceived murder of a "human".

[glutendan]

Humans are carnivores, it's simply in our nature to kill other animals. Abortion is unethical because you're killing a human.


And if you don't make the distinction then if you can kill a baby I can kill you with the same logic? Both are human.

[vlati]

Omnivores* plus plants are much more efficient

[Asker]

Abortion is not killing.

[glutendan]

Plants are absolutely not more efficient, they contain many compounds that reduce the absorption of vitamins and minerals. Not only that plants are deficient in multiple nutrients like k2 and b12.

The bioavailability of plant foods is already much lower and we have a very limited ability to digest plant matter..

As for abortion being murder, I see a baby just as much a human than you or me. If you purposefully end it's life it's nothing short of murder.

I dare you to watch the procedure if a late term abortion and tell me you still support it.

[Asker]

I am only pro choice till the end of the first trimester and it is not a baby in this stage

[Texaskid1]

Killing an animal is not murder. Murder is when you kill a human. People have been killing animals for food since the beginning of time. Do you think that pro-abortion types do not enjoy fried chicken or a nice steak?

[Asker]

Killing is killing

[Texaskid1]

Yes , killing is killing but not all kills are murder.
Murder is when you kill a human not an animal. I can kill a cat or a cow but it is not murder.
Your argument is weak overall. If you do not eat meat / fish that is fine you must eat some kind of plant based foods. Some one has to kill those plants in order for you to eat them ( in may cases anyhow). We do what we have been ding since man has walked the face of the earth - kill animals for their protein. If you study some basic biochemistry and nutrition , meat is a rich source of protein (which the body needs) and nutrients and calories.

If you are a vegetarian or vegan that is all fine but I find it strange that you would associate being pro - life with hunting animals.

[vlati]

People have killed animals for survival, we don't need that anymore, some people still might but its just better for everyone to eat plants

[Asker]

But abortion is not a murder

[PondyPand]

No idea but the blue Anon has another amazing point 👌

[ChiTown33]

Read the bible. God gave man mastery of over all beasts. But with power comes responsibility. Personally to me that means it's ok to kill animals to consume, or for protection ( if one is about to attack you). But not for sport!

[Kindofweird]

I mean I don't know.. I am against killing any animal... I fully embrace veganism so that from my part, any animal will not be killed... killing anyone is not good...

[NorthwestRider]

You also should ask them why they think abortion is murder while they love killing their kids by faith healing

[Anonymous]

If a chicken for you is equal to a human, I have bad news for you 😅 People kill animals for getting food. Animals kill each other for this purpose too. But abortion is just killing foetus for for the kill sake.

[Asker]

A life is a life

[Opinion Owner]

Are you a vegan? You want to say you have never eaten meat or fish?

[Asker]

Yes, I have

[Opinion Owner]

Then you aren't better than people who killed these animals/fish and cooked them for you. People need to eat animal meat, fish and plants for being healthy

[Asker]

But i am pro choice :)

[Opinion Owner]

It doesn't matter. There is no connection

[Asker]

If you are against killing potential lifes, then you can't eat any meat. And you can survive without meat too

[Opinion Owner]

Nope, you are wrong. I am against killing people and killing animals for fun, that's it

[Opinion Owner]

People are not animals. Your logic makes no sense. According to your logic if people eat meat they are allowed to kill anyone

[8balls]

It's not for the sake of the kill, it's for the sake of two irresponsible persons. You got pregnant and you can't afford to have the baby, or the father ran away... you should have thought of that before spreading your legs. As for men, any guy who agrees to abortion is as manly as a sack of shit... unless the life of the mother or the baby is threatened, abortion should not be a right... yeah you have the right to do what you want with and to your body, then grow up and be responsible for your actions...

[Asker]

You say we are eating meat because we need to like we need abortion

[automatic812]

I assume from your question that you are equating animals and human beings? It seems quite a stretch to look at both in the same manner.

[vlati]

Animals have emotions. Just because humans have opposable thumbs doesn't make us better

[morimeme1]

To me it seems quite a stretch to equate a fetus and a person but oh well, to each their own.

[automatic812]

@morimeme1 Yes, to each their own about covers it. There will always be those who see things differently but with to impose their beliefs onto others. Laws are where the line in the sand is drawn which we are to adhere to or suffer the consequences.

[DizzyDesii]

I dont believe in abortion but i also dont hunt. I do eat meat tho and will continue to do so

[bangyourhead]

Because it’s generally established that human life is more valuable than an animal’s. And the vast majority of animals are killed to feed us. You know, the way it has to be.

[Snakeyes7]

This is a strawman of the views of prolifers. Pro lifers only exist to stop abortion from happening. Hunting and not being vegan is irrelevant.

[Rangers]

I place human life over wild animal life. People are worth more than wild animals, crazy thought, right?