OT- death projections 60k
- Thread starter ThroughBlue
- Start date
In my initial post, I clearly stated those with a calculated decision. I didn't mention extreme circumstances like the mother's life being at risk. I'm honestly not all in on justifying abortion on rape. In theory, maybe. But, part of me thinks women would lie like mad to abort a baby by saying it was simply a case of rape. On a lot of college campuses, you hear the number is 1 in 4 women get raped. Yet, the FBI reports 40 victims for every 100,000 people. Huge, huge difference.
And I don't think it's necessary to define all of the exceptions. I mean, biology instructors teach their students that humans have 10 fingers and toes. There are exceptions, of course. But, that's the basic standard. And I also mentioned the fatality rate was 100%. That's actually not the case, as there have been survivors of abortion due to incompetent doctors in 2nd and 3rd world countries. I was staking at a claim on those who are willingly aborting their baby. And they do do because of inconvenience.
Also, in the context of this comparison, exceptions are clearly allowed for quarantine exceptions. My argument is simply against those who are voluntarily deciding to terminate the unborn.
DD, I get what people SAY, but literally, when it is in the womb, it is a fetus. When it comes OUT, it is a baby. I get that people say "baby" but technically it is a fetus.
And here is the thing. You are trying to present a fetus as having the same value as a fully grown human being, who has spent years on earth and developed relationships and has connected with other humans in a meaningful way. But whether or not people say they are having a baby or a clump of cells, there are many people who do not believe that this:
Is the same as this:
Now, I am not saying anything beyond that. I'm not arguing about number of weeks or whathaveyou. I am not opining about what I personally believe in terms of abortion. I'm just saying that you trying to make some point by comparing abortion of a fetus to the death of a mature, grown human is not meaningful.
I don't think this is really worth arguing about anymore, right? I mean, obviously I am not going to agree with you, and you aren't going to agree with me.
I get why you want to correct me and say fetus; it's because it allows you to desensitize the unborn, which makes it a heckuva lot easier to justify stopping a beating heart, an entity with brain activity, an entity with its own circulatory system and unique DNA Code. I get it. But it's pretty shitty ideology to believe terminating a beating heart isn't a big deal.
And I know why you're not differentiating between a 32 week old (after conception) and a 40 week old. It's because it exposes clear inconsistencies in your argument. My 32 week old had value, yet my 40 week old didn't? The 40 week old is much further along, developmentally. Location is not a solid, logical argument for defining what constitutes human life.
Totally agree with the bold part. It’s definitely a clear the conscious move
Should pro-life people adopt children more?
Kid out there have no place to go. A terrible existence of life. Yet we have ppl who say every conception should bring life.
I'll say this again, there's plenty of kids who should have been aborted prior to birth than afterwards.
That's cold, I know...but not as cold as their homeless ass is going to be at night on the streets.
contraception ftw
tag me when you see a 18 year old put on the streets and you watch their shoulders slump when they have no place to go and just a bag to lug around.
Kid out there have no place to go. A terrible existence of life. Yet we have ppl who say every conception should bring life.
I'll say this again, there's plenty of kids who should have been aborted prior to birth than afterwards.
That's cold, I know...but not as cold as their homeless ass is going to be at night on the streets.
contraception ftw
tag me when you see a 18 year old put on the streets and you watch their shoulders slump when they have no place to go and just a bag to lug around.
Last edited:
Just came on the floor. Stomped on it afterwords. Just killed a baby or two. My b.
No is my answer. Irresponsible people should use birth control. Its 2020, a woman can get it for free, using our tax dollars.
^^^^^^ walks on his cum after he finishes
I’m not even sure there’s a category on Pornhub for that one.
I would agree that some people lie about being raped. Having said that, there is no way I’m going to presume to know what it feels like to be violently forced into a sexual act—often by a father or uncle—and then carry that person’s seed to term. So...whether it’s theory or not, that exception is a non-negotiable in my mind.
Regarding your timing question (which wasn’t for me, but I’ll answer), it’s not so much about “value.” Frankly, I don’t have a lot of value for the POS who rapes his daughter.
For me personally, if the embryo or fetus is not to the point where it can survive on its own outside the womb (Not in a lab) it’s not equivalent to a human being in the sense that would make it murder.
But I’m okay with the fact that there is a wide range of definitions and opinions on this. That’s sort of the whole point. There’s a wide range of definitions and opinions, regardless of whether some find it morally indefensible.
To be fair I understand the concept of relativism in the sense of times changing. I have no issues with that. Stoning people was a thing but it's not any more. There is no need to discard it or whatever because it just existed in a different era. I also think some things are more gray or cloudy or complicated than others. I tend to see many sides to an argument and find merit in all of them usually. However, if one takes the position that x is wrong morally then it's wrong morally. This is something that was always an interesting topic in the philosophy classes I took. I had one professor who didn't care for my takes because I would agree in principle with a theory but couldn't get around making the argument that it was not realistic so was worthless, which to her wasn't important. Anyway, not the point. Sorry. Making exceptions just opens one up to what they believe is right or wrong easily being refuted.
I guess I'm a weirdo. I'm not pro-abortion, but I'm ok with it and understand its a necessity at times. Yet I still think its killing a baby. I'm also against killing and murder, but the death penalty is fine by me in certain cases.
And anti heart disease, anti drunk driving , anti suicide , anti blah blah
That's weird, I didn't think about it until this post, but I'm more ok with abortion than I am the death penalty.
I'd hate to have one of those lights around my computer. I can just hear my wife saying "how did you get it there?"
Being in a disadvantaged circumstance still isn't justification for terminating the life of an unborn, IMO. Many of those women could just as easily put the baby up for adoption. Over 80 million Americans have considered adopting a child at one point in their lives. You're talking about roughly 40% of the adult population in the country. That is substantial.
And consider the fact that roughly 10% of women struggle with infertility. There are enough capable, responsible adults who are willing to adopt a child. I read a study that for every child that is placed for adoption, there are 36 families waiting to adopt a child of their own.
Also, of the 50 million aborted babies in the last half-century, how many of them could have created something truly innovative and ground-breaking? 50 million people could provide A LOT of human capital and brain power. Who knows, perhaps even advancing the healthcare profession.
So I'm not necessarily against an unborn being aborted, in the extreme cases of rape. I'm just a little unsure of how you would effectively implement the legitimate cases.
And to your earlier point, a lot of unborn children don't survive the duration of the pregnancy. But, a good 80-90% of them do. Worldwide, you're looking at 3.3 million deaths of children under the age of 5. Of those 3.3 million, 3 million die within the first week - and 2 million die within the first day. Yet, just about everyone calls them a living being. Hard to imagine that the only difference between a 40-week old (after conception) in the womb, and a 32 week-old that just passed through the canal, is the location. So many inconsistencies with any argument that doesn't include conception as the initial starting point for when life begins.
But let's get back to the original connection. 98-99% of abortion cases are about inconvenience. That is exactly why people want minimal quarantine restrictions. They don't want to change their lifestyle - they don't want to sacrifice luxuries or anything else that inherently makes their life less stable and more stressful.
My point about not a guarantee of bringing life into the world if left to nature was stillborn. Nearly 25,000 a year in the US.
And I’m not sure what you are talking about the location. Like I said, the location is less of a factor to me personally than the ability of the fetus to survive on its own. If it doesn’t have lungs, it’s hard to call it a human.
I'm qualifying it because the woman didn't voluntarily choose to procreate. Her freedom of choice was denied. When you procreate, you are essentially playing God. You are bringing offspring into the world. A victim of rape never chose to enter into that path. All other women voluntarily chose to engage in coitus.
Now, I would never actually advise a woman to abort a baby. I'm always for protecting the life of the unborn. It's not as though I'm saying, "Oh you're pregnant because you were raped? That's awful. Guess you need to go down to Planned Parenthood and get an abortion." I would never encourage that. At the very least, I would suggest putting the baby up for adoption. The distinction here is I'm not passing judgment on a woman who never should have been in this predicament in the first place. From my understanding, the physical and mental health of women in these circumstances suffers quite a bit. So no, I don't believe it deserves the same condemnation. All other cases, the normal inconvenient abortions, are worthy of great judgement and criticism.
The extreme cases are always interesting when discussing abortion. Because what I find, is people who bring up an extreme case are still okay with aborting, in general, as long as the mother believes it's in her best interest. So, if you're okay with abortion in all other cases - why even bring up the rare cases? Being okay with it in extreme cases doesn't suddenly open the door for everyone else.
Most everyone keeps side-stepping my point. People abort babies because it relieves oneself of additional burdens and stresses. That is exactly why those who disregard the autoimmune compromised are so eager to get back their normal life. They don't want to deal with additional emotional and financial stresses that the quarantine life presents. They want to stay happy and worry first and foremost about themselves. Even if a pregnant woman doesn't believe the unborn inside of her has value or life, she recognizes that life WILL come. And that will be wildly inconvenient. The only way around that, is to step in, intervene, and abort it.
Any my point, was that a lot of babies that pass through the canal as living beings (location), end up dying within a week. The infant mortality rate is almost 6 per every 1,000 births in the United States. 53% of those deaths occur within the first week (CDC). Yet, just about every person under the sun would say that those infants were a living being, at least when they came out of the womb. So in both cases, the stillbirths and the infants that passed within a week, you had compromised organs, and the chance of survival was low, but that doesn't make it any less of a living being. My wife's water broke at 21 weeks. She somehow made it. Our boy spent a lot of time in the NICU, but he is fully healthy now.
Contending that he wasn't a living being before his lungs fully developed is a crazy thought to me. He was kicking the wife on a regular basis. There are clearly different stages of lung development. The initial stages begin just 4-5 weeks after conception. If you're talking about fully formed lungs, where the air sacs are full, you're not reaching that stage until roughly week 26. And yet, babies are generally considered viable by week 23. So yeah, if you're going to pin a time other than conception for when life begins, there will always be an inconsistency to be found.
I was wondering the same thing. The dude is literally spending billions of his own dollars right now to accelerate the timeline we can have a COVID vaccine ready and disseminated.
Any my point, was that a lot of babies that pass through the canal as living beings (location), end up dying within a week. The infant mortality rate is almost 6 per every 1,000 births in the United States. 53% of those deaths occur within the first week (CDC). Yet, just about every person under the sun would say that those infants were a living being, at least when they came out of the womb. So in both cases, the stillbirths and the infants that passed within a week, you had compromised organs, and the chance of survival was low, but that doesn't make it any less of a living being. My wife's water broke at 21 weeks. She somehow made it. Our boy spent a lot of time in the NICU, but he is fully healthy now.
Contending that he wasn't a living being before his lungs fully developed is a crazy thought to me. He was kicking the wife on a regular basis. There are clearly different stages of lung development. The initial stages begin just 4-5 weeks after conception. If you're talking about fully formed lungs, where the air sacs are full, you're not reaching that stage until roughly week 26. And yet, babies are generally considered viable by week 23. So yeah, if you're going to pin a time other than conception for when life begins, there will always be an inconsistency to be found.
I haven’t once said that an embryo or fetus wasn’t alive. You keep saying “life begins.” I keep saying “human being.”
Is an embryo at week 8 viable as a human being outside the womb?
government should not tell people they have to stay inside. Government should also not tell people anything about their medical care (which is why mass testing won’t work).
The question with abortion is at what point does the baby in the womb have rights? Once a heart beat is detected? Once it comes out?
If a woman gets an abortion just go ahead and make it hysterectomy
The question with abortion is at what point does the baby in the womb have rights? Once a heart beat is detected? Once it comes out?
If a woman gets an abortion just go ahead and make it hysterectomy
Any chance we could dump all the abortion stuff? It has nothing to do with what is going on right now, and it is a topic that absolutely nobody will change their minds on. It is literally just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Okay. So, to terminate the entity that is alive, you effectively stop it from living. There are different stages of development, certainly. Regardless of the stage, it's still living. Don't think there's a whole lot of wiggle room for justification in terminating a living entity.
No, an embryo at 8 weeks will not survive out of the womb. But you know what else can't survive out of the women independently? A newborn baby. If I leave my newborn baby by himself, he will die. An unborn child is living. A newborn child is living. The only way it's not going to live, generally speaking, is to step in and do something which will effectively end its life. Outside of really extreme circumstances (which I'm clearly not talking about), there is no defense for that.
The similarities between the coronavirus and abortion are abundantly clear. I point them out because it's reeks of hypocrisy and inconsistency. You care about the elderly and others with weak immune systems? That's great. That's reasonable and fully justified. They are a living being, and we should do everything we can to protect them. Yet, suddenly a women doesn't want a baby - and it's totally okay to terminate that entity? Sorry, no. It doesn't work that way. That's selective compassion.
Even if you don't believe a fertilized egg has value or life, you acknowledge that life WILL COME if an intervention isn't performed. You are terminating something that has movement as early as six weeks. A woman aborts a baby because she doesn't want additional burdens and stresses. People also want to keep the status-quo for the economy, their jobs, their lifestyle because they want to minimize stress. What it comes down to, is a lot of us are selfish a-holes that are mostly concerned with ourselves before others.
Last edited:
Yup. The language of pro-choice advocates is inundated with euphemisms. They use substitute words to soften the blow of what is actually occurring. I never corrected TheDude for using the word fetus. I simply defended my language when I said unborn child. One of the definitions for fetus literally means an unborn human baby. They have to desensitize the unborn child, otherwise the act of aborting (killing) would seem maniacal and wicked.
I will admit I’m pro choice. But I also think it’s definitely killing a baby. Only reason I’m pro choice is I don’t want to tell other people what to do with their bodies. I don’t think it’s any of my business. But I do agree, you’re skating around what’s actually going on if you don’t think you’re killing a human baby.
You're almost there, Jimbo. Almost. Just need to tighten that stance a little.
If you're against killing someone, you should be against others killing someone, too. I know I'm exaggerating your view a little, but it kind of sounds like you're saying, "Yeah, I personally am against murder; I would never murder someone. I just don't think it's my place to say that you can't murder someone. If you think that murdering someone is the best option for your life, then who am I to suggest that what you're doing is wrong? It's none of my business"
We don't mind "forcing our view" on people by keeping rape and spousal abuse illegal, nor should we, as they have an aggrieved party...as does abortion.
Holy hell what happened to this thread. But now that we have gone through abortion what’s everybody’s stance on capital punishment. I personally think we need more of it.
Sorry for hijacking the thread. I see a very strong correlation between the virus and abortion. I've yet to see a coherent counter argument. I'm sure I sound preachy and perhaps even self-righteous. But really, these are moral issues, regarding the sanctity of life. If protecting the life of someone else doesn't matter, then life effectively has no meaning and value. That's what we call nihilism.
Similar threads
