This sums up the anti-abortion stance perfectly

All lives matter, born or not

because its murder of a human life

Okay, in my opinion Floyd wasn't murdered because he was a criminal. Boom

"Wubbzymon 1 up, 10h, 2 replies

All lives matter, born or not"

"Wubbzymon 0 ups, 5h, 1 reply

because its murder of a human life"

"Wubbzymon 0 ups, 4h, 1 reply

Okay, in my opinion Floyd wasn't murdered because he was a criminal. Boom"

The irony.

At this rate of progression, hate to see how the 'logic' develops in a few hours, perhaps nuking certain neighborhoods shall become warranted because muh feelz in T minus 22h?

Look it was an example honestly that would make sense

Yes, an example that Floyd's life mattered less than an unwanted zygote that would have grown up in misery thanks to the pos that didn't value it enough to give birth to it if that person was forced to bear that child.

never was trying to say that.

Because it was made legal, unlike regular murder

Yes. That's what you fail to grasp. Every single human being, no matter if they're a day old or pushing 120 years, has an intrinsic right to live until they meet a natural death. Any opposition to this, be it support for abortion, the death penalty, or euthanasia, is support for murder because it is support for the termination of a human being before they have met a natural death.

- Of course I've heard of an ectopic pregnancy. However, you cannot compare that to killing in self-defense, because that implies the unborn child is attempting to both kill the woman in deed and spirit. There are two components to a crime that must be proven to legally convict (actus reus and mens rea, physical act and mental act). Nobody can prove the unborn child actually wanted to kill the mother by implanting in the incorrect part of her reproductive system, therefore the argument that the abortion is self-defense IS indeed logically flawed.

Anyways, here's an NCBI article that sort of breaks down the Catholic position on ectopic pregnancies.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6161225/
The TL;DR, if you're lazy, is that any procedure undertaken with the intention to both save the woman and the child (as can be done with ectopic pregnancies), but could very likely result in the death of the child, is morally sound. It's called the principle of double effect. Abortion is different because the intent of the procedure is to end the viability of the fetus. That provides the mens rea component of a crime, entirely different from the double effect principle.

- "That's not essentially what I'm saying." That IS what you're saying. You are putting yourself in a position of power over this developing human being purely because you are more developed than it. If you didn't think this way, if you thought every embryo was equal to you in terms of its intrinsic rights, you wouldn't support destroying it and its future as a fellow human.

- "You're assuming it doesn't die naturally before that point." Well duh. Miscarriages, tragic as they are, happen quite often despite the mother not wanting them. That's not an excuse to justify intervening ourselves and inducing abortions, which as I noted earlier carry a mens rea element of being intentional.

- No you never said it was alive...I was just telling you to save your fingers if you were going to tell me the fetus wasn't alive and that didn't make abortion wrong. Again, we know that if allowed to live on it will be just like you and me, because all of us were once just like it. It is a human being and therefore it has human rights.

[See my reply to this for further rebuttals.]

[See initial response below for initial rebuttals.]

- No, it wouldn't have the same rights, and no, a cockroach doesn't have human rights. I enjoy hunting and fishing. We don't hunt and fish for human beings. The difference you fail to miss, and one I thought was obvious, is that all human beings deserve to be treated equally. My point was that we acknowledge life exists in single-cell organisms, so there is no reason to consider another unique organism with its own unique DNA and confirmed ability to replicate into a fully-developed human like us 'not alive' and use that as justification to deny its human rights. It is entirely a unique individual.

- The Bible isn't a part of this. I'm not using it as the basis for any of my arguments. Therefore you needn't bring it up.

Obviously we recognize that there are legitimate times in which lethal force must be used in self defense, which of course means the one using it is not a murderer. That said, nobody who was aborted was ever done so for the purpose of 'self defense', so let's set that little false equivalency aside.

The last sentence is what irks me to the extreme. You're essentially saying, "I was once just like you, and I know you will grow up to be just like me, but because I survived long enough to use rational thought and defend my right to life I'm going to deny you that same chance."

Sorry, no. Every single human being at every single stage of development has a right to life. You know that the 'little clump of cells' will live a life just like yours if allowed to do so, so you are indeed destroying that by killing it.

And spare me your platitudes about it not being alive. If we found a single-cell organism under the ice on Europa tomorrow, the world would be praising, 'new life found on another world'. If there was a law against killing frogs, so I went out and jumped on a bunch of tadpoles and frog egg clusters, you can bet I'd face charges for all of them despite them not being anywhere close to a fully developed adult frog.

The world is more than video clips and codified law. There are basic things that we know to be true, and every human being having a right to determine its own future is one of them.

The law says abortion is murder in some countries.

It feels good to be back on imgflip.

Eyyy wubbzy.

What do you consider "Alive?"

Me, you, anything that can breath or can move even the tinniest bit on its own unless disabled

Me, you, Biden, Nancy, Slouth, etc, we all and so are the unborn. Unborn does not mean dead, it just means they haven't reached their next stage as if a baby in the womb was dead, it would be dead when it was born

Zygotes don't breathe though. Nor do they legitimately have a heartbeat... Do you still consider that "alive?" Hell, they can't even think/feel (physically or emotionally.)

Basic Biology 101 sez the answer iz:

No one does when they are born, but hey, be a hypocrite, you love your life but not the life of someone else's and instead support someone who wants to kill it

Ease up fella, just trying to get your view.

When you're born you breathe, you feel emotionally and physically, you react to external stimuli, and you also actually have a heartbeat when you're born. A heart isn't actually formed until eight weeks.

Though I don't know why so much sentimental value is placed on the heart. That isn't where the "soul" or the mind of a human being resides. It isn't until eight weeks that an embryo becomes a fetus.

That said, a miscarriage is a naturally occurring abortion. Same for periods. Menstruation is your body recognizing that ovulation failed to be fertilized so it must eject the material.

That said.. How do you like your eggs?

I mean fried chicken should be an abomination to pro life. You're talking a mother specimen, skinning her, chopping her up, smothering her in her own abortions, then covering her in flour, herbs and spices, then boiling her abortion covered carcass in oil.

Yikes.

Chicken nuggets/tenders/strips are the same.

Try to keep your hostility down as I have given you none., please,

Okay okay, also in my opinion, if you take the life of your child you are a hypocrite

Good thing an embryo isn't a child.

...but it is human

So is semen. Better stop masturbating/having oral sex/anal sex.

Semen isn't human.

"Semen isn't human."

Neither is an embryo.

The human DNA that makes you who you are is first present in the zygote, not a collection of sperm cells.

"The human DNA that makes you who you are is first present in the zygote, not a collection of sperm cells."

It is in both the down and the embryo. Other than it being a multi-cell organism, it has no other characteristic that separate it from being a sperm or an embryo.

Saying that now they're both in one p place doesn't logically make sense, even from a sentimental stand point. We're I to use your logic, I would say an unborn child would not want you to use spermicide or birth control because or wants a chance to fertilize so it can be born.

But this is an illogical mode of thought embryos, zygote, and sperm don't talk/ think/feel by any conventional means. That whole concept is predicated upon giving a voice to something that literally has none. So then, why force women to make the tough choice? Stop idly casting your seed through jacking off, blow jobs and anak sex. Your site want to be born took, otherwise they wouldn't try so hard to be.

"Wubbzymon 0 ups, 4h

Okay, in my opinion Floyd wasn't murdered because he was a criminal. Boom"

When your 'love' of life is less than the worth of a fake $20 bill.
Nope, no hypocrisy there, just sheer unmitigated callous hate.

Not trying to cause hate, just an example

Example of what?

Of if you can't find the joy of life in the unborn, why should I with a criminal

Wha?

The vast majority of abortions happen before the baby is aware and conscious. Also, abortions are a bit like drugs, as banning them won't decrease them, but simply make them more dangerous

A hit you with a bat and your unconscious, your no longer a living being for awhile

The point I'm trying to make here is that at the point where most abortions occur, the foetus can't even feel pain, therefore, they can't possibly qualify as human life

Okay then, have a nice life and have fun seeing others not having theirs's

Just saying, banning abortion won't prevent it, just make it more dangerous

Banning abortion in Japan seems to have worked though

'Banning' isn't the word I would use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Japan

Yes, its the Abortion if it would kill the mother, then its allowed or if you can't have a baby because of money

Almost all abortions happen because of that

In Japan, yes. In America, not really

Wait, was that supposed to be against abortion?

And Liberals wonder why some people call them stupid, yes this was if you were following along

https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589
https://www.womenscenter.com/2020/08/the-top-five-reasons-why-women-have-abortions/

https://www.thoughtco.com/why-women-choose-abortion-3534155

Since the article doesn't have any anti-abortion content in it, and leans more pro-choice, I assumed you'd used the wrong document. Using personal insults will not get you anywhere, so I would advise you to not use personal insults, make your arguments clearer, and sound less like a usual Trumpist nutcase. I good rule of thumb for arguments is to assume your opponent is as dumb as a brick. (Also, don't let them lecture you on how to argue with them properly)

Yes that's the only okay times

Economic hardship? Really?

If they can't have a baby shower, then I suppose

So because something works in another country we should adopt it?

*starts looking up countries with effective fun control, increased social policies, free healthcare, free college education, better programs for the homeless*

I'd earnestly reconsider my position to trade for that

Banning guns won't prevent gun violence, just make it more dangerous.

That's why I don't support full banning of guns

ok

Preach.

"If they can't have a baby shower, then I suppose"

U wot?

Google it

How can you google that which makes no sense?