Abortion

Do you want me to change the exact word I used because the singular usage of that word has nothing to do with my overall point. I'm using natural to mean the crap is gonna happen man. You take two random people and is a baby gonna happen? Maybe, maybe not.

Take a preggo, is a baby gonna happen? Almost certainly.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 26, 2017, Original Post Date: Apr 26, 2017 ---

He never linked a video, he linked a quote attributed falsely to Clinton. It's in the Trump thread.

 

Even though there are false rape allegations? Rape accusations aren't always concrete and it is a difficult thing to prosecute.
Not only that but I'm pretty sure that capital punishment is a human rights violation according to the UN.

 

Capital punishments a different debate. Rape is right up there with murder, rapists should be castrated or killed.

 

I think you missed my point. If an innocent person is convicted of rape due to a false allegation then they will be castrated and die even though they are innocent.

 

This is a debate about capital punishment. Make a new thread if it interests you. I think capital punishment is a valid option, and so I think rapists should be castrated or killed.

 

If it's dependent simply on the likelihood, then it's relative to how common abortion is. If almost everyone begins having abortions all the time, then it's no longer likely that a baby will occur once someone gets pregnant, but this doesn't affect whether or not abortion is right or wrong overall.

 

I actually have no idea what in the hell you're argument is. I've never made any claim abortion being wrong or right, I've simply said that termination of a pregnancy in this fashion prevents what would be a human being from coming into existence, which is not the same as someone who just doesn't get anyone pregnant/become pregnant, because in the former there is near certainty that the baby will be born and the latter is like, a 50/50 thing.

I don't care about the moral implications of people who choose not to have sex/children because there is no prevention of an object already being delivered. It's like you order something from Amazon and cancel it half-way through the shipping process. It was near certain the package was being delivered to you, and it was prevented. This is not the same as never ordering a package through Amazon and never cancelling it.

 

My argument is that if we can agree that the fetus is not a child at conception, there is no significance to the fact that abortion stops a natural thing from happening.

I started off discussing why something not being changed by human choice isn't always the best option, but you've clarified that by "natural" you just meant incredibly likely, so by that, my objection of people who choose not to have kids is no longer relevant, as you weren't using the term to refer to whatever isn't influenced or changed by people's choices and such. In using the term "natural" (or any term, I don't care about the term that you're using and I don't want you to change it; we just needed to be clear on the meaning) in the sense of referring to anything that is incredibly likely, however, my objection that references diseases still holds its ground and you've neglected to give any response whatsoever to it. The likelihood of something happening does not affect whether or not the outcome needs to or should happen.

Also, if abortion became super common to the point that only roughly 50% of conceived fetuses got to develop, would your opinion change on the matter? At this point, a conceived fetus developing into a child wouldn't really be any more likely than people having kids.

 

Ah, I see.

I don't see the point of arguing semantics because semantics don't really change the essential idea. The issue I have with the abortion argument is both sides try to argue semantics to fit the definition neatly into their own worldview. To those on the right abortion is tantamount to taking a baby and executing it in the forest, the left, a fetus is merely a clump of cells that exists in it's own solitary existence.

My main objection is the refusal to see things for what they are. In America, and most modern developed nations, the simple fact is a woman who is pregnant is near certainty going to end up with a child at the end of pregnancy. If this is true and then a women undergoes an Abortion, which I make no moral judgements over, she is stopping what would a near certain trajectory. Are you killing a baby? Absolutely not, but if that women did nothing that baby would wind up a human being with it's own emotions and thoughts and consciousness. But the women did get an abortion, and that baby, which ends up being a human, simply doesn't exist after that point. Does this mean that that fetus held the essence of that fully independent human in the first place? I don't know, I doubt it. But you cannot deny that the abortion ceased the process which ends up with a human being. Is this good, or evil? I don't know, but I do know it's preventing what would be a unique person from existing.

I simply don't see how anything above and beyond this is relevant. It doesn't matter what the statistics are or the meaning. If you get pregnant and have the child you end up bringing what will become a fully functional independent and unique human being to our planet. If you get pregnant and have an abortion, that unique human being will never come to be.

tl;dr Abortion isn't killing a baby but it's also not just killing a clump of cells.

 

My view and wording has not changed. Abortion is indeed murder and I have made myself very clear that if the mother is going to die then I would be fine with aborting the child. I think aborting the 800 children would be better then allowing the 800 women that die a year die. So even though I think abortion is murder, im fine with abortion in the case that the mother is going to die.

I certainly do not think the baby is "just a clump of cells" but I do agree with you. However, I would be hated even more then I am by the "left leaners" then I already am on here. I do think women of rape should carry the baby however they did not choose to get pregnant. Being raped isn't just trauma it leads to much deeper things. So do I think a rape victim should carry the child? yes, should they be forced to? no.

Sorry if my wording was bad, thats my fault. To clarify, I think we should pronounce something alive after a heartbeat. I read some different articles and watched some videos and my opinion has swayed a little bit. I think even if the "clump of cells" or baby does not have a heart beat its still considered murder. So this thread has caused me to change my opinion, just it changed even more towards the opposite direction then they were trying to get me to see in.

Correction: "I think Sharia Law would be a a powerful new direction of freedom and democracy for the women of Libya" -Hillary Clinton (the video was of her wearing a Hijab) and it does go to prove that she does to an extent support the Muslim/Islamic life style. Now, I can't find the video I was talking about either (god I know that makes you so happy Deinen, me? not finding the evidence to my claim, Ill let you have your moment) anyway, I do not care for snopes (even though I have used their articles before) as they are not a very reliable source all the time. Not saying that some of their articles aren't true but they have many false claims as well.

This is tricky. I have no clue how we can get around fake rape accusations. Something I will think about.

I think they should be castrated then killed. I think you watch Ben Shapiro!? He's very educated and I suggest everyone watch him especially you left leaners!

Umm, most of the time they will admit it. This is also another tricky one, we now have the technology to see the facts and most of the time they are right on who did the crime.

@Supreme_Overlord Hillary Clinton says a baby has no constitutional rights (right to life) until they are born.

 

I don't like to use snopes but they are usually pretty good with their fact checking. FALSE: Hillary Clinton Touts Sharia Law as 'Powerful New Direction' for Women
The hijab is a symbol of modesty and privacy. She wore it as a sign of respect to the culture.
[EDIT]: Why is okay for women of other faiths to wear head coverings but when a Muslim woman does, she is being oppressed?

 

I thought she wore it because she joined the Muslim brotherhood.

 

@Erebus45 It's because she was supporting the "respecting" the Islamic countries. It shows she would allow their lifestyle into the U.S.A! anyway, this is about abortion. Make a thread about this and ill be happy to talk about it

 

Yeah, I don't really support castrating/killing innocent people. I'm not really saying this is so common or whatever, but my uncle, a high school teacher, briefly got into trouble with the police after rape accusations.

Some student threatened him that if my uncle didn't give her an A in the class, she'd accuse him of rape. He didn't give her the A, and the student actually followed through. Luckily it all fell through because he was able to prove he was out of town the entire day, but still it cost him a huge headache, and the girl spread a ton of rumors around to the point where he had to transfer school districts. Imagine if he didn't have a couple receipts for a town 300 miles away.

 

It isn't a kid. It's a tiny organism at that point.

If a woman is TRYING to have a child, they most likely will not abort the baby. If the woman IS NOT TRYING to have a child, then she most likely does not have the money or time to support a child. If she is forced to raise that child, it will most likely have a terrible childhood. Along with that, even if the woman gives the baby to adoption, that woman is forced to deal with not only the process of pregnancy, but also the aftermath of pregnancy which in most cases destroys the woman's body, sometimes beyond full recovery. I would never ask anyone to go through that just over a condom breaking or something.

 

This isn't necessarily the case.

 

If I go to another country or place of worship I will show them respect. That doesn't mean I want to join them. For example, when I was going through confirmation at my church, I got the opportunity to visit a Mosque. One thing that they ask is that you don't wear shoes in their worship area. It doesn't matter if I agree or want that in my church, I will show them respect and take off my shoes.

 

when going to other countries we need to make sure to be as american as possible to make sure our lifestyle rubs off on them. we need to make sure to open-carry, wear an american flag t-shirt, proudly display a backwards dallas cowboys baseball cap, while sipping bud lite out of a mug. if you do anything else youre not a true american

 

@metr0n0me they wouldn't castrate then kill someone because they were accused of rape. There would need to be proof. Also, once you castrate and kill a handful of rapist other rapist may back off. Just like Immigration. The number of people coming to America especially illegally dropped when Trump got in because he's started to deport them and what not.

@Killer2themx it is a kid. It's a stage of life.
If you are going to define the fetus as "just a clump of cells" then us "humans" are "just a clump of oxygen and water".
Fetus -> newborn/infant -> baby -> toddler -> child -> teenager -> young adult -> adult -> elder

You can't become one without becoming the other.

ALSO, as I said before. When you have a child you will do whatever you have to do to help them survive. You can say all you want about "financial troubles" but don't have sex if you "can't afford the outcome".

ALSO! Have you looked at the side affects of having an abortion?

@Erebus45 @metr0n0me this is not the thread to talk about Hillary Clinton and her supporting the Islamic way of life. If you want to talk about it I would be more then happy to in another thread.

 

I haven't denied that it is preventing a baby from coming into existence; I do agree on this part.

All of the points that I made were focused more on the moral/ethical relevance of abortion though (I don't know if I was clear enough about this, so my apologies). Overall, my point is that abortion preventing a child from coming into existence doesn't change the moral aspect of it. What I was arguing is that something being the "natural" (whether the word is being used to mean "very likely" or "going to occur if people don't decide to change it) outcome of a situation doesn't give us any moral obligation to strive for said outcome, which is illustrated by diseases that will kill someone if not stopped. Since an outcome being natural doesn't make it inherently moral or good, we'd need to give another reason for why a being that doesn't yet exist is deserving of some rights, and with "naturalness" being irrelevant, doing this would bring us back to having to apply to same rights to all potential children.