Founding Fathers

It's quite telling seeing the blatant "I don't give a f**k" comments over killing children. Sick.

Why? Nothing wrong with that. It's just one of the many steps needed to be done to cure Mother Earth from the disease called humanity. That's not sick. Wanna know what's really sick? All of the crimes humans did on Mother Nature and Mother Earth,and still do on a regular basis. That is sick!

And if you don't know what are the crimes I'm talking about,you live in denial of such legendary magnitude that it cannot be described with words. Although this should give you the general idea: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGMYdalClU

Little boy, educate yourself before you embarrass yourself in front of a greater audience

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jUY3DKq-Do&t=16s

Now please, if you're not going to say anything clever, return to your default "Obey-Consume-Conform" routine

like mine? it isn't equating killing a child, and a 3 month fetus.

Spurs, something i just learned, government planned parent hood funding cannot be used for abortions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
and planned parenthood isn't just abortions. abortions are only 3% of what planned parenthood offers, and only 10% of planned parenthood clients use abortion.

states however can use funding for abortions. 17 states do.
Alaska (court order)
Arizona (court order)
California (court order)
Connecticut (court order)
Hawaii (voluntarily)
Illinois (court order)
Maryland (voluntarily)
Massachusetts (court order)
Minnesota (court order)
Montana (court order)
New Jersey (court order)
New Mexico (court order)
New York (voluntarily)
Oregon (court order)
Vermont (court order)
Washington (voluntarily)
West Virginia (court order)

The old "3% lie" rears it's ugly head again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J16uUy8H4mg

interesting video. what about that it has over 10x as many clients as abortions. from seeing this, that is probably fudged too.

Thanks for watching. Lifesite news is a good resource for that question and other info regarding PP. I don't trust any stats from PP. Gutmacher Institute keeps good stats on abortion also.

Embryos aren't children, though.

of course it says nothing about killing children overboard because it's the constitution of the united states of america, not the constitution of the united states of america and belgium.

Personal privacy. its in your body. its not a person or a citizen yet when they can be legally aborted.

ok so can i kill all of the illegal immigrants because they aren't citizens?

no. they cant be legally aborted at 9 months. 88% of abortions are in up to 3 months.

While abortion is illegal in some states - you can get an abortion at 9 months.
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/five-places-where-you-can-get-a-9th-month-abortion-now/

ok, that should be illegal.

nope. it would be to human at that point

that has nothing to do with it. It's like the sand pile paradox, which states that there is a pile of sand. A man comes along and adds sand, one at a time, to the pile. At what point is it considered a mountain? The same concept applies. The point in which a human becomes a sentient being isn't clearly defined and differs from person to person. So when you say that a baby has no sentience before 3 months, well, how would you know? And why three months exactly? In my opinion, since that cant be well defined, doctors shouldn't kill any fetuses because we cannot clearly, 100% define when they are sentient.

I personally behind that it is a human life at conception, because at that point, no additional genetic material is created. It is the first and last time that two genetic codes come together to create a universally unique creation. At no point later in that himan life is a new genetic creation created.

Succinct and completely true. Bravo.

I quite like that, mind if I use it?

"That's the only time when genetic code from two different people come together to form a new creation."

Let's just conveniently forget that those cells can split apart, up to 13 days later, producing two completely different people.

"Start of life" is nonsense. Sperm and eggs are alive. Fertilized eggs are alive. Embryos are alive. Children are alive. There is no "start of life", it's a continuous process. What matters is "start of personhood", and that obviously does not happen at conception.

Sperm being alive and an embryo being alive and a chicken being alive are all indeed the same thing.

You're claiming that a fertilized egg is a person while an unfertilized egg is not, solely because of the difference in DNA, but that's fallacious, since identical twins share the same set of DNA and are obviously not the same person.

Personhood is the only concept that matters in the morality of abortion. If it's a person, then killing it is murder. If not, then not. Chickens are alive and conscious and have thoughts and memories and personalities, but I doubt you consider killing them to be murder, since they are not people.

A clump of cells with no brain and no capacity for consciousness is clearly not a person, and killing it is no more wrong than killing a jellyfish.

I wish you were there, too, SydneyB!

Wish I were there to punch your mother in the stomach when you were four weeks after conception. Nothing of value would have been lost!

lol, ok, Mr. "I read a news article and now I'm an expert biologist".

That's some expert goalpost-moving right there.

So are you now claiming that personhood starts when the egg splits into two different embryos and their DNA is no longer identical?

I'm not the one claiming that DNA determines personhood; you are.

Yes, identical twins have the same DNA, but with copy number variations, just like cells from different parts of your own body have the same DNA, but with copy number variations.

Does your body contain multiple people?

there has to be a set limit. youre saying to ban a small pile of sand because you dont want a mountain. i dont think it is 3 months. i dont really know, but i do know we need abortions at some point

What do you mean I don't want a mountain?! You're trying to pin me as biased. You cannot ever define when a baby is sentient. And if this is so, then the only safe bet is to assume that they are considered human from day 1. SI if this is true, and you believe what you just said, then you support a mother killing her child. If they didn't want a baby, they should have kept it in their pants

Jellyfish don't either. So would you be willing to kill them for no good reason?

1. o_O Uh ... yes? Why not? Like, it's mildly irresponsible because they're part of the ecosystem and shit, but even then, who cares?
2. Do you eat meat? That's vastly worse than killing jellyfish.
3. Abortions are never done "for no reason". They're done for very good reasons.

this is in reply to your comment farther down the thread

1. That is unavoidable. We cannot forsee such accurences, therefore they arent our fault

2. also, i was making a joke. My point is that eating meat is something we are capable of, and benefit from, therefore, its fine to do.

3. Ok so if you are braindead and cannot feel anything, but you might have the potential to awaken someday, can i stab you?

1. You're missing the point

2. That was a joke, stop talking about that

3. I don't think you understand what braindead means. It is what happens when you are in a coma. You cannot exhibit personality whilst in a coma, so it's similar to not having a personality. Also, memories aren't super relavant to this, we aren't trying to decipher it it is human, we are trying to decipher if it alive at all

1. Even if we kill jellyfish or single-celled organisms, on purpose, for no reason, it still doesn't matter, because they don't have brains and can't suffer.

2. So by your logic, if we're capable of killing human embryos, and we benefit from it, it's fine to do. So abortion is fine. QED.

3. No, because I have memories and personality in my brain that make me a unique person. We lose consciousness every night; loss of consciousness is not the same as death. Embryos have NEVER HAD consciousness. They've never been people. They've never thought anything.

I'm saying that

1. Destroying life for no or bad reasons is irresponsible and inconceivable

2. Yes I eat meat. Tell me, if it's so bad, then why are human's able to eat meat? Surely natural selection would have weeded it out if it was detrimental.

3. That child that was created doesn't give a crap about right or wrong. It's there. And just because it wasn't a consentual child doesn't negate murder. Unless the child was a threat to the bearer

1. Like, we shouldn't go around destroying ALL jellyfish, or cutting down ALL trees, because that's environmentally irresponsible, but it's not morally wrong on an individual jellyfish level. It's only wrong on a "screwing up the ecosystem by wiping out an entire species" level.

1. That's absurd. We destroy life all the time. Our bodies kill millions of single-celled organisms per minute without us even being aware of it. Killing unconscious things for no reason is fine. Killing a jellyfish for no reason is totally fine. It doesn't suffer or experience any kind of pain. It doesn't have a brain.

2. WTF does natural selection have to do with anything? We're talking about bad = morally bad, not bad = physically harmful. How did you even switch tracks to that? I don't even.

My point is that animals have brains and personalities and memories and emotions, and killing them for food is morally worse than killing a jellyfish or an embryo which have none of those things. I eat meat, and I feel a bit guilty about it, but I have no qualms about killing a jellyfish or embryo.

3. There is no child. That's the whole point of this thread. It's an embryo. It's not a person. It has no feelings or personality or consciousness or memories or anything. If it survives until birth, then it becomes a child.

Also, if it isn't sentient, then it couldn't respond to a changing environment, making it not a living organism. You're basically saying that if it's not sentient, then it isn't alive. That is a converse fallacy, as only the converse is true; if it is not alive, then it is not sentient

"You're basically saying that if it's not sentient, then it isn't alive." lol no. You've got it backwards. You're saying that "if it's alive, then it's sentient", which is nonsense. Worms and trees and chickens and jellyfish and pigs and parameciums and sperm and eggs and embryos and children are all alive. Only one of those is a person.

no i said if it isnt alive, then it isnt sentient. Dont put words in my mouth. that statement isnt even the converse of if it is alive, then it is sentient. Learn logic buddy

You assume that I'm using the slippery slope fallacy, and I would be, if it weren't for the fact that in all cases where a baby survives pregnancy it grows from a fetus (pile) into a baby (mountain)(this referring to the passage of time)

Would you mind explaining how we "NEED ABORTIONS"?

reduce teen pregnancies, which ruin lives. poor people will have less kids that they dont want, which get paid for by welfare. people are stupid and have kids that they cant support. when it isnt a human, we can cancel it

so are you saying that a pregnant mom is like a carrier for an alien? If it grows into a human, then it was human to begin with. This is like saying that tadpoles arent frogs, therefore we should get rid of them. And if this is true, then what about plants? Seeds arent wheat, so its ok to destroy seeds cause it was in the best interest of the wheat? come on man

Both a tadpole and a frog are living creatures, but the seeds make more sense. Seeds can be stomped before plants can

you might be missing the point. You dont kill something that came from a parent. this being that an offspring, even if it isnt alive, will eventually become alive because its encoded in its dna to do so. you cannot claim that because it isnt alive, that you should destroy it. It isnt even hers to destroy, because without the father, that baby wouldnt exist. therefore, technically destroying a baby is mutilation of the host human.

Teen pregnancies as well as teen STDs went through the roof right after prayer was removed from public schools in 1963 but we aren't supposed to bring that up.

I'd love to see your proof of that.

lol. Are those fake graphs?

Teen pregnancy rates have been dropping for decades. Look it up.
http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/FT_16.04.29_teenBirths_longterm_640.png

The ban against state-mandated prayer in schools happened in 1963, and as you can see from that graph, teen pregnancy has been dropping ever since. This isn't from school prayer, but thanks to a little miracle called "contraceptives", which we now teach kids how to use in schools.

Contraceptives also reduce abortion, by the way, which is why abortion rates have been dropping along with the pregnancy rate, and are now lower than when we passed Roe v Wade in 1973. http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/shared/npr/styles/x_large/nprshared/201805/510225551.png

Y'all have a weird relationship with facts.

http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html

You bring up an interesting point regarding the stages. I agree with in that doctors should not kill any unborn humans but for a different reason than the one you stated. The best reason is because they are human. It's an admirable concession though to say that we shouldn't kill sentient beings and as a Pro-life apologist, I'll concede. At least the bar is moving and it's somewhat reasonable. OR I could continue to go down the road you are venturing down. What if the baby was 3 days from 3 months? What's the difference? What is the demarcation point?

Exactly

I dont really know. it is up to our politicians. the problem is that in such a fiery debate, people only say yes or no. we have to have some sort of limit

"people only say yes or no"

It's almost as if we already had this debate decades ago and decided that the limit would be viability outside the mother's womb.

It is legal to abort by free choice up to 22 weeks in most areas. not for ever.

Yes, viability outside the womb was the limit decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Only when it saves the mother's life or the fetus wasn't going to survive anyway, which I'm fine with, because it was never conscious anyway.

The brain is in development as early as 3 weeks.

What percentage of abortions happen at 9 months?

I can't tell where you are on this but if I am reading you wrong then please correct. It seems you are saying that it's like getting a tooth pulled and it shouldn't be anyone else's business. If that were the case then I would be in agreement with this view. But the issue in the meme is the public funding for a "private" elective decision. Why should the public money fund it?? There's more of a case for having public funding to pay for my root canal because I have to have it where an abortion is completely optional. I will also note that one with the view that you can justify the killing because of the reasons listed begs the question - is the unborn human - not if they are a "person" or a "citizen". Of course the question of the humanity of the unborn has been settled long ago - our lives begin at conception. Who determines whether or not one is a person? That is subjective as skin color or ethnicity. OBJECTIVELY, we are all human and it is not justifiable to kill humans because we can do it "privately" or they are no a citizen or not a "person" as some other "person" defines the term "person"(which is self defeating). Then we come back to the meme - why should everyone else be forced to pay for it and how is it justified via our constitution?

money cannot be used for abortions by law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
a lot of people dont know this.

Yes because it's hard to kill a kid with money. Also you literally just said states can fund abortion, so which is it?

Read the entire post as it regards to the afformentioned. States like California and others do it. Please take a look at the "MEXICO CITY POLICY" as well because sends federal funds to other countries to promote abortion. President Obama lifted it and President Trump stopped it. We were sending $60 million dollars around the world on this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_policy

So then why do clinics offer abortions if they cannot make money off of them?

federal government funding. people still pay for them, and state governments do to if they want. however, federally funded Medicare does not include coverage for abortions unless they are by rape or incest.

So what you're saying is that socialists are paying in bulk for abortions. Incest is not the same as rape, at least in the situational sense. Legally, they are the same, but for incest, it's usually "consentual" so they are still killing a being that happened because they were being stupid, not because one party was forced into it

ok

I agree, except in subjectivity in skin color. If you are white and you say are black, you are not only a liar, but a very poor one.

Sorry, but I have no idea as to what you are talking about