Why don't people understand that fetus us not conscious until a certain age?

[GoPhuckYaself]

a lot of people are against abortion, and for me being for it... Their argument is always "aw that's cruel, your jus a psychopath murderer, how can u kill an innocent baby"

But, when I tell them the fact that according to science, a fetus is not yet conscious until about 4 months or something.. (Meaning it's not yet feeling or thinking until after the 4 months) so a early abortion is fine... But no matter how many times I explain this to them they jus can't seem to understand, they keep coming back at me with "it's cruel, it's murder"

But can't they understand that, it's not killing anything, you can't kill something that was never alive (not yet conscious). It's aborting something.. meaning preventing something from coming alive.. rather than taking a life.

It's no different than the 5 billion years before you was born.. if you happen to get aborted in 2020... What difference would it make cos there was 5 billion years before you was born and it felt like 1 second... So why can't this non existent person jus be aborted and wait anothing 5 billion years to be born? Or maybe he or she never gets born... So what? I think souls are recycled anyway. But why can't these morons understand... It's no different than killing a plant, yes a plants alive but it doesn't think anything

I'm not a psychopath at all, I hate to watch real murder video on gore sites I feel so bad for the person, but I jus can't feel bad for killing a fetus who's basically a plant, if you feel sorry for that u think you're jus too soft... Do ya cry when you bleach the toilet too? Because you kill billions of germs when you bleach, so you better be crying then too you big wuss

Updates

+1 y

Also it's really no different than a guy jerking off into tissues, because you're also aborting (preventing) about a million life's coming into existence when you waste sperm... What's the difference between that and early abortion? Both are the same.. both are early abortions.. it's jus ones more early than the other

Updates

+1 y

Not every sperm needs to come into existence sir

[OlderAndWiser]

You assume that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is simply not understanding the same things that you understand. If you could take a few steps back at yourself and look at yourself objectively, you might realize that your attitude is extremely arrogant and condescending.

Perhaps you should consider that reasonable people can examine an issue such as this and arrive at differing conclusions. And maybe you should also consider that the personal beliefs of people influence the way they perceive and report "facts," even if the people are "scientists."

"I'm right so you must be wrong" has no credibility to me.

[Anonymous]

As long as you can go to jail for killing a woman who is pregnant and it counts as 2 murders abortion is murdered

Funny liberals wanted to have both ways. His fetus is not alive so the mother can't get abortion but if anyone else other than the mother kills it it's countess murder you cannot have this both ways either of fetus is alive or not.

And if it's determined to not be alive anyone who has been sent to jail for double murder after murdering a pregnant woman needs to be let out jail Cause they were charged for 2 murders when should have been just one

[Razp_Sorbet]

When a Dr takes your kidney it's a legal medical procedure but when I do it it's organ trafficking 🙄

[Opinion Owner]

A life cannot be determined by the mother's whim either it's alive or not

[Razp_Sorbet]

It's about consent hun.

[Opinion Owner]

You cannot give your consent to be murdered so therefore it's not.

Again either it's alive or not the mother cannot just decide by her whim.

If you agree with abortions then you have to agree you cannot murder a fetus because it's not alive.

[Razp_Sorbet]

You're thick aren't yah. It's about the mothers consent.

[Opinion Owner]

A mother cannot decide by her whim if something is alive or not.

[Razp_Sorbet]

Thats not what she's deciding.
A person can consent to having a part of them removed.
A person cannot consent to having a part of them damaged beyond saving in a car accident.

[Opinion Owner]

So it's not alive in your logic if the mother is able to just give percent to have it removed so therefore if you murder the pregnant woman it's only one murder not 2 all these murderers need to be let out of jail immediately

[Razp_Sorbet]

You realize that isn't the law everywhere right? Different places have different law regarding the unborn. Would you like the law to change so nobody could get charged with anything if an unborn fetus dies due to a criminal act?

[Opinion Owner]

Yes that's what you have to do if you want to have abortions either it's alive or not you cannot have it both ways.

[Razp_Sorbet]

Okay then petition for the law to change. Unborn are not considered alive until birth. Solves your issue with it being murder.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes that's what it means to be problem is liberals think they can have it both ways they think life can be determined by the mother's whim they're stick and disgusting

[Razp_Sorbet]

Apparently it's not determined by the mother according to you it's determined by law.

[Opinion Owner]

It's actually right now it is determined by the mother's whim a mother in many States can get an abortion but if someone kills the baby it's considered murder how do you murder something that's not alive?

[Razp_Sorbet]

What do you think about life support and laws around that? You can take a person off life support even if their heart is still beating.

[Opinion Owner]

That's only if they gave up their own right to consent to someone else and they decide to pull the plug you can actually be on life support for decades if you don't give that consent or have the paperwork for someone else to do it.

[Razp_Sorbet]

Nope if you don't have a medical power of attorney the decision falls on your spouse or partner, if you don't have one then it goes to an adult child or parent.

[Opinion Owner]

Actually could have it set up where it does not do that.

But none of this matters either it's alive or not you cannot have it both ways as liberals want it for some reason

[Razp_Sorbet]

I mean it doesn't really matter. You'll complain either way.

[Opinion Owner]

That's just your imagination. If you want to abortion to you have to agree it's not alive and therefore you cannot murder a fetus therefore anyone who's in jail for murdering a pregnant woman and got 2 murders should be let out

[Razp_Sorbet]

It's incredibly rare for anyone to actually get sentenced for feticide. Especially considering only like 1.7% of inmates are in for homicide in the most broad term And 1.5% for manslaughter. Also if they killed a fetus and got charged they likely also killed the mother.

[Razp_Sorbet]

So they've still killed at least 1 person

[Opinion Owner]

So you agree with me then it should not be a crime. They killed one person not 2 Sounds like you agree with me they should have the 2nd one dropped because they didn't actually murder anyone

[msmissydc]

Wait this discussion is bassically about "I want a murderer to be sentenced to less" vs. "I value the freedom for women to have life they want"

[Opinion Owner]

No it's about if something's alive or not. You could not determine life on the mother's whim either a fetus is alive or it's not alive then abortions are clearly murdered if it's not then clearly no matter if you kill a pregnant woman it should only count as one murder because you cannot kill something that's not alive

[Razp_Sorbet]

Is taking someone off life support murder?

[Opinion Owner]

Yes it could be if you don't have the proper paperwork. That's really not the argument the argument is is a fetus alive or not. It's funny how liberals cannot answer this question because they want it to be both

[Razp_Sorbet]

Alright ill answer. Yes it is. But it's life doesn't have greater or equal value to the person carrying it, the carriers life always comes first. I don't care if they take away feticide charges.

[Opinion Owner]

If it's alive all lives are equal you cannot say one life is greater than another if you make that argument it's very easy to make arguments about killing basically anyone you want.

Your argument is basically if one life is greater than the other they have the right to kill that other life if it's a burden on them. Well what happens if there's a disabled person that person is a burden on everyone so anyone has the right to kill any disabled person on site in your logic

[Razp_Sorbet]

Nope, if I'm pregnant I adknowledge that there is a life inside me. But, if anything goes wrong with that life that puts my life at risk, I will choose me over it. If I'm in an accident and either I survive or the fetus survives, I choose me. All lives are not equal, an unborn person shouldn't have more rights than a born person.

[Opinion Owner]

There's many people who do the same you're literally argument is one greater life can kill a Lester life If it negatively affects them in any way. A homeless person living outside my house is putting my life at risk I should have the right to kill them

[Razp_Sorbet]

No... You can call the police on a homeless person to remove them. If a fetus is putting your life at risk the only option is surgical removal.

[Opinion Owner]

Lol they don't remove them. Fact Is if one life is greater tgrb a other you think it's OK for the greater life to kill the lesser one

[Razp_Sorbet]

When it comes to unborn life yes.

[Opinion Owner]

therefore you can kill any lesser life than you that is your argument

[Razp_Sorbet]

No my argument is that a fetus shouldn't have equal rights to a birthed person.

[Opinion Owner]

Then why should a homeless have equal right to a greater life

[Razp_Sorbet]

Because a homeless person is a birthed person who has cognitive function.

[Opinion Owner]

Is not compared to a normal person perfectly fine for the greater life to kill the Lester that is your argument

[Razp_Sorbet]

There are better ways to make an argument than gaslighting. You're pathetic.

[Anonymous]

If there was a house fire and you could only save one between these two, which one would you save? The jar of embryos or the living, breathing child?

If you pick the embryos, you're clearly an idiot. Embryos aren't alive, so you are not killing anything. The child is actually alive. I don't understand why people don't get this.
Totally agree with what you're saying.

[MCheetah]

It's religion. I've had copious debates about this topic, myself.. Some people refuse to listen to logic and reason and just go "God something, blah, blah, blah..."

Why do both the political left and the political right love having the government control people's bodies so much?

If you're Pro-Life, how does it make sense to also have recreational sex or to use protection? How is that not the same thing as an abortion?

[SenseiSeptred]

I am not against abortion in entirety because because there is a way to abort being a parent rather than aborting the infants life by letting the child grow enough to eventually become a feral child, or pass them to someone that is willing to be a parent to the infant because many people are looking to adopt children, and who knows, a little version of you among a different family may even become similar to you because of their chromosome pool.

With what I said a little version of me is one of the biggest mixed bags of tricks that someone could inherit because of monstrous energy to move around until a certain age where they need to be super selective with their food items because that is a good way to gain fat reserves, and lose their childlike energy.

[TheorionMage]

Consider this like custom ordering a vehicle from the manufacturer's factory and it does NOT 'contain' You until you physically occupy it by taking possession. Unless and until YOU (your Sentience) sits behind the wheel what exists is a FUTURE automobile.
That 'slap'... those first breaths as they clear the am neonic fluid from the infant's airway is when what has been until now, a parasitic 'benign cancer' expelled from its maternal Host, its OWN Sentient Being.

[Anno2]

You disregard the future. The fetus will at some point be a human being with human rights. Sperm in a sock will in the future be sperm in a sock.

Taking someone off life support can be humane but if you know the person will wake up in the future you'd probably consider it murder.

[slatyb]

It’s mostly an authoritarian desire to punish women for having unapproved sex, then rationalized by falsely equating am embryo or fetus with an infant. This is obvious because the people opposed to abortion are also opposed to contraception.

[bamesjond0069]

"But, when I tell them the fact that according to science, a fetus is not yet conscious..." so you're ok with killing people if they are sleeping? Or just killing everyone in a coma? The fact is all three situations we know they WILL or MOST LIKELY come to be a normal conscious human being, so thats why we dont go around killing people just for not being conscious. Thats not enough to dehumanize them, a temporary lack of consciousness is not enough.

[Diodoro]

Because scientists don't even agree on what consciousness actually is even today. You may say it's not conscious. But you can't clearly say by the scientific method or even scientific consensus that this is true.

[SenseiSeptred]

That is because they don't realize that the void is what is the most responsible for sentience that every living creature that is a form of a humanoid or something similar has within them.

[Diodoro]

@SenseiSeptred

Choose whatever theory you like. If all scientific experts can't even agree on this. You implying people can't or don't understand X specific criteria for what consciousness is and that they should just accept your unique prescription as truth is...

Arrogant isn't even good enough. It's a cocky, baseless, and damn near ignorant. You don't even have a half of experts in agreement with you. But the majority of people should agree with your view?

Like nigga what? Lmao

Right lol. You're taking an odd superior high ground that you don't have to stand on

[SenseiSeptred]

Who said that it was my opinion?

[jjj101010]

People with advanced dementia are not necessarily conscious, I’m not really up for killing them though.

I’m not really for or against abortion, I guess it is down to the people involved and their circumstances, I don’t agree with abortion in all circumstances but also I don’t agree in banning it. However I do not believe that consciousness is a strong argument to base a view on.

[FunkyMonkee]

I agree! I'm not exactly completely pro abortion, I mean, don't go fucking and allowing yourself to get pregnant just because you can fall back on abortion to get rid of it! THAT'S just STUPID AS FUCK!! But there ARE cases where it IS needed!

[OddBeMe]

1) it doesn’t matter. Abortion is about bodily autonomy.
2) science has more to study about pregnancies and consciousness. But brain and nerve activity doesn’t seem to arrive until late in the pregnancy. That should be a variable, too.

[AndrésC64]

Because they let their feelings get in the way of facts. And most of those feelings are because of their religion. Religion ruins everything.

[Anonymous]

Literally doesn't matter if it's conscious.
*You* deciding that consciousness matters to you doesn't mean it's relevant to how anyone else feels about it. They see it as human and don't want it killed, it's that simple.

[Anonymous]

Because it's being used as contreceptive. If it 's being done for medical reasons or someone was raped or underage that is one thing but were talking about less than 5% of all aboritions.

[Razp_Sorbet]

it's equivalent to taking someone off life support. They have no brain activity.

[Anonymous]

Does that mean it's OK to end the life of someone in a coma because they aren't conscious?

[joeldalton]

my answer is your username.

[Juxtapose]

They're stupid.

[Waldoe]

to each his own...