The adoption argument is . . . convoluted. Adpoting in the US is a long, arduous, expensive process. That is why many people look to Eastern Europe and Asia for adoption. Maybe, if it weren't so difficult to adopt locally, more kids would be adopted.
@@spicyrogueaj9283 Thats not what I said. It was implies that the excuse of lack of adoption could easily be over turned with a more stream lined adoption process.
James Harback But a woman who gives birth can still instantly sever her parental rights. It might be hard for someone else to get her baby, but that doesn’t mean that she has to care for the baby in the meantime. He/she would be cared for by government employees until an adoption can be arranged.
Ooh I like it! I’m sick of everyone talking about more gun laws. And banning assault weapons. Lol my BIL was at a gun auction last week and he said he looked for assault weapons but couldn’t find any. All the guns were just sitting there, not assulting anybody.
@@poisonousingot222 A gun is not the reason. Guns cannot fire on their own. A human being causes gun injuries, car wrecks, chemical plant explosions, etc. There is a concious decision to improperly handle or fire a gun. It's a tool.
If we Pro-lifers enjoy controlling women's bodies so much, then why aren't we telling them they can't get: -Tattoos? -Body piercings? -Surgeries? -Severe weight gains or losses? Or why aren't we forcing them to donate organs or blood to others who need it? Oh wait, I forgot, I don't actually care what a woman does with her body, I care about what she does to other people's bodies.
@killbotone - That's the same sort of logic that slave owners and Nazis used: "An African slave is not a person in the same way a free White man is a person. Problem solved." "A Jew is not a person in the same way a healthy Aryan is a person. Problem solved." Starting to see a pattern?... *Dehumanization* is almost always used by those trying to justify mass-atrocities.
@killbotone - There's quite a lot to breakdown in your comment above, so I'll go through point-by-point: Re: "So your argument is humans can't learn from the mistakes of maniacs? We are all screwed so. Cant use a gun because X happened, cant drink a beer because Y happened." Nope. This is in fact opposite of the point I was making. Mass-atrocities like slavery and the Holocaust were mostly carried out by *ordinary* people - *not* "maniacs. Ordinary people who adopted an ideology of dehumanizing certain other groups - just like you (and other "pro-choice" people) do with unborn children. Re: "Luckily no parent is thinking of the justification of a mass atrocity when seeking health care.Why would they?" The mass-atrocity here is the state-condoned murder of millions of babies. You referring to it euphemistically as "health care" doesn't change that fact. Re: "Personhood is a spectrum, it has levels. You want to take a dive into Egalitarianism be my guest but it won't bring you any joy." First of all, this "spectrum" argument is a very dangerous one. Is a newborn less of a person than a five year old, who in turn is less of a person than an adult?....Is a person with a low IQ less of a person than a normal IQ person, who, in turn, is less of a person than a genius?....Perhaps then it's not *that* bad to kill a newborn baby, or a retarded person? This is the logic of sociopaths. I also noticed in your original comment you compared an unborn child not with a generic post-birth person, but with "health (sic) 22 year old man." So by your logic then, someone with a serious illness or disability is also less of a person? That's very much like the Nazis indeed! And as far as "egalitarianism," a basic value of modern (small "l") liberal society is that we're all equal in the eyes of the law. We're all entitled to certain basic rights and opportunities, the right to life being chief among them. This doesn't mean that we're all gonna be equal in terms of outcome. Obviously people with greater abilities and motivation will tend to be more successful, but this doesn't mean that we should view those with less ability as somehow less than human.
@killbotone - Your comment above (in addition to being long) is both intellectually dishonest (straw-manning and such) and condescending. With "personhood," for example, you said that it was a "spectrum," which would imply that there's a continuum between being considered a person and not being considered a person. If you had some other intended meaning (not sure what that would be, or how it would fit with your argument) then go ahead and outline it, but don't act like I somehow don't know what "spectrum" means. This reeks of gaslighting! Likewise, with the Nazis, you're engaging in both straw-manning and equivocation when you reply with the "so you're saying that Nazis weren't so bad?" argument. Totally disingenuous! Obviously the masterminds of the Nazi atrocities were monstrous, but most of the work was carried out by regular, and generally otherwise decent, people, most of whom weren't even members of the Nazi Party - people who simply followed the socially acceptable trends and morally compartmentalized. My use of the word "ordinary" was actually an allusion to Browning's excellent book "Ordinary Men." See: www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068 In any case, I'm not gonna keep going point-by-point through your entire diatribe of straw-manning, gaslighting, and other such dishonesty. Just one other point I'll respond to: You talk about "equating a clump of cells to fully actualized human being," but there are two big issues there: 1. At the time that most induced abortions take place (and by the time most women even realize that they're pregnant), the unborn child is actually already quite developed, and calling him or her a "clump of cells" makes no more sense than calling you or me that. We're talking fingers, toes, a beating heart, etc. 2. How exactly are you defining "fully actualized"? Is a newborn baby "fully actualized"???....Is there any specific point at which this "full actualization" occurs, or is it rather a "spectrum" as well? (A spectrum where there's no "good or bad" value judgment attached, but where it's acceptable to kill people towards one end of that spectrum.)
@killbotone yes I suppose making up imaginary standards and then strictly abiding by those same made up imaginary standards solves a lot of problems for low IQ people.
Argument 1: Literally have never heard that argument anywhere. Argument 2: Completely pointless bringing up gender identity. The argument still stands, no uterus, no opinion. Argument 3: You might not be forcing a woman to have sex, but you are forcing them to have a pregnancy that they do not want. That is barbaric. Argument 4: The body in dispute is the woman's. The foetus is only living because of the woman. The anti-choice argument doesn't work anywhere else but here. For example, you wouldn't even force a father to donate an organ or force a father to act as a life support machine. you only force it upon women. Secondly, your true argument is that you don't like women to have inconsequential sex. Men can have as much inconsequential sex as they like, but women can't. "The law requires me to provide for my kids". You can put a child up for adoption, so end of argument. Argument 5: If there's no difference in a baby inside a womb and one out of the womb, why aren't you vehemently apposed to IVF treatment? And if there's no difference, consider a situation where there is a baby and a vile containing an embryo stuck in a burning building. If you could only save one, which would you? Oh yeah, the actual baby. Also on this argument, the idea that you don't care about the baby when it's born is borne out of the fact that right wingers want to cut welfare for children in poverty, and cut healthcare for children. That's why we think you're sick and don't care about the kids. Argument 6: The legislators doing the real damage in trying to restrict and ban abortions are almost all men. Argument 7: Yes they do have the right to choose. There is something inside their body that could potentially kill them or at the very least make them extremely ill. It could potentially bankrupt them due to America's ridiculous healthcare system. The woman in question is the ONLY person that have to deal with that. A man isn't going to die during childbirth. Therefore the woman should have choice to end a pregnancy. All of your responses to these arguments are garbage. And there are so many lies on the right about abortion (ie. late term abortion lies). If you argument is strong, you shouldn't need to lie. But you do, because you're a disingenuous religious zealot.
@Lizzie Allen I haven't lied about anything in my comment. Your reply about seatbelts is just garbage. Contraception isn't 100% effective but people should obviously use it if they don't wish to have a baby. Your argument that abortion should be illegal because contraception exists is ridiculous though because it isn't always effective. What happens in your view if somebody using contraception gets pregnant? Should they be allowed to have an abortion in your view? Of course not, because you don't really give a shit. You and your comrades on the anti-choice/anti-women stance are pieces of shit who care about nothing other than controlling women and particularly poor and minority women who are mostly affected by your hideous world view.
As an atheist I have no religious Bias against abortion but I think that abortions are disgusting and wrong unless the pregnancy will kill or significantly harm the woman. The reason I'm so against abortion is because it's barbaric and pointless and the only reason for it is pure lazyness and greed. There are hundreds of different Contraception methods including condoms(including female condoms which can be inserted hours before intercourse), implants, the coil, contraceptive injection, not having sex, the morning after pill (which can be taken a few days after sex). All of these options and a fraction of the price of an abortion and a lot of them are free with most health insurances, in the UK they're all available on the NHS. So yes my body, my choice, my choice to take precautions whether I choose to have sex or not. I was raped when I had just turned 16 and I took control, the next day I went out and got the morning after pill and there was no baby. I currently have the implant so I don't even have to think about the risks of pregnancy for another two years.
Men can make choices without having consequences. Women, in your view, can't have inconsequential sex. The dem platform is giving people the choice to live their life how they see fit. The right wing nuts platform is for everyone to live within their strict religiously motivated guidelines.
Like another commenter, I’m also an atheist who opposes abortion, which seems unbelievable to many people. As an atheist, I know each of has one life, one opportunity to experience the world and contribute to it. Within each person is unknown potential and to destroy that potential could harm all of us. Who knows which aborted child could have cured cancer or could have become a great leader. The motto of the United Negro College Fund has been “a mind is terrible thing to waste.” If that is true (and it is), wasting a human being would have to be the worst thing anyone could do. There are no real arguments to support abortion other than when it comes down to saving the life of the mother - and even then it’s a horribly painful choice to make. There are endless reasons to oppose it.
Yes, it’s another fallacy promoted by pro abortion activists that all prolifers are “forcing their religion on others”. While most prolifers are religious, you are far from the only nonreligious prolifer. There are actually organisations for people with that point of view. If you’re interested google “atheist agnostic prolife” and you’ll find a few websites. But even with religious people, it doesn’t mean that they are blindly following some religious edict. I base my opposition to abortion on the same nonreligious principles as I would oppose the killing of people outside the womb.
I would argue the woman exercised her choice when she conceived. Unless it's rape, which is what percentage of abortions? Yeah case closed. I can't choose to rid the world of idiots or all proabortion murderers would not be here.
@@essenceofdementia Yes, the difficult choice of aborting or carrying the child and adopting it away or potential raising the child by herself. Do not use pregnancy as a punishment.
You are wrong! They do have the right to choose! They can choose to use birth control,they can choose to make their partner wear a condom,they can choose not to engage in sexual activity without one or both of the above! They have those choices before a child is conceived but if they choose NOT to exercise them that shouldn’t give them the right to murder an innocent child! Being unwilling to prevent a pregnancy is when they have the RESPONSIBILITY to choose,not after conception! Then they have the responsibility to nurture and protect the child! That responsibility extends to the man as well! It’s called personal responsibility! A term which is not fashionable these days unless talking about saving the polar bear or baby seals! When exactly did it become taboo to kill the baby seal but okay to murder the children?
Please enlighten us all on which contraceptive is 100% effective? We'd all love to know. Here's a little thought experiment for you. If there was a living, crying baby, and a vile containing a viable embryo in a burning building and you could only save one. Which one would you save? I think we know the answer. Because they're not the same.
The problem is that no one wants an unwanted child, if you were a woman and got pregnant despite using contraception and really didn’t want a child it wouldn’t be fair to force the mother and child to live an unhappy life
There is a law that requires them to show pictures of what the baby looks like at the stage you're at, and inform you the developmental stage it is at. And they also have to very specifically break down the procedure
They need to put a camera on the instruments used for the woman getting the abortion to see what really goes on. The invention of abortion has been worse than any other invention. It deprives living humans of their basic right to live.
I'm pro-choice and I agree with 4 out of your 7 viewpoints. You do however use non-sequitur, assumption and logical fallacies in your arguments, especially POINT #1. That argument is the most important and your handling of it is the most-flawed. Interestingly I've seen similar views and opinions as yours before, from other pro-lifers. That's a hint by the way. Not too bad an effort but until you successfully address or reconcile argument #1, you will NEVER convince the majority of pro-choice. And smugly dismissing all pro-choice arguments as dumb when your own opinions are flawed as I've already mentioned just makes you look like you're having an attack of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Nor will it win you any supporters either. Except from your own side of course :)
being against killing somebody doesn't require a willingness to care for that person. If somebody wanted to strangle you to death, I'd opposed to that. I absolutely don't need to be (and am not) willing to adopt you in order for that to be a valid argument. Killing is bad, sorry. Actually, not sorry.
That first argument is like saying, you can't be against homelessness unless you're willing to take a homeless person into your home. What a ridiculous argument 😂😂😂
Erm you didnt answer the last point. You just said it was stupid. Andcwho is paying to bring up these children? Im pretty sure you wont be even though you forced them to have the child. Its a womans body and she should be able to do as she wishes. After all do we not tell men that "no means no"
Argument #1 ....you have missed what I think is the best response. The point is this: any criticisms relating to the care and feeding of unwanted children is a tacit admission that we are talking about *unborn human children* in the first place. The argument defeats their own other arguments (not human, not a child, clump of cells etc).
0:23 #7 _You can't be against abortion unless you adopt_ 1:22 #6 _No Uterus, No Opinion_ 1:51 #5 _You can't force a woman to reproduce_ 2:19 #4 _You can't control a woman's body_ (I am my body, the law requires me to use my body to care for my children) 3:17 #3 _Pro Lifers are only pro baby until birth_ 4:08 #2 _You're just men trying to oppress women_ 4:49 #1 _Women Have The Right To Choose_ (That is a concept without meaning. You're right to make a choice depends upon the choice. There are hundreds of things you cannot choose to do)
What if she's just started chemo? Must she try to carry a pregnancy to term? What if she's schizophrenic? What if she's an addict? What if she's anorexic? What if she's 12 and a victim of incest? What if she's 24 and in an abusive relationship with a partner who is sexually molesting their child and she's getting the financial resources together to leave and get herself and the child into therapy? What if she's had eight painful miscarriages, she and her husband are no longer trying to start a family, and she's become suicidal? What if she's 32, got three kids and a job with no insurance -- and the pregnancy alone would put her family over the financial edge? What if she's 44 -- nine years beyond when doctors start calling pregnant women "geriatric" which means she and a baby face greater risks -- she's putting a kid through college and caring for an ill parent? What if she lives in a rural area and the nearest hospital is nearly two hours away? What if she lives in an urban area with a high murder rate and she's recently lost a child to gun violence? What if she has one of umpteen serious, genetic disorders she could possibly pass on to a child? What if the fetus has significant birth defects? What if the baby would be still born? What if she and baby have some combination of these factors? It's so very easy to make a decision about a circumstance you don't face with ramifications that don't affect you or the life that you'd be responsible for bringing into the world. Pregnant women frequently face complicated situations. I trust that the vast majority of women who seek abortions are making that wrenching decision responsibly, mercifully, and, yes, lovingly. What if we stopped trying to write new, restrictive, one-size-fits-all laws and trust women to make the complicated, personal decision about possibly having an abortion, which is allowed by law and already limited in a myriad of ways. This decision affects her health, a potential new life, her obligations and responsibilities, and her and her family's plans for their future. We should all butt the hell out.
Yes, it's a completely bogus argument (like all 7 arguments in this video). If Anti-choicers think that a baby in the womb is the same as one out of the womb, why aren't they campaigning against IVF treatment.
@@Matt-yorks You mean campainging against the killing of the "surplus babies"? Well, some are doing exactly that. And if AntiLifers are for the right to choose whether you have sustain your children, why arent they protesting against fathers (or in very rare cases mothers) having to pay for the kids after a divorce? Im not saying Id want that, itd just be the logical conclusion.
A woman who actually wants to have her baby and who’s life is in danger if the pregnancy is carried out struggles with the choice. She knows that what she has inside of her is a real life that she created. Pro choice mocks this woman.
what I find effective is to point out that "choice" is the wrong word. Choice is for what colour short you'll wear today of if you'll have dessert or not. Abortion is a life or death decision and needs, at thevery least, to be treated with the gravity that implies. So much of the "shout your abortion" stuff is deliberately designed to trivialize abortion.
Your number 1 argument - they have a right to choose; not a good rebuttal as both side are aware that they mean 'to choose to have an abortion'. Or 'what to do with their body', which you covered.
Gotta love how he said it's not a human is the weakest argument and didn't even address it. Well, I can easily destroy the pro-life position with that argument alone. Embryos lack sentience, sapience, the ability to feel pain, viability, and everything else it takes to be a human. When those traits develop, that's where we should be drawing the line (as was down with Roe vs. Wade). If you're going to argue that human life begins at conception, you have all your work cut out for you. Yes, the embryo cells are living human cells, but so are your skin cells. Yet we don't send people to jail for scratching their nose and killing thousands of living human skin cells. If we did, whacking it would be genocide and don't get me started about girls who engage in "cannibalism." Over 90% of all abortions are medical abortions. Women take a pill and pass a cluster of cells in the first 8 weeks. If anything, we should make these ridiculously cheap and easy to access so that women who aren't able to raise a child or face the stigma of being a single parent can terminate the pregnancy before the cells differentiate and a brain starts to develop. Instead, religiously motivated, backward laws are shutting down clinics and forcing desperate women to resort to dangerous life-threatening coat-hanger abortions. This is wrong. Educate yourself PragerU.
Matt’s argument on women’s choice (argument #1) is weak. I like Crowder’s argument of “I believe in choice: abstinence, protection, adoption, marriage” as a much better moral and practical argument in the debate.
Posted the article that says the same, got people complaining about it telling me that these were all "right-wing garbage talking points". To which I asked, "ok, which of the 7 do you disagree with, and why? We can talk out each one." The response? You guessed it; "they all suck and you suck". Productive discussion, am I right?
I hear several comments about adoption being difficult. I have several friends who've adopted children for free and were made families quickly. The neediest America children are minority children (babies included) and children with many sorts of disabilities. You don't have to adopt to be supporting. Support your friends who are adopting. And please don't be afraid to adopt a child with a different "race."
That's not a choice though. Contraception fails. And even if contraception isn't used, are you advocating ruining somebodies life, because they had un-safe sex? If so, you're sick in the head.
That's not a choice though. Contraception fails. And even if contraception isn't used, are you advocating ruining somebodies life, because they had un-safe sex? If so, you're sick in the head.
Look up the story of Steve Jobs birth and childhood. His mother, a single woman, grad student, pregnant and didn't want a baby... adoptive parents that didn't meet her standards as they were blue collar, only high school education. .... it's a incredible story of what if she got an abortion.
What a ridiculous argument. What if Steve Jobs' mum had a miscarriage? What if Steve Jobs died of cot death. The point is, not everyone is ready for a child when they get pregnant. Using your stupid logic, what if the woman who would've cured cancer didn't have access to an abortion and therefore couldn't study medicine?
@@allen_p God is a figment of your imagination. Plenty do yes, but plenty don't. Abortion isn't murder and you don't care about women. Are you supporting legislation to ban IVF treatment?
I dont think you are fully representing the argument at 3:30. The point is you cant call yourself pro-life if you only care about life after childbirth, IE ignoring war for example.
Verl Keeler Sure she has the choice to spread or close her legs, but if she spreads her legs without protection, and she gets pregnant, she doesn’t get to choose to murder a baby
@@spicyrogueaj9283 o dont understand ur comment, i AGREE wit u, IT IS MURDER and its also FREE INVENTORY----but it is her choice , something she will have to live with the rest of her life, unless it doesnt matter, in which case, neither will she
Verl Keeler Right but when she had sex without a condom, she knew there was a chance that she would get pregnant. She doesn’t just get to kill a child because it is inconvenient for her
Ok, so you say that the responsibility of being pregnant is just as much as the responsibility of raising the kid. If you're going to equate pregnancy with post-birth care, then you need to deal with the fact that you can replace the mother and father post-birth so then figure out a way to take the responsibility off the pregnant woman before birth. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Your equation is ridiculous. No serious person can equate pregnancy with any other responsibility.
How would you debunk the "what if a woman got pregnant by a rapist?" argument? I'm tired of seeing that one. I say that the fact that the child came from a rape doesn't mean it's worth less. It still has the value of a human.
that value requires money & time to be extracted. it also threatens other "valued" humans if handled improperly. i say choose what you value wisely or the boat you love so much may sink.
*Abortion will never be truly abolished as long as society continues to tolerate any form of artificial contraception and the contraceptive mentality in general. After all, abortion is the inevitable backup when those fail.*
So you don't support contraception either? The right wing get sicker by the day. If you don't want to use contraception or have an abortion. Don't. Simple. Don't tell other people how to live their lives, you sick fuck.
@@haxios3588 I believe that some people deserve to die. But not babies who haven't chosen to make any of the terrible decisions their parents made. In my mind, the only people who truly deserve to die are unrepentant murderers, and maybe rapists. And there are other times when it is necessary to kill whether or not the victim deserves it, such as in a war... But abortion is a different matter entirely, and as such, I will never support it for any other reason than to help a woman who got pregnant through a rape.
@@poisonousingot222 Then let me ask you this: If I decide that I don't like a school bully who takes my lunch money and beats me up, then am I allowed to kill him because that would be convenient for me? I'm sorry to say it, but your argument is essentially that people have a right to hurt others as long as it benefits them. But countless scenarios have shown us that that is not the case. I understand that you have good intentions. After all, you see yourself as a defender of woman's rights, but it doesn't matter what a woman wants after she has made the foolish decision of pre-marital sex as most abortion cases involve. She must go through with the consequences like the rest of us with anything else. Think of it like taking illegal drugs. If someone gets addicted, do they have the choice to stop at will? Of course not, they made the decision to take the drugs, and the price is that they will need them to feed their addiction. It sounds harsh, but that's reality. Real life is brutal, and the reason for that is so we can let that brutality make us stronger. If a teenager has sex with a guy in her school, well, she's already made her choice. If a married woman has two children and decides that she doesn't want a third, well, all I can say is tough luck. That's life. You can't avoid its trials. I have endured countless challenges that I wished I could have avoided, but I wasn't given a choice, and those challenges have changed me. Life isn't about being comfortable or having things convenient, life is about making something better of yourself. I would urge you to consider that before you decide that something like abortion is right. Remember that slave owners believed that they had a right to own other people because it made their own lives easier to not have to work in a cotton field themselves.
WarriorofLight I don’t think abortion is the same as taking a life personally, I’d never get an abortion after 13 weeks as that is when babies develop conscious thought but before that I think it’s ok as you aren’t ending a life just stopping one from happening (the same as contraception)
And the death penalty should also be a decision that the victim’s family should make They should have full custody over the murderer and decide their fate not the government
I do think woman have the right to choose! What if the baby is seriously disabled or if she was raped? I used a condom and it broke. Did not get pregnant but could have! So you should look at the situation before shouting NO !!!
When are children independent, and more importantly, does it matter to the argument? How do you define independent- biologically, emotionally, financially? Is it wrong for babies to breast feed, as they rely on their mother? Would you consider that being a "host"? Is it wrong for a father to stand up for his son at a sporting event in middle school? After all, the father is providing his physical and mental presence through obligation. Is that host behavior? Are parents in the wrong for feeding and nurturing their children's kids? Why do children instinctively turn to their parents for aid? Define the status of a host and then we can clarify. A "conception" is immediate. As soon as the egg is fertilized that unique dna will never occur again. "Viability" has nothing to do with the scientific definition of life, but a unique strand of dna actively sending messages to develop is life. Regardless of being inside or outside or at school or work or with a significant other or dying in hospice, that is a unique life that relies on society. And is that wrong?
Not quite, consent to sex is not consent to gestation. second, the fetus or embryo cannot be recognized as human; therefore, it does does not have human rights at the moment of abortion. Third, even if you make the claim that it has the potential to be human, the second remains and therefore the women cannot be used as a means to gestate in order to grant it human status.
How irresponsible it is to be pro-death and then be reckless and get pregnant on accident. If you think it's ok to kill baby then you better do everything you can to assure you don't get knocked up.
wow, great timing. Just today was I assigned to write an argumentative essay for my English class on a controversial topic...and of course I chose abortion
Good job straw-manning the pro-abortion argument! I hope you feel really proud of yourself for taking the low road of intellectual debate. There are plenty of better pro-abortion arguments than the ones you mentioned.
@Jacob Howell The first one is not a law. If you go to work drunk you will be fired. A person getting another person pregnant that do not want back an abortion. Blackout and break the law will get you jail time. But they have a right to make their choice.
Slavery was also legal. Children being chimney sweeps, or working in factories was also legal. Beating your wife was legal. Marrying women against their will was legal, or marrying children. There are too many things that are morally wrong, but still legal. Legal doesn't mean it's morally acceptable.
@@hellybelle5 get real. We are dealing with the year 2019. Here and now. Now you are overreaching. It kills me people bring up the past when they are losing there point. Please stop your just embarrassing your.
@@46L482 slavery is still happening in places like Libya... killing, or taking advantage of the most vulnerable may be ok with you, it's not with me. If you can't see the relevance, then there's no help for you.
Nope, still pro choice over here. Your "dismantling" is quite vague and full of your own opinion and bias. I'm not going to be on the side that says you don't have ownership over your own body cause then I'd have to subjugate myself to that same argument. You say "value" of a child is equal outside of the body as it is inside, well clearly not since they made the choice to terminate the pregnancy. They did not value a child in there life hence why they got the abortion. And if that really is your major reason for pro life then your quite ignorant in believing that everyone values everyone equally. Do I value the life of a convict over a law obeying citizen, no. Would I sacrifice my life for a complete stranger, probably not. So clearly there are flaws in your "logic". People can pick and choose when they want to have kids. I find this argument funny to me cause it shouldn't have gotten off the ground to begin with, but hey your entitled to your own opinions and beliefs but when you try to get lawmakers involved to enforce your beliefs that's where your going to meet resistance and opposition. I don't believe in the things that you believe, non the less I respect your ideas and views but I have to greatly disagree to some of your points.
If you built a self aware computer, can you destroy it before you turn it on? It doesnt know it exists, but once you turn it on, it does. Is it more wrong to destroy it after its been turned on?
That's just silly, lol A computer can't have a soul, therefore it can't be the same as a human. Can't even be the same as a dog. Just a glorified furbee with fancier gadgets 😂
@ALJustice0 We as human beings are all living souls because the Lord God breathed life into each of us. When a human builds a robot, this doesn't happen for the robot.
So they don´t have the right to chose because there are hundreds of things that legally they cannot chose to do?. But is this one of those things though?.
chickens are smarter than pro choicers heres why even the chicken knows to protect its egg, because theres a chick inside even though it does not look like a chick yet
And women who want a pregnancy do the same. A foetus is not a child, it's a potential child. And it's a potential child that could hypothetically kill you during child birth. When anti-choicers are advocating father's being required by law to give up an organ or their body for their child then you will at least then be consistent with your dumb and barbaric argument.
chickens can also leave chicks for dead if deemed freaks or unfit. shoebills have a spare child as a backup but will just as easy leave them for dead too. dont base your morality on animals. as humans we have to decide when we have a right to live. and personally i think its when we can first feel pain.
Matt you moron the baby is developing inside a woman your argument makes no sense figures coming from a dumbass like u if you were a fetus i would step on you and get away cause its not murder lmao
i always think this argument should refer to biologists. what point can a foetus feel pain or be constituted as living. if it cant as said point; flush it out.
Thats very difficult. Cause, you see , from a biological point of view, every cell of an embryo is considered living. They grow, proliferate, react to their enviroment, have a metabolism and are able to move (themselves or things within them). But every nurse would be a mass murderer according to that definition of life (bakteria,...). So I guess we have to decide that one with ethics.
@@AfroGannon So, I looked into it and got a kinda dissapointing answer (again). What it comes down to is, that you cannot tell. Longer version: Pain is made up of two components: A "physical" one and an emotional one. Its defined (according to the International association to study pain) as "an unpleasent sensorial and emotional experience, as a result of an actual or potential tissue damage". The only thing you can try to examine, is how old a child in the womb has to be to develop some kind of (working!) peripheral nervous system, including nocireceptors. But the mere exictense of a pns aint enough, when youre asleep, for example, your brain ignores "pain input" to a certain degree. Pain beyond that degree will make you wake up, and therefor feel pain. Whether embryos or fetuses are "awake" or "wakeable" and therefor able to feel pain is hard to tell, especially when theyre too young to kick their poor moms belly... ;) So, it really comes down to whether a baby has emotions or not. And thats a thing you cant proof (or disprove) scientifically. Youre stuck in a loop: If babys can feel pain, theyre alive. But to feel pain, its necessary to have emotions. But in order to have emotions, you have to be alive. On the other hand, even bacteria are responding to tissue damage, whilst they lack a cns, so you could define that as a sort of "basic" form of pain. But since bacteria dont have a cns, they dont have an active conciousness and are therefor not able to have emotions. Babys on the other hand might be capable of exactly that, especially, if you (as I do) believe in us humans soulful. I hope this short reply helps some of y'all out there.
Truthfully, I wouldn’t even consider an abortion but it’s currently legal so🤷🏻♀️. Well agree to disagree. What irritates me to no end though is the complete dismissal of personal responsibility. Even the term “unwanted pregnancy” is a cop out. DONT HAVE SEX IF YOURE NOT WILLING TO RISK, at varying percentages depending on your choice of protection, GETTING PREGNANT. It’s slack & unbecoming of a woman to argue so passionately for abortion. It shouldn’t be that serious. You don’t HAVE to have unprotected sex. It’s all a choice. & killing your unborn child because you were careless, irresponsible & dumb, shouldn’t be your solution to you being fast in the pants
If the child is unable to sustain living outside of the womb, then how is it a life? Until we are able to manufacture children like in Brave New World, then it's not really a life if it can't sustain itself independent of the mother. It is certainly true that premature births can be kept alive in intensive care, and nursed to healthy existence, but how far back does that go? Does it go back to 6 weeks after conception?
1) Would you *dare* say a disabled child is less of a person than an able-bodied one? NO ONE, not a single living being, is wholly self-sufficient/sustaining. We all depend on each other -- and often upon medical intervention -- in innumerable ways over a lifetime. To claim that vulnerability/dependency negates a being's very LIFE is inhumane. 2) Thanks to medical technology, premature infants who would've died 50 years ago are *thriving.* Meaning: viability changes over time; humanity is not determined by access to (or lack of) external care.
I agree with a lot of these but not all. 1) A fetus that does not have a nervous system that is developed enough for subjective experience might be biologically, or at least genetically, human but I wouldn't consider it to be a person. It doesn't have a mind and it can't feel happiness or pain. The fact that it will develop this by default if the process isn't interrupted is irrelevant because potential isn't actual, it's potential. We'll all be dead one day but we're not dead now. Not that I recognize their expertise but most philosophers would argue that personhood is rooted in metacognitive self-awareness which doesn't begin to develop in humans until 1.5-2 years of age - I don't understand a concept of personhood that isn't rooted in some kind of psychological criteria. Plants are living biological entities, they reproduce sexually, they can be injured, they grow, they get sick, and they die just like we do but they have no minds - no desires, no capacity for autonomy and no capacity for happiness and pain (emotional well-being is what I care about but I can still agree with a broad group of people that personhood requires psychological criteria - persons are minds). I've come across conflicting information and I'm poorly educated on the issue but apparently most or many doctors don't believe the fetus is capable of subjective experience until around 30 weeks, it can vary on a case by case basis. 2) There's something to be said about the fact that pro-choice people are selectively libertarian when it comes to abortion (although you can give a welfare based argument against forced pregnancies) but it is a coherent position. Your womb is your property - abortion removes an unwanted entity from your property in the same way you can remove an unwanted guest from your house (it might not be legal to shoot an unwanted non-violent guest, I would hope not since I'm not a libertarian, but being pro-choice is consistent with property rights). Aside from child support I don't think the law actually requires you to care for your children. Does it? You can give your children up for adoption. I'm against abortion at whatever point the fetus becomes capable of pain and apparently anesthetics isn't a practical option.1st and 2nd trimester fetuses, if it's true that they are insentient, deserve consideration only as potential persons.
7. Who’s saying that nonsense? 6. That’s the same argument as 5 and 3 5. Yep, cause that would be rape. 4. Do you what with your body, but just like after birth, you are responsible for the life...by law. 3. Don’t understand this nonsense. 2. Sexist much? 1. Same as #4. No one has the capacity to understand when a life begins. That’s all the defense needed...for pro life.
Ultimately it doesn't matter what YOU think. It's up to the woman that is deciding whether to have an abortion or not, you have nothing to do with it. It's that simple.
But it is. It's her choice whether you agree with it or not. That's the REAL point. And just because YOU think it's morally wrong doesn't mean that others will agree with that as well.
So, Susan Smith, Kasey Anthony, and Andrea Yates should never have been convicted of murder?? Is that what you're saying? They each exercised their right to murder their own children...just happened outside the womb rather than in the sanctuary of the womb, where a baby (a human child) should be safest. For my entire 46 years, murder has been considered wrong. It's shouldn't be a woman's right. It's murder
The woman should have more rights than the fetus at every stage of pregnancy. A “child inside the womb” is a.) not a child yet, and b.) not a good enough excuse to strip away rights
Lizzie Allen It’s not uncommon to get pregnant even while using contraception, and it’s not fair to blame someone for a chemical reaction they can’t control. I’ve always been confused as to why some women choose to fight against the right of choice for other women
You had good points except "No Uterus, No Opinion". You should have ditched that one, because its just a different version of "Men can't have an opinion because they don't carry the child". It's close to "right wing men bossing women around" and "Women have the right to choose", which you address well on their own. You also used a flimsy answer. Who cares if they are crazy enough to "eliminate" sex difference (as if they could talk reality away. Crazy). Thats not related to abortion.
Can I still lean "right" but still support pro choice? I'm a male and I am pro choice, but I also belive in more conservative ideals opposed to democrat/liberal/leftist/socialism. But with abortion it goes the other way for me. I belive that it is entirely up to the mother and father of the child to decide if the child would have quality of life with them or even quality of life with a potential adopting family of which they may not have a say in who does and does not have a chance at adopting.... should the biological parents even have a say In the childs life after giving the child up? Good question. I put myself into the perspective of a pregnant woman under stress. The responsibility of a child, the pain and shock the body can endure while giving birth to an unwanted or I'll prepared for child can seam daunting and intimidating to a woman. And what it boils down to is perspective. It depends if you view a fetus as a human being or not. Sure the potential for life is there but the potential for life is technically everywhere. Every time a dude jerks off or uses a condom to directly prevent life is that a form of preventative measure just as abortion is? Where exactly is the cut off? What is okay and not okay? The difference in perspective and opinion here is what drives the arguement. I belive that personal matters should stay personal and your opinions should have no authority over another. Your opinions to take away guns should not affect me in any way just as someones opinion of abortion shouldnt Swade somone in that direction or away from it. It is their personal choice alone and not yours or anybody elses in my opinion. If you get pregnant and choose to have the kid, good for you. You're a mother and I hope you live a very happy life with your child. Also, if you get pregnant, and for whatever reason you decide to abort it, I'm sorry that you had to go through that. I'm sure it was a hard decision and you had your reasons for not wanting to bring a child into this world. I wont tell another potential family what they should and should not do with their potential child and I hope others would do the same for me with my wife and potential child. Your buisness ie yours and mine is mine.
Slick Daddy the problem with this is, it’s not supposed to be opinionated. by the time most women have an abortion, the baby has already developed its own blood type, dna, heart beat, and has brain activity. these are qualities only a living being can have. the fact is you’re killing something, and there shouldn’t be an opinion on whether that’s right or wrong. if you kill an innocent little boy or girl you’re wrong, and that’s not up to anybody’s opinion. so why isn’t it the same for an unborn child?
@@connor-do2bg and you see, that's it right there! I watched ben shapiro special of him explaining life and potential of life. Love ben Shapiro and all he stands for but my opinion differs. Again, people get involved into personal shit they shouldnt be involved in. I'm glad you value life under all circumstances AS IS YOUR RIGHT TO YOUR OWN OPINION, but their are extensive circumstances that could justify abortion as a viable option for some people (obviously not for you). It's not black and white. There is a lot of grey area. Your views dont nessearily apply to all others and before you say something to make me look like an inconsiderate monster like "you're killing human beings you justify death" and whatnot.... understand that these are opinions and some opinions WILL conflict with your own. You define life as blood type, heart beat, ect... and while yes those are scientific qualitys for "living" things for life, as we know it, here on earth... there are many other things that are "living" that dont spark up nearly as much of a debate as "potential human life". I define life as quality of living beyond conception and personality. Which neither of which apply or are guarenteed to a fetus BUT the potential for both are very high after birth. Again, key word is "potential" and I agree! Potentially that unborn child has the potential to enjoy life and have a personality after birth. If my neighbors had an abortion I wouldnt think any less of them for it. Yes I'm sad that for whatever reason it didnt work out but due to their cicumstances they didnt want the child. Maybe it was an accident and they arent responsible enough to have a baby, you'll say "you can still have the baby and give it up for adoption" what, so the child can be ridiculed its entire life for being adopted? So the mother can go through the pain and anguish of delivering a child only to give it up for adoption and endure for nothing? So they can be related to someone completly cut off from the rest of the family out there? I wouldnt want that for me or my kid. What if rape was a factor? Would you want to keep a child conceived by rape? I sure wouldnt. What if the child would be born into poverty within the family and the family dreamed it as a lack of quality of life. I'm not trying to change your opinion and you should not try and change mine. We wont agree and I see your side and I want you to see mine. Everything that happens to you and your family should be between you and your family and nobody else, regardless of the situations or outcomes.
@@ajmaynard7986 mnn, dont demonize it. You have gun supporters who dont want their guns taken away or anybody elses guns taken but GUNS KILL PEOPLE.... so they must be okay with supporting murder right? NO! A common arguement to that is this "guns dont kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE" and your right, people do kill people and if you accept that as a fact that people kill people then why does the thought of abortion bother you so much if it's a person killing another person. #mindfuck You're drawing hypothetical lines to correlate your own motives and beliefs. Understand that you are directly pushing your own opinions onto others with a very personal matter. The country is LITTERALLY divided on this subject. You have 50 percent of people for abortion and 50 percent of people against it. So you're just gonna say that 50 percent of people love killing people right? Lol, that's fucking loony man! If you say 50 percent of people love killing, that's like me saying 50 percent of people want children to have miserable lives being ridiculed for being adopted, born into poverty or maybe not ever being adopted at all! Its extremism man. Dont be a fucking extremist.
The adoption argument is . . . convoluted. Adpoting in the US is a long, arduous, expensive process. That is why many people look to Eastern Europe and Asia for adoption. Maybe, if it weren't so difficult to adopt locally, more kids would be adopted.
James Harback Agreed. America needs a substantially easier adoption system.
James Harback So that makes it okay to kill babies?
@@spicyrogueaj9283
Thats not what I said. It was implies that the excuse of lack of adoption could easily be over turned with a more stream lined adoption process.
James Harback But a woman who gives birth can still instantly sever her parental rights. It might be hard for someone else to get her baby, but that doesn’t mean that she has to care for the baby in the meantime. He/she would be cared for by government employees until an adoption can be arranged.
James Harback not sure if it’s true but I’ve often heard it costs around $10,000 to adopt.
If only women can decide on abortion laws then only firearm owners can decide on gun laws. Damn, logic.
Ironic. Your logic is flawless.
Ooh I like it! I’m sick of everyone talking about more gun laws. And banning assault weapons. Lol my BIL was at a gun auction last week and he said he looked for assault weapons but couldn’t find any. All the guns were just sitting there, not assulting anybody.
Well not really, you see one causes no harm while the other is the reason school shooting happen
@@poisonousingot222 A gun is not the reason. Guns cannot fire on their own. A human being causes gun injuries, car wrecks, chemical plant explosions, etc. There is a concious decision to improperly handle or fire a gun. It's a tool.
Allen Pape If school shooters couldn’t get guns they wouldn’t be school shooters, everyone would feel a lot safer if no one had a gun
If we Pro-lifers enjoy controlling women's bodies so much, then why aren't we telling them they can't get:
-Tattoos?
-Body piercings?
-Surgeries?
-Severe weight gains or losses?
Or why aren't we forcing them to donate organs or blood to others who need it?
Oh wait, I forgot, I don't actually care what a woman does with her body, I care about what she does to other people's bodies.
@killbotone - That's the same sort of logic that slave owners and Nazis used:
"An African slave is not a person in the same way a free White man is a person. Problem solved."
"A Jew is not a person in the same way a healthy Aryan is a person. Problem solved."
Starting to see a pattern?...
*Dehumanization* is almost always used by those trying to justify mass-atrocities.
@killbotone - There's quite a lot to breakdown in your comment above, so I'll go through point-by-point:
Re: "So your argument is humans can't learn from the mistakes of maniacs? We are all screwed so. Cant use a gun because X happened, cant drink a beer because Y happened."
Nope. This is in fact opposite of the point I was making.
Mass-atrocities like slavery and the Holocaust were mostly carried out by *ordinary* people - *not* "maniacs. Ordinary people who adopted an ideology of dehumanizing certain other groups - just like you (and other "pro-choice" people) do with unborn children.
Re: "Luckily no parent is thinking of the justification of a mass atrocity when seeking health care.Why would they?"
The mass-atrocity here is the state-condoned murder of millions of babies. You referring to it euphemistically as "health care" doesn't change that fact.
Re: "Personhood is a spectrum, it has levels. You want to take a dive into Egalitarianism be my guest but it won't bring you any joy."
First of all, this "spectrum" argument is a very dangerous one.
Is a newborn less of a person than a five year old, who in turn is less of a person than an adult?....Is a person with a low IQ less of a person than a normal IQ person, who, in turn, is less of a person than a genius?....Perhaps then it's not *that* bad to kill a newborn baby, or a retarded person?
This is the logic of sociopaths.
I also noticed in your original comment you compared an unborn child not with a generic post-birth person, but with "health (sic) 22 year old man."
So by your logic then, someone with a serious illness or disability is also less of a person? That's very much like the Nazis indeed!
And as far as "egalitarianism," a basic value of modern (small "l") liberal society is that we're all equal in the eyes of the law. We're all entitled to certain basic rights and opportunities, the right to life being chief among them.
This doesn't mean that we're all gonna be equal in terms of outcome. Obviously people with greater abilities and motivation will tend to be more successful, but this doesn't mean that we should view those with less ability as somehow less than human.
@killbotone - Your comment above (in addition to being long) is both intellectually dishonest (straw-manning and such) and condescending.
With "personhood," for example, you said that it was a "spectrum," which would imply that there's a continuum between being considered a person and not being considered a person. If you had some other intended meaning (not sure what that would be, or how it would fit with your argument) then go ahead and outline it, but don't act like I somehow don't know what "spectrum" means. This reeks of gaslighting!
Likewise, with the Nazis, you're engaging in both straw-manning and equivocation when you reply with the "so you're saying that Nazis weren't so bad?" argument. Totally disingenuous!
Obviously the masterminds of the Nazi atrocities were monstrous, but most of the work was carried out by regular, and generally otherwise decent, people, most of whom weren't even members of the Nazi Party - people who simply followed the socially acceptable trends and morally compartmentalized. My use of the word "ordinary" was actually an allusion to Browning's excellent book "Ordinary Men." See: www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068
In any case, I'm not gonna keep going point-by-point through your entire diatribe of straw-manning, gaslighting, and other such dishonesty.
Just one other point I'll respond to:
You talk about "equating a clump of cells to fully actualized human being," but there are two big issues there:
1. At the time that most induced abortions take place (and by the time most women even realize that they're pregnant), the unborn child is actually already quite developed, and calling him or her a "clump of cells" makes no more sense than calling you or me that. We're talking fingers, toes, a beating heart, etc.
2. How exactly are you defining "fully actualized"? Is a newborn baby "fully actualized"???....Is there any specific point at which this "full actualization" occurs, or is it rather a "spectrum" as well? (A spectrum where there's no "good or bad" value judgment attached, but where it's acceptable to kill people towards one end of that spectrum.)
@killbotone yes I suppose making up imaginary standards and then strictly abiding by those same made up imaginary standards solves a lot of problems for low IQ people.
@killbotone clever zinger there bud, but you still can't beat my argument. Otherwise, you know..... You Would have.
No one should ever be forced to give up their organs against their will to another human. Period. It’s that simple.
Argument 1: Literally have never heard that argument anywhere.
Argument 2: Completely pointless bringing up gender identity. The argument still stands, no uterus, no opinion.
Argument 3: You might not be forcing a woman to have sex, but you are forcing them to have a pregnancy that they do not want. That is barbaric.
Argument 4: The body in dispute is the woman's. The foetus is only living because of the woman. The anti-choice argument doesn't work anywhere else but here. For example, you wouldn't even force a father to donate an organ or force a father to act as a life support machine. you only force it upon women. Secondly, your true argument is that you don't like women to have inconsequential sex. Men can have as much inconsequential sex as they like, but women can't. "The law requires me to provide for my kids". You can put a child up for adoption, so end of argument.
Argument 5: If there's no difference in a baby inside a womb and one out of the womb, why aren't you vehemently apposed to IVF treatment? And if there's no difference, consider a situation where there is a baby and a vile containing an embryo stuck in a burning building. If you could only save one, which would you? Oh yeah, the actual baby.
Also on this argument, the idea that you don't care about the baby when it's born is borne out of the fact that right wingers want to cut welfare for children in poverty, and cut healthcare for children. That's why we think you're sick and don't care about the kids.
Argument 6: The legislators doing the real damage in trying to restrict and ban abortions are almost all men.
Argument 7: Yes they do have the right to choose. There is something inside their body that could potentially kill them or at the very least make them extremely ill. It could potentially bankrupt them due to America's ridiculous healthcare system. The woman in question is the ONLY person that have to deal with that. A man isn't going to die during childbirth. Therefore the woman should have choice to end a pregnancy.
All of your responses to these arguments are garbage. And there are so many lies on the right about abortion (ie. late term abortion lies). If you argument is strong, you shouldn't need to lie. But you do, because you're a disingenuous religious zealot.
@Lizzie Allen I haven't lied about anything in my comment. Your reply about seatbelts is just garbage. Contraception isn't 100% effective but people should obviously use it if they don't wish to have a baby. Your argument that abortion should be illegal because contraception exists is ridiculous though because it isn't always effective. What happens in your view if somebody using contraception gets pregnant? Should they be allowed to have an abortion in your view? Of course not, because you don't really give a shit. You and your comrades on the anti-choice/anti-women stance are pieces of shit who care about nothing other than controlling women and particularly poor and minority women who are mostly affected by your hideous world view.
As an atheist I have no religious Bias against abortion but I think that abortions are disgusting and wrong unless the pregnancy will kill or significantly harm the woman. The reason I'm so against abortion is because it's barbaric and pointless and the only reason for it is pure lazyness and greed. There are hundreds of different Contraception methods including condoms(including female condoms which can be inserted hours before intercourse), implants, the coil, contraceptive injection, not having sex, the morning after pill (which can be taken a few days after sex). All of these options and a fraction of the price of an abortion and a lot of them are free with most health insurances, in the UK they're all available on the NHS. So yes my body, my choice, my choice to take precautions whether I choose to have sex or not. I was raped when I had just turned 16 and I took control, the next day I went out and got the morning after pill and there was no baby. I currently have the implant so I don't even have to think about the risks of pregnancy for another two years.
"Dismantling The 7 *Dumbest* Pro-Abortion Arguments"
I guess that's easier than dismantling the 7 best arguments.
The 7 dumbest arguments seem to be the only arguments that libtards can come up with.
There are no good arguments for abortion, none!
Choices without consequences. The Dem platform.
Jerry Gaither Brett Kavanaugh
Men can make choices without having consequences. Women, in your view, can't have inconsequential sex. The dem platform is giving people the choice to live their life how they see fit. The right wing nuts platform is for everyone to live within their strict religiously motivated guidelines.
Like another commenter, I’m also an atheist who opposes abortion, which seems unbelievable to many people. As an atheist, I know each of has one life, one opportunity to experience the world and contribute to it. Within each person is unknown potential and to destroy that potential could harm all of us. Who knows which aborted child could have cured cancer or could have become a great leader. The motto of the United Negro College Fund has been “a mind is terrible thing to waste.” If that is true (and it is), wasting a human being would have to be the worst thing anyone could do.
There are no real arguments to support abortion other than when it comes down to saving the life of the mother - and even then it’s a horribly painful choice to make. There are endless reasons to oppose it.
Yes, it’s another fallacy promoted by pro abortion activists that all prolifers are “forcing their religion on others”.
While most prolifers are religious, you are far from the only nonreligious prolifer. There are actually organisations for people with that point of view. If you’re interested google “atheist agnostic prolife” and you’ll find a few websites.
But even with religious people, it doesn’t mean that they are blindly following some religious edict. I base my opposition to abortion on the same nonreligious principles as I would oppose the killing of people outside the womb.
Same
Very intelligent person.
Just curious, would you believe in God if you had proof?
Well said
I'm also atheist and pro-life.
Linda Sarsour posts selfie on a private jet while complaining about injustice.
I would argue the woman exercised her choice when she conceived. Unless it's rape, which is what percentage of abortions? Yeah case closed. I can't choose to rid the world of idiots or all proabortion murderers would not be here.
What if you were being sexually responsible but your only 99.9% effective contraception failed?
@@essenceofdementia
Yes, the difficult choice of aborting or carrying the child and adopting it away or potential raising the child by herself.
Do not use pregnancy as a punishment.
@@essenceofdementia "women's life is in danger" is a stupid pro choice myth, an abortion is never medically necessary to save a woman's life
It's not murder. Do you consider IVF murder?
@@Matt-yorks are you actually comparing abortion with assisted reproduction lmao
You are wrong! They do have the right to choose! They can choose to use birth control,they can choose to make their partner wear a condom,they can choose not to engage in sexual activity without one or both of the above! They have those choices before a child is conceived but if they choose NOT to exercise them that shouldn’t give them the right to murder an innocent child! Being unwilling to prevent a pregnancy is when they have the RESPONSIBILITY to choose,not after conception! Then they have the responsibility to nurture and protect the child! That responsibility extends to the man as well! It’s called personal responsibility! A term which is not fashionable these days unless talking about saving the polar bear or baby seals! When exactly did it become taboo to kill the baby seal but okay to murder the children?
BUZZKILL59able What if birth control fails? What if someone is properly educated in sex Ed? What if someone if raped? Sometimes it isn’t their choice.
Please enlighten us all on which contraceptive is 100% effective? We'd all love to know. Here's a little thought experiment for you. If there was a living, crying baby, and a vile containing a viable embryo in a burning building and you could only save one. Which one would you save? I think we know the answer. Because they're not the same.
The problem is that no one wants an unwanted child, if you were a woman and got pregnant despite using contraception and really didn’t want a child it wouldn’t be fair to force the mother and child to live an unhappy life
We need a law passed that requires anyone thinking of having the procrdure to actually SEE the procedure.
There is a law that requires them to show pictures of what the baby looks like at the stage you're at, and inform you the developmental stage it is at. And they also have to very specifically break down the procedure
Great can the parents of sons be forced to watch a circumcision before having it done to their son?
They need to put a camera on the instruments used for the woman getting the abortion to see what really goes on.
The invention of abortion has been worse than any other invention. It deprives living humans of their basic right to live.
@@wyattlarrick3246 you don't think you're being a bit rash saying that?
@@davidrox4591 yes
I love how it's bad to not adopt and the solution to that is murder
Matt Walsh give me your kidneys and part of your liver because I need them later
Or you die? I'm sorry, that weak argument may only work when the fetus can't at all survive outside the womb. Abortions exist after that
I'm pro-choice and I agree with 4 out of your 7 viewpoints. You do however use non-sequitur, assumption and logical fallacies in your arguments, especially POINT #1. That argument is the most important and your handling of it is the most-flawed. Interestingly I've seen similar views and opinions as yours before, from other pro-lifers. That's a hint by the way.
Not too bad an effort but until you successfully address or reconcile argument #1, you will NEVER convince the majority of pro-choice. And smugly dismissing all pro-choice arguments as dumb when your own opinions are flawed as I've already mentioned just makes you look like you're having an attack of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Nor will it win you any supporters either. Except from your own side of course :)
Hey, Im proLife. Would you kindly explain his mistakes? I noticed none, but Im eager to hear your opinion. (Since you seem quite reasonable)
We are all waiting eagerly to hear what exactly the fallacies are in his arguments according to you.
I'm Actually interested in hearing how his first argument is flawed.
being against killing somebody doesn't require a willingness to care for that person. If somebody wanted to strangle you to death, I'd opposed to that. I absolutely don't need to be (and am not) willing to adopt you in order for that to be a valid argument. Killing is bad, sorry. Actually, not sorry.
You could always just drop a child off at a local fire station, no questions asked.
That first argument is like saying, you can't be against homelessness unless you're willing to take a homeless person into your home.
What a ridiculous argument 😂😂😂
Erm you didnt answer the last point. You just said it was stupid. Andcwho is paying to bring up these children? Im pretty sure you wont be even though you forced them to have the child. Its a womans body and she should be able to do as she wishes. After all do we not tell men that "no means no"
Argument #1 ....you have missed what I think is the best response. The point is this: any criticisms relating to the care and feeding of unwanted children is a tacit admission that we are talking about *unborn human children* in the first place. The argument defeats their own other arguments (not human, not a child, clump of cells etc).
0:23 #7 _You can't be against abortion unless you adopt_
1:22 #6 _No Uterus, No Opinion_
1:51 #5 _You can't force a woman to reproduce_
2:19 #4 _You can't control a woman's body_ (I am my body, the law requires me to use my body to care for my children)
3:17 #3 _Pro Lifers are only pro baby until birth_
4:08 #2 _You're just men trying to oppress women_
4:49 #1 _Women Have The Right To Choose_ (That is a concept without meaning. You're right to make a choice depends upon the choice. There are hundreds of things you cannot choose to do)
What if she's just started chemo? Must she try to carry a pregnancy to term?
What if she's schizophrenic?
What if she's an addict?
What if she's anorexic?
What if she's 12 and a victim of incest?
What if she's 24 and in an abusive relationship with a partner who is sexually molesting their child and she's getting the financial resources together to leave and get herself and the child into therapy?
What if she's had eight painful miscarriages, she and her husband are no longer trying to start a family, and she's become suicidal?
What if she's 32, got three kids and a job with no insurance -- and the pregnancy alone would put her family over the financial edge?
What if she's 44 -- nine years beyond when doctors start calling pregnant women "geriatric" which means she and a baby face greater risks -- she's putting a kid through college and caring for an ill parent?
What if she lives in a rural area and the nearest hospital is nearly two hours away?
What if she lives in an urban area with a high murder rate and she's recently lost a child to gun violence?
What if she has one of umpteen serious, genetic disorders she could possibly pass on to a child?
What if the fetus has significant birth defects?
What if the baby would be still born?
What if she and baby have some combination of these factors?
It's so very easy to make a decision about a circumstance you don't face with ramifications that don't affect you or the life that you'd be responsible for bringing into the world. Pregnant women frequently face complicated situations. I trust that the vast majority of women who seek abortions are making that wrenching decision responsibly, mercifully, and, yes, lovingly.
What if we stopped trying to write new, restrictive, one-size-fits-all laws and trust women to make the complicated, personal decision about possibly having an abortion, which is allowed by law and already limited in a myriad of ways. This decision affects her health, a potential new life, her obligations and responsibilities, and her and her family's plans for their future. We should all butt the hell out.
To me, argument #3 is the most cringeworthy of all the pro-abortion arguments. It's sad that argument has gained traction in the last couple of yrs.
Yes, it's a completely bogus argument (like all 7 arguments in this video). If Anti-choicers think that a baby in the womb is the same as one out of the womb, why aren't they campaigning against IVF treatment.
@@Matt-yorks You mean campainging against the killing of the "surplus babies"? Well, some are doing exactly that.
And if AntiLifers are for the right to choose whether you have sustain your children, why arent they protesting against fathers (or in very rare cases mothers) having to pay for the kids after a divorce?
Im not saying Id want that, itd just be the logical conclusion.
A woman who actually wants to have her baby and who’s life is in danger if the pregnancy is carried out struggles with the choice. She knows that what she has inside of her is a real life that she created. Pro choice mocks this woman.
what I find effective is to point out that "choice" is the wrong word. Choice is for what colour short you'll wear today of if you'll have dessert or not. Abortion is a life or death decision and needs, at thevery least, to be treated with the gravity that implies. So much of the "shout your abortion" stuff is deliberately designed to trivialize abortion.
Your number 1 argument - they have a right to choose; not a good rebuttal as both side are aware that they mean 'to choose to have an abortion'. Or 'what to do with their body', which you covered.
Gotta love how he said it's not a human is the weakest argument and didn't even address it. Well, I can easily destroy the pro-life position with that argument alone. Embryos lack sentience, sapience, the ability to feel pain, viability, and everything else it takes to be a human. When those traits develop, that's where we should be drawing the line (as was down with Roe vs. Wade).
If you're going to argue that human life begins at conception, you have all your work cut out for you. Yes, the embryo cells are living human cells, but so are your skin cells. Yet we don't send people to jail for scratching their nose and killing thousands of living human skin cells. If we did, whacking it would be genocide and don't get me started about girls who engage in "cannibalism."
Over 90% of all abortions are medical abortions. Women take a pill and pass a cluster of cells in the first 8 weeks. If anything, we should make these ridiculously cheap and easy to access so that women who aren't able to raise a child or face the stigma of being a single parent can terminate the pregnancy before the cells differentiate and a brain starts to develop. Instead, religiously motivated, backward laws are shutting down clinics and forcing desperate women to resort to dangerous life-threatening coat-hanger abortions. This is wrong. Educate yourself PragerU.
Rofl. Who are these "pro-abortion" people promoting that everyone should get abortions?
Matt’s argument on women’s choice (argument #1) is weak. I like Crowder’s argument of “I believe in choice: abstinence, protection, adoption, marriage” as a much better moral and practical argument in the debate.
your morals, not everyones.
Posted the article that says the same, got people complaining about it telling me that these were all "right-wing garbage talking points". To which I asked, "ok, which of the 7 do you disagree with, and why? We can talk out each one." The response? You guessed it; "they all suck and you suck". Productive discussion, am I right?
People with baseless beliefs have just that. Baseless beliefs. It's like when someone says they like Nicki Manaj. They can't explain why.
I hear several comments about adoption being difficult. I have several friends who've adopted children for free and were made families quickly.
The neediest America children are minority children (babies included) and children with many sorts of disabilities.
You don't have to adopt to be supporting. Support your friends who are adopting.
And please don't be afraid to adopt a child with a different "race."
"The right to choose" to not conceive a baby
That's not a choice though. Contraception fails. And even if contraception isn't used, are you advocating ruining somebodies life, because they had un-safe sex? If so, you're sick in the head.
That's not a choice though. Contraception fails. And even if contraception isn't used, are you advocating ruining somebodies life, because they had un-safe sex? If so, you're sick in the head.
@@Matt-yorks you're right, murdering babies it's much better than having to cancel your Netflix subscription.
@@BroverKillSauce no idea what you're getting at but abortion isn't murder, you fucking dunce
Look up the story of Steve Jobs birth and childhood. His mother, a single woman, grad student, pregnant and didn't want a baby... adoptive parents that didn't meet her standards as they were blue collar, only high school education. .... it's a incredible story of what if she got an abortion.
What a ridiculous argument. What if Steve Jobs' mum had a miscarriage? What if Steve Jobs died of cot death. The point is, not everyone is ready for a child when they get pregnant. Using your stupid logic, what if the woman who would've cured cancer didn't have access to an abortion and therefore couldn't study medicine?
@@Matt-yorks The difference is you deny God's providence. God allows us to be co-creators of life. Thousands of womem go to college and have children.
@@allen_p God is a figment of your imagination. Plenty do yes, but plenty don't. Abortion isn't murder and you don't care about women.
Are you supporting legislation to ban IVF treatment?
I dont think you are fully representing the argument at 3:30. The point is you cant call yourself pro-life if you only care about life after childbirth, IE ignoring war for example.
IT IS THE WOMANS CHOICE, 100% SHE HAS THE CHOICE TO SPREAD HER LEGS OPEN, OR KEEP EM CLOSED
Verl Keeler Sure she has the choice to spread or close her legs, but if she spreads her legs without protection, and she gets pregnant, she doesn’t get to choose to murder a baby
@@spicyrogueaj9283 o dont understand ur comment, i AGREE wit u, IT IS MURDER and its also FREE INVENTORY----but it is her choice , something she will have to live with the rest of her life, unless it doesnt matter, in which case, neither will she
Verl Keeler Right but when she had sex without a condom, she knew there was a chance that she would get pregnant. She doesn’t just get to kill a child because it is inconvenient for her
From "White Guilt On Parade" Ep. 229.
Ok, so you say that the responsibility of being pregnant is just as much as the responsibility of raising the kid. If you're going to equate pregnancy with post-birth care, then you need to deal with the fact that you can replace the mother and father post-birth so then figure out a way to take the responsibility off the pregnant woman before birth. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Your equation is ridiculous. No serious person can equate pregnancy with any other responsibility.
How would you debunk the "what if a woman got pregnant by a rapist?" argument? I'm tired of seeing that one. I say that the fact that the child came from a rape doesn't mean it's worth less. It still has the value of a human.
that value requires money & time to be extracted. it also threatens other "valued" humans if handled improperly. i say choose what you value wisely or the boat you love so much may sink.
*Abortion will never be truly abolished as long as society continues to tolerate any form of artificial contraception and the contraceptive mentality in general. After all, abortion is the inevitable backup when those fail.*
So you don't support contraception either? The right wing get sicker by the day. If you don't want to use contraception or have an abortion. Don't. Simple. Don't tell other people how to live their lives, you sick fuck.
I'm Pro-life because I don't like murder.
So are you against the capital punishment?
@@haxios3588
I believe that some people deserve to die. But not babies who haven't chosen to make any of the terrible decisions their parents made.
In my mind, the only people who truly deserve to die are unrepentant murderers, and maybe rapists. And there are other times when it is necessary to kill whether or not the victim deserves it, such as in a war...
But abortion is a different matter entirely, and as such, I will never support it for any other reason than to help a woman who got pregnant through a rape.
I’m pro-choice because I don’t want to ruin a woman’s youth with an unwanted child
@@poisonousingot222
Then let me ask you this: If I decide that I don't like a school bully who takes my lunch money and beats me up, then am I allowed to kill him because that would be convenient for me?
I'm sorry to say it, but your argument is essentially that people have a right to hurt others as long as it benefits them. But countless scenarios have shown us that that is not the case.
I understand that you have good intentions. After all, you see yourself as a defender of woman's rights, but it doesn't matter what a woman wants after she has made the foolish decision of pre-marital sex as most abortion cases involve. She must go through with the consequences like the rest of us with anything else.
Think of it like taking illegal drugs. If someone gets addicted, do they have the choice to stop at will? Of course not, they made the decision to take the drugs, and the price is that they will need them to feed their addiction.
It sounds harsh, but that's reality. Real life is brutal, and the reason for that is so we can let that brutality make us stronger.
If a teenager has sex with a guy in her school, well, she's already made her choice.
If a married woman has two children and decides that she doesn't want a third, well, all I can say is tough luck.
That's life. You can't avoid its trials.
I have endured countless challenges that I wished I could have avoided, but I wasn't given a choice, and those challenges have changed me. Life isn't about being comfortable or having things convenient, life is about making something better of yourself.
I would urge you to consider that before you decide that something like abortion is right. Remember that slave owners believed that they had a right to own other people because it made their own lives easier to not have to work in a cotton field themselves.
WarriorofLight I don’t think abortion is the same as taking a life personally, I’d never get an abortion after 13 weeks as that is when babies develop conscious thought but before that I think it’s ok as you aren’t ending a life just stopping one from happening (the same as contraception)
And the death penalty should also be a decision that the victim’s family should make
They should have full custody over the murderer and decide their fate not the government
Professer X doesn’t have telekinesis.
I do think woman have the right to choose! What if the baby is seriously disabled or if she was raped? I used a condom and it broke. Did not get pregnant but could have! So you should look at the situation before shouting NO !!!
When does a conception become an independent entity and not part of the hosts body?
When are children independent, and more importantly, does it matter to the argument? How do you define independent- biologically, emotionally, financially? Is it wrong for babies to breast feed, as they rely on their mother? Would you consider that being a "host"? Is it wrong for a father to stand up for his son at a sporting event in middle school? After all, the father is providing his physical and mental presence through obligation. Is that host behavior? Are parents in the wrong for feeding and nurturing their children's kids? Why do children instinctively turn to their parents for aid? Define the status of a host and then we can clarify.
A "conception" is immediate. As soon as the egg is fertilized that unique dna will never occur again. "Viability" has nothing to do with the scientific definition of life, but a unique strand of dna actively sending messages to develop is life. Regardless of being inside or outside or at school or work or with a significant other or dying in hospice, that is a unique life that relies on society. And is that wrong?
At the moment of conception the full set of DNA is already there.
I’m still pro choice 100% but this was an interesting video
"This is a great book on Auschwitz but I'm still a holocaust denier"
Not quite, consent to sex is not consent to gestation. second, the fetus or embryo cannot be recognized as human; therefore, it does does not have human rights at the moment of abortion. Third, even if you make the claim that it has the potential to be human, the second remains and therefore the women cannot be used as a means to gestate in order to grant it human status.
Even if you conceived a baby by accident, it doesn't make a difference
Im for pro life but what about when a women that gets pregnant from rape that's the only case I would agree with
How irresponsible it is to be pro-death and then be reckless and get pregnant on accident. If you think it's ok to kill baby then you better do everything you can to assure you don't get knocked up.
wow, great timing. Just today was I assigned to write an argumentative essay for my English class on a controversial topic...and of course I chose abortion
Hope it goes well. Hope your teacher doesn't flunk you.
But it will still be worth it.
Good job straw-manning the pro-abortion argument! I hope you feel really proud of yourself for taking the low road of intellectual debate. There are plenty of better pro-abortion arguments than the ones you mentioned.
name one
This is your opinion. I do not judge what others do.
You may not like it but it is legal.
@Jacob Howell
The first one is not a law.
If you go to work drunk you will be fired.
A person getting another person pregnant that do not want back an abortion.
Blackout and break the law will get you jail time.
But they have a right to make their choice.
A heartbeat is not an "opinion".
Slavery was also legal. Children being chimney sweeps, or working in factories was also legal. Beating your wife was legal. Marrying women against their will was legal, or marrying children. There are too many things that are morally wrong, but still legal. Legal doesn't mean it's morally acceptable.
@@hellybelle5 get real. We are dealing with the year 2019. Here and now.
Now you are overreaching. It kills me people bring up the past when they are losing there point. Please stop your just embarrassing your.
@@46L482 slavery is still happening in places like Libya... killing, or taking advantage of the most vulnerable may be ok with you, it's not with me. If you can't see the relevance, then there's no help for you.
Nope, still pro choice over here. Your "dismantling" is quite vague and full of your own opinion and bias. I'm not going to be on the side that says you don't have ownership over your own body cause then I'd have to subjugate myself to that same argument. You say "value" of a child is equal outside of the body as it is inside, well clearly not since they made the choice to terminate the pregnancy. They did not value a child in there life hence why they got the abortion. And if that really is your major reason for pro life then your quite ignorant in believing that everyone values everyone equally. Do I value the life of a convict over a law obeying citizen, no. Would I sacrifice my life for a complete stranger, probably not. So clearly there are flaws in your "logic". People can pick and choose when they want to have kids. I find this argument funny to me cause it shouldn't have gotten off the ground to begin with, but hey your entitled to your own opinions and beliefs but when you try to get lawmakers involved to enforce your beliefs that's where your going to meet resistance and opposition. I don't believe in the things that you believe, non the less I respect your ideas and views but I have to greatly disagree to some of your points.
If you built a self aware computer, can you destroy it before you turn it on? It doesnt know it exists, but once you turn it on, it does. Is it more wrong to destroy it after its been turned on?
That's just silly, lol
A computer can't have a soul, therefore it can't be the same as a human. Can't even be the same as a dog. Just a glorified furbee with fancier gadgets 😂
@ALJustice0 We as human beings are all living souls because the Lord God breathed life into each of us. When a human builds a robot, this doesn't happen for the robot.
So they don´t have the right to chose because there are hundreds of things that legally they cannot chose to do?. But is this one of those things though?.
Please make a video of the smartest arguments, because in reality some pro-choicers are actually quite smart.
chickens are smarter than pro choicers heres why
even the chicken knows to protect its egg, because theres a chick inside even though it does not look like a chick yet
And women who want a pregnancy do the same. A foetus is not a child, it's a potential child. And it's a potential child that could hypothetically kill you during child birth. When anti-choicers are advocating father's being required by law to give up an organ or their body for their child then you will at least then be consistent with your dumb and barbaric argument.
chickens can also leave chicks for dead if deemed freaks or unfit. shoebills have a spare child as a backup but will just as easy leave them for dead too. dont base your morality on animals. as humans we have to decide when we have a right to live. and personally i think its when we can first feel pain.
Matt you moron the baby is developing inside a woman your argument makes no sense
figures coming from a dumbass like u
if you were a fetus i would step on you
and get away cause its not murder lmao
What about bodily autonomy and human rights..
joe mir rememberer, he’s dismantling the 7 dumbest arguments, not the best ones :-)
@@SFO14 of, thank you for clarifying that for me I was under the false impression that the daily wire was news and not biased religious trash.
i always think this argument should refer to biologists. what point can a foetus feel pain or be constituted as living. if it cant as said point; flush it out.
Thats very difficult. Cause, you see , from a biological point of view, every cell of an embryo is considered living. They grow, proliferate, react to their enviroment, have a metabolism and are able to move (themselves or things within them). But every nurse would be a mass murderer according to that definition of life (bakteria,...). So I guess we have to decide that one with ethics.
@@docjohnsmith7857 ah thats interesting thank you, so would you know if reacting to stimuli is classed as pain in a fetus?
@@AfroGannon You're welcome! Sadly I don't know that, but it's a very interesting thought. I'll look into it.
@@docjohnsmith7857 I don't envy whosoever has the job of finding out.
@@AfroGannon So, I looked into it and got a kinda dissapointing answer (again).
What it comes down to is, that you cannot tell.
Longer version: Pain is made up of two components: A "physical" one and an emotional one. Its defined (according to the International association to study pain) as "an unpleasent sensorial and emotional experience, as a result of an actual or potential tissue damage". The only thing you can try to examine, is how old a child in the womb has to be to develop some kind of (working!) peripheral nervous system, including nocireceptors. But the mere exictense of a pns aint enough, when youre asleep, for example, your brain ignores "pain input" to a certain degree. Pain beyond that degree will make you wake up, and therefor feel pain. Whether embryos or fetuses are "awake" or "wakeable" and therefor able to feel pain is hard to tell, especially when theyre too young to kick their poor moms belly... ;)
So, it really comes down to whether a baby has emotions or not. And thats a thing you cant proof (or disprove) scientifically. Youre stuck in a loop: If babys can feel pain, theyre alive. But to feel pain, its necessary to have emotions. But in order to have emotions, you have to be alive.
On the other hand, even bacteria are responding to tissue damage, whilst they lack a cns, so you could define that as a sort of "basic" form of pain. But since bacteria dont have a cns, they dont have an active conciousness and are therefor not able to have emotions. Babys on the other hand might be capable of exactly that, especially, if you (as I do) believe in us humans soulful.
I hope this short reply helps some of y'all out there.
Truthfully, I wouldn’t even consider an abortion but it’s currently legal so🤷🏻♀️. Well agree to disagree.
What irritates me to no end though is the complete dismissal of personal responsibility. Even the term “unwanted pregnancy” is a cop out. DONT HAVE SEX IF YOURE NOT WILLING TO RISK, at varying percentages depending on your choice of protection, GETTING PREGNANT.
It’s slack & unbecoming of a woman to argue so passionately for abortion. It shouldn’t be that serious. You don’t HAVE to have unprotected sex. It’s all a choice. & killing your unborn child because you were careless, irresponsible & dumb, shouldn’t be your solution to you being fast in the pants
'fast in the pants'. I don't agree with you at all but thats fantastic saying 👌
Billie Mackenzie lol 🙂
If the child is unable to sustain living outside of the womb, then how is it a life? Until we are able to manufacture children like in Brave New World, then it's not really a life if it can't sustain itself independent of the mother. It is certainly true that premature births can be kept alive in intensive care, and nursed to healthy existence, but how far back does that go? Does it go back to 6 weeks after conception?
1) Would you *dare* say a disabled child is less of a person than an able-bodied one? NO ONE, not a single living being, is wholly self-sufficient/sustaining. We all depend on each other -- and often upon medical intervention -- in innumerable ways over a lifetime. To claim that vulnerability/dependency negates a being's very LIFE is inhumane. 2) Thanks to medical technology, premature infants who would've died 50 years ago are *thriving.* Meaning: viability changes over time; humanity is not determined by access to (or lack of) external care.
I agree with a lot of these but not all.
1) A fetus that does not have a nervous system that is developed enough for subjective experience might be biologically, or at least genetically, human but I wouldn't consider it to be a person. It doesn't have a mind and it can't feel happiness or pain. The fact that it will develop this by default if the process isn't interrupted is irrelevant because potential isn't actual, it's potential. We'll all be dead one day but we're not dead now. Not that I recognize their expertise but most philosophers would argue that personhood is rooted in metacognitive self-awareness which doesn't begin to develop in humans until 1.5-2 years of age - I don't understand a concept of personhood that isn't rooted in some kind of psychological criteria. Plants are living biological entities, they reproduce sexually, they can be injured, they grow, they get sick, and they die just like we do but they have no minds - no desires, no capacity for autonomy and no capacity for happiness and pain (emotional well-being is what I care about but I can still agree with a broad group of people that personhood requires psychological criteria - persons are minds). I've come across conflicting information and I'm poorly educated on the issue but apparently most or many doctors don't believe the fetus is capable of subjective experience until around 30 weeks, it can vary on a case by case basis.
2) There's something to be said about the fact that pro-choice people are selectively libertarian when it comes to abortion (although you can give a welfare based argument against forced pregnancies) but it is a coherent position. Your womb is your property - abortion removes an unwanted entity from your property in the same way you can remove an unwanted guest from your house (it might not be legal to shoot an unwanted non-violent guest, I would hope not since I'm not a libertarian, but being pro-choice is consistent with property rights). Aside from child support I don't think the law actually requires you to care for your children. Does it? You can give your children up for adoption.
I'm against abortion at whatever point the fetus becomes capable of pain and apparently anesthetics isn't a practical option.1st and 2nd trimester fetuses, if it's true that they are insentient, deserve consideration only as potential persons.
Oof
1950's called.....
they want there cringe bigot excuses back
Third
This dude is abnoxious
I'll take him over the ignorant criticizing him.
7. Who’s saying that nonsense?
6. That’s the same argument as 5 and 3
5. Yep, cause that would be rape.
4. Do you what with your body, but just like after birth, you are responsible for the life...by law.
3. Don’t understand this nonsense.
2. Sexist much?
1. Same as #4.
No one has the capacity to understand when a life begins. That’s all the defense needed...for pro life.
The stopping of a heartbeat is indicative of the end of a life; I would suggest that it is also indicative of the start of one.
Ultimately it doesn't matter what YOU think. It's up to the woman that is deciding whether to have an abortion or not, you have nothing to do with it. It's that simple.
Finally, some sense ❤️
Thank you.
The point is that it shouldn't be up to the woman if she wants to kill her unborn baby or not. It's morally wrong.
But it is. It's her choice whether you agree with it or not. That's the REAL point. And just because YOU think it's morally wrong doesn't mean that others will agree with that as well.
So, Susan Smith, Kasey Anthony, and Andrea Yates should never have been convicted of murder?? Is that what you're saying? They each exercised their right to murder their own children...just happened outside the womb rather than in the sanctuary of the womb, where a baby (a human child) should be safest. For my entire 46 years, murder has been considered wrong. It's shouldn't be a woman's right. It's murder
The woman should have more rights than the fetus at every stage of pregnancy. A “child inside the womb” is a.) not a child yet, and b.) not a good enough excuse to strip away rights
Lizzie Allen It’s not uncommon to get pregnant even while using contraception, and it’s not fair to blame someone for a chemical reaction they can’t control.
I’ve always been confused as to why some women choose to fight against the right of choice for other women
You had good points except "No Uterus, No Opinion". You should have ditched that one, because its just a different version of "Men can't have an opinion because they don't carry the child". It's close to "right wing men bossing women around" and "Women have the right to choose", which you address well on their own.
You also used a flimsy answer. Who cares if they are crazy enough to "eliminate" sex difference (as if they could talk reality away. Crazy). Thats not related to abortion.
Can I still lean "right" but still support pro choice?
I'm a male and I am pro choice, but I also belive in more conservative ideals opposed to democrat/liberal/leftist/socialism. But with abortion it goes the other way for me.
I belive that it is entirely up to the mother and father of the child to decide if the child would have quality of life with them or even quality of life with a potential adopting family of which they may not have a say in who does and does not have a chance at adopting.... should the biological parents even have a say In the childs life after giving the child up? Good question.
I put myself into the perspective of a pregnant woman under stress. The responsibility of a child, the pain and shock the body can endure while giving birth to an unwanted or I'll prepared for child can seam daunting and intimidating to a woman.
And what it boils down to is perspective. It depends if you view a fetus as a human being or not. Sure the potential for life is there but the potential for life is technically everywhere. Every time a dude jerks off or uses a condom to directly prevent life is that a form of preventative measure just as abortion is? Where exactly is the cut off? What is okay and not okay?
The difference in perspective and opinion here is what drives the arguement. I belive that personal matters should stay personal and your opinions should have no authority over another. Your opinions to take away guns should not affect me in any way just as someones opinion of abortion shouldnt Swade somone in that direction or away from it. It is their personal choice alone and not yours or anybody elses in my opinion.
If you get pregnant and choose to have the kid, good for you. You're a mother and I hope you live a very happy life with your child.
Also, if you get pregnant, and for whatever reason you decide to abort it, I'm sorry that you had to go through that. I'm sure it was a hard decision and you had your reasons for not wanting to bring a child into this world.
I wont tell another potential family what they should and should not do with their potential child and I hope others would do the same for me with my wife and potential child. Your buisness ie yours and mine is mine.
Slick Daddy the problem with this is, it’s not supposed to be opinionated. by the time most women have an abortion, the baby has already developed its own blood type, dna, heart beat, and has brain activity. these are qualities only a living being can have. the fact is you’re killing something, and there shouldn’t be an opinion on whether that’s right or wrong. if you kill an innocent little boy or girl you’re wrong, and that’s not up to anybody’s opinion. so why isn’t it the same for an unborn child?
@@connor-do2bg and you see, that's it right there! I watched ben shapiro special of him explaining life and potential of life. Love ben Shapiro and all he stands for but my opinion differs.
Again, people get involved into personal shit they shouldnt be involved in. I'm glad you value life under all circumstances AS IS YOUR RIGHT TO YOUR OWN OPINION, but their are extensive circumstances that could justify abortion as a viable option for some people (obviously not for you). It's not black and white. There is a lot of grey area. Your views dont nessearily apply to all others and before you say something to make me look like an inconsiderate monster like "you're killing human beings you justify death" and whatnot.... understand that these are opinions and some opinions WILL conflict with your own.
You define life as blood type, heart beat, ect... and while yes those are scientific qualitys for "living" things for life, as we know it, here on earth... there are many other things that are "living" that dont spark up nearly as much of a debate as "potential human life".
I define life as quality of living beyond conception and personality. Which neither of which apply or are guarenteed to a fetus BUT the potential for both are very high after birth. Again, key word is "potential" and I agree! Potentially that unborn child has the potential to enjoy life and have a personality after birth.
If my neighbors had an abortion I wouldnt think any less of them for it. Yes I'm sad that for whatever reason it didnt work out but due to their cicumstances they didnt want the child. Maybe it was an accident and they arent responsible enough to have a baby, you'll say "you can still have the baby and give it up for adoption" what, so the child can be ridiculed its entire life for being adopted? So the mother can go through the pain and anguish of delivering a child only to give it up for adoption and endure for nothing? So they can be related to someone completly cut off from the rest of the family out there? I wouldnt want that for me or my kid.
What if rape was a factor? Would you want to keep a child conceived by rape? I sure wouldnt. What if the child would be born into poverty within the family and the family dreamed it as a lack of quality of life. I'm not trying to change your opinion and you should not try and change mine. We wont agree and I see your side and I want you to see mine. Everything that happens to you and your family should be between you and your family and nobody else, regardless of the situations or outcomes.
So, you're ok with murder, then?
@@ajmaynard7986 mnn, dont demonize it.
You have gun supporters who dont want their guns taken away or anybody elses guns taken but GUNS KILL PEOPLE.... so they must be okay with supporting murder right? NO! A common arguement to that is this "guns dont kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE" and your right, people do kill people and if you accept that as a fact that people kill people then why does the thought of abortion bother you so much if it's a person killing another person. #mindfuck
You're drawing hypothetical lines to correlate your own motives and beliefs. Understand that you are directly pushing your own opinions onto others with a very personal matter. The country is LITTERALLY divided on this subject. You have 50 percent of people for abortion and 50 percent of people against it. So you're just gonna say that 50 percent of people love killing people right? Lol, that's fucking loony man! If you say 50 percent of people love killing, that's like me saying 50 percent of people want children to have miserable lives being ridiculed for being adopted, born into poverty or maybe not ever being adopted at all!
Its extremism man. Dont be a fucking extremist.
🤮🤮🤮🤮 simp beta