Are you for Pro-life or Pro-choice?

Posted by: CaseyOverfors

Ever since Roe V Wade the conflict started, so how do you stand on Abortion?

Vote
53 Total Votes
1

Pro-choice

30 votes
3 comments
2

Pro-life

23 votes
3 comments
3

Undecided

0 votes
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
passwordstipulationssuck says2017-05-15T19:28:22.0750687Z
I'm pro-life and I'm always open to a debate on the subject. Feel free to challenge me if you disagree.
CaseyOverfors says2017-05-15T23:40:10.1758687Z
I'm also pro-life and I respect the feeling of people who disagrees with me, but I believe that Abortion is flat out murder.
Wylted says2017-05-16T03:01:32.9467849Z
Pro life abortion should not happen after the 3rd trimester without medical reasons
DavidMGold says2017-05-16T06:27:52.0956255Z
Roe v. Wade, irrespective of anyone's views on Abortion, is an illegitimate ruling that fabricated a "constitutional" protection nearly 200 years after the fact subverting the laws of nearly every state in the country. The extremist left in America sidestepped state elections and the entire democratic process of ratifying a constitutional amendment resorting to a judicial fiat by 7 lawyers referred to as "Blackmun's abortion." It is intellectually dishonest and deceptive to call the pro-abortion proponents "pro-choice" when clearly they militate against Democratic decisions and generally oppose choices ranging from owning a firearm, choosing the school your children attend, using tobacco products, collecting rainwater, who you employ, purchasing health insurance, among many others.
reece says2017-05-16T07:45:38.4300255Z
I'm pro-life. I'll send people out to war the first chance I get.
DavidMGold says2017-05-16T08:29:08.4504255Z
Well reece, when you strip away the semantical distortions the pro-Abortion side needs red herrings like this to avoid climbing Mount Improbable on the way to stripping nearly 1 million a year of their human rights by snuffing them out in a tidy, innocuous clinic. I would have imagined that you would have relegated war casualties to the late-term abortion realm albeit they at least have a fighting chance. And just like that...Poof! Your attempt to claim some sort of moral high ground just vanished.
reece says2017-05-16T12:09:19.2139559Z
DavidMGold, let's go further. I'm personally responsible for the death of billions of premature babies.
reece says2017-05-16T12:14:15.2242431Z
It would probably be trillions to be honest.
reece says2017-05-16T12:27:45.3166431Z
By the way, I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice...
Anonymous says2017-05-16T15:19:08.8054431Z
Reece blew David up in three words, "...I'm pro-choice".
reece says2017-05-16T15:24:14.3158431Z
Sciguy, The funny thing is, I don't see how you're being sarcastic.
Anonymous says2017-05-16T15:27:40.3918431Z
Because I'm not... You were using proper terminology relevant to this subject.
reece says2017-05-16T15:32:26.0278431Z
Uh okay. That's good. I thought you might of been referring to how they have no choice.
Geogeer says2017-05-16T15:36:35.3938431Z
Pro-Choice is inconsistent with any concept of human rights.
reece says2017-05-16T15:43:22.8814431Z
Geogeer, a sperm is just as human as you are. Remember that when you wank off next time.
Mharman says2017-05-16T15:44:53.2834431Z
False. It is not a living human being until the sperm combines with the egg.
passwordstipulationssuck says2017-05-16T15:46:09.3022431Z
Actually reece, this argument falls under the fallacy colloquially known as "apples and oranges" or drawing comparisons between events or sets of circumstances that seem to share a common denominator but are in fact distinct from one another by virtue of having occurred during different time periods, in different places, under different socio-economic conditions, to different groups of people, etc., can lead to the incorrect assumption that, just because something is true under one set of circumstances, it will necessarily hold true for all circumstances of a similar sort. The act of making such comparisons is sometimes referred to as "comparing apples and oranges."(1) as a sperm cell is not a fetus one of the main differences being that a sperm cell only contains the haploid number of chromosomes and is as a result, not human. As opposed to the fetus which contains the diploid number of chromosomes and as such, has a complete human genome.
Geogeer says2017-05-16T15:49:39.6682431Z
1. I don't wank off. 2. A sperm is not a human organism. It cannot develop beyond what it is. A zygote on the other hand is a complete human organism. 3. Science!
reece says2017-05-16T15:50:03.5518431Z
I consider it alive once it develops a nervous system. Anyway, everything about us is human, including sperm.
passwordstipulationssuck says2017-05-16T15:52:13.3438431Z
Reece, no. In order to be considered human, you need to have a complete human genome. A sperm cell has half of the human genome and is therefore not human.
Mharman says2017-05-16T15:53:55.9450431Z
Yeah, but conception starts the whole thing, the development of the human. Thus, life begins at conception.
Geogeer says2017-05-16T15:55:13.2118431Z
YOU consider it. There were also people who considered blacks not to be "human". How about we try to follow real evidence instead of opinion? Every cell that is part of your body is "human", however they are not "a human". The path of a human life is simple. Zygote->embryo->baby->toddler->youth->teenager->adult->elderly. At every point along that path of life you are one whole organism. The only difference is age.
Mharman says2017-05-16T15:56:58.1686431Z
At the end of the day, we are all just clumps of cells. An unborn baby is just a young, developing, less detailed one.
reece says2017-05-16T15:57:09.3850431Z
Mharman, you could say life begins at the Big Bang for all I care.
Mharman says2017-05-16T15:57:49.8358431Z
Geogeer, Password, try not to sound hostile.
Anonymous says2017-05-16T15:58:19.7566431Z
Reece, look at them, they're attacking one another!
Mharman says2017-05-16T15:59:00.8158431Z
The Big Bang did not start the development of humans.
reece says2017-05-16T15:59:17.1334431Z
Passwordstipulationssuck, You're looking at it from a lower dimension.
Mharman says2017-05-16T16:00:13.4026431Z
No, Password is right here.
Geogeer says2017-05-16T16:00:32.5750431Z
Really? I thought I was just making valid points. You should see me when I get hostile. @Sciguy - I find it funny that you use Hitchens as your picture - he was essentially pro-life.
Mharman says2017-05-16T16:00:58.0654431Z
He is looking at it from where it all starts.
reece says2017-05-16T16:01:01.1854431Z
@Mharman Yes it did. Without it, we wouldn't be here.
Mharman says2017-05-16T16:19:43.8862431Z
That doesn't mean that life started at that point.
reece says2017-05-16T16:22:43.6918431Z
Mharman, you can say the same about conception...
Mharman says2017-05-16T16:25:42.0934431Z
No, because conception is the exact point where a human life starts.
reece says2017-05-16T16:32:13.1698431Z
Mharman, what about the development of the sperm that gets conceived?
Mharman says2017-05-16T16:34:55.1446431Z
That is only half of the human chromosomes needed, not technically human yet. The other half is an egg cell. When they combine, we have a human.
reece says2017-05-16T16:42:18.1222431Z
Mharman, it isn't technically human, it's subjectivly human. You're going by your own definition. You might of picked it up from passwordstipulationssuck which would be convenient.
reece says2017-05-16T16:46:42.9634431Z
You looking at what's human from narrow prospective.
reece says2017-05-16T16:47:59.0134431Z
A*
reece says2017-05-16T16:50:17.6194431Z
You're*
Geogeer says2017-05-16T16:50:27.0418431Z
The scientific perspective is now narrow? That is what it makes it objectively human. You seem to be the one to apply subjective terms.
reece says2017-05-16T16:54:15.0826431Z
@Geogeer 1) This poll doesn't fall under science. 2) Can you show me the 'scientific perspective' of what is human?
Geogeer says2017-05-16T17:04:56.4454431Z
True the poll is not scientific. You chose to push your opinion in the comments. The scientific perspective is that which can be shown by science. Embryology is this case. So I can reference embryology texts: "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being." [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
Geogeer says2017-05-16T17:06:27.9238431Z
I can quote eminent members of the genetic sciences: "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...It is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Dr. Jerome LeJeune Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes
reece says2017-05-16T17:08:40.3834431Z
Geogeer, so nothing about what is human?
Geogeer says2017-05-16T17:14:28.2946431Z
Or I can quote Planned Parenthood literature: http://www.Debate.Org/photos/albums/1/6/5283/133062-5283-ayqpq-a.Jpg
Geogeer says2017-05-16T17:15:47.0278431Z
A human is that which is or normatively will develop into an adult of the species.
reece says2017-05-16T17:17:56.6014431Z
So a sperm...?
Geogeer says2017-05-16T17:24:48.7222431Z
A sperm is a specialized human cell known as a gamete. It contains only one half of the regular pair of chromosomes (haploid cell) and is designed to combine with the corresponding female gamete (ova). The typical lifespan of a sperm is 3-5 days.
reece says2017-05-16T17:28:18.8698431Z
Geogeer, would a sperm normatively develop into an adult of the species?
Geogeer says2017-05-16T17:30:19.2394431Z
No. No sperm alone has ever developed into an adult of the species.
reece says2017-05-16T17:38:39.3754431Z
But nonetheless, it develops, does it not?
Geogeer says2017-05-16T17:40:12.9442431Z
Nope a sperm does not develop. It is a sperm. A blood cell does not develop. It is a blood cell. A skin cell does not develop it is a skin cell.
reece says2017-05-16T17:50:21.6562431Z
Sorry, it took me a while to lift my blood-soaked face up from my desk. No intellectual integrity...
Geogeer says2017-05-16T17:52:10.3102431Z
That's okay. If you have no logical rebuttals or counter arguments you may place your face back on your desk.
Mharman says2017-05-16T17:56:22.8430431Z
That is the definition of human, specifically medical definition. Need I get more objective?
reece says2017-05-16T17:59:54.4570431Z
Geogeer, the cosmos is singular, it builds up itself.
reece says2017-05-16T18:01:51.1762431Z
Geogeer, the cosmos is singular, it builds upon itself.*
reece says2017-05-16T18:05:13.3834431Z
Mharman, can you link me to it?
Mharman says2017-05-16T18:07:14.3458431Z
Again, it's a fact. You should know this. It's obvious.
Geogeer says2017-05-16T18:09:46.3054431Z
1. The cosmos is not sperm. 2. The cosmos is not alive. 3. The cosmos acutally builds nothing. All matter and energy in the cosmos was present at the moment of the Big Bang. Everything is merely the intermediary processes of reaching the lowest possible energy state.
reece says2017-05-16T18:13:19.4638431Z
Mharman, cool. Now can you link it?
Mharman says2017-05-16T18:16:15.3070431Z
The lefties changed the definition.
Geogeer says2017-05-16T18:18:14.0542431Z
A human is any organism which is a member of the Animalia Kingdom, Chordata Phylum, Mammalia Class, Primates Order, Haplorhini Suborder, Hominidae Family, Homo Genus, H. Sapiens Species - or shorthand Homo Sapiens.
passwordstipulationssuck says2017-05-16T18:20:38.3074431Z
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html there you go Mharman. A link from a reliable source that shows that a human must have a full genome. At least I think that's what he was asking you to link.
reece says2017-05-16T18:20:44.5162431Z
@Geogeer 1. But the cosmos is sperm: it's everything. 2. Yes it is alive, aren't we? 3. I corrected myself.
reece says2017-05-16T18:25:27.3754431Z
Passwordstipulationssuck, so it's a pro-life atricle?
passwordstipulationssuck says2017-05-16T18:27:23.2834431Z
Science can't be biased.
Geogeer says2017-05-16T18:30:18.7990431Z
Lol. Now I know you are desperate. It is morally equivalent to break a rock as to run you over with my car. The cosmos is a term that describes the totality of matter present within existence. To say all matter is in the cosmos is distinctly different than to discuss the identity of the parts that make up the cosmos. The cosmos is bacteria because there are bacteria in the cosmos. I brushed my teeth this morning, I killed the cosmos thousands of times! Wait I am the cosmos! I'm guilty of mass suicide!
reece says2017-05-16T18:31:17.3146431Z
Passwordstipulationssuck, try to think that one through by yourself. Ask if you need help.
reece says2017-05-16T18:35:44.8234431Z
@Geogeer Hey! You started it. So if you don't have a logical rebuttals or counter argument...
reece says2017-05-16T18:36:20.4538431Z
Rebuttal*
Geogeer says2017-05-16T18:43:06.1474431Z
That is a logical rebuttal, but you are apparently short on logic. I'll simplify it. I cannot say that I am a cell, since inside of me there are many cells. I cannot say the universe is a star even though it is made up of many stars. It is basic philosophy - the law of identity: A is A. http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html
reece says2017-05-16T18:53:14.9842431Z
You are everything that you consist of.
reece says2017-05-16T18:57:03.2746431Z
You would be a different state otherwise.
Geogeer says2017-05-16T19:01:14.0758431Z
No you're not. Those are traits or characteristics of the whole. A tree is not leaves, even if it does have leaves. A car is not a break pedal even if it does have a break pedal. You are not feces because inside of you there is feces. Two thing that have significantly differing characteristics are not the same thing.
Geogeer says2017-05-16T19:09:02.4814431Z
If your argument requires you to defy even the most basic of logical axioms then you have lost.
reece says2017-05-16T19:11:47.9662431Z
To put it more simply, something is the characteristics it consist of.
reece says2017-05-16T19:12:35.3746431Z
Consists*
Geogeer says2017-05-16T19:19:16.4818431Z
And the cosmos and a sperm have different characteristics. Therefore they are not the same. It is the logical fallacy of false equivalence. It basically states because two objects share some attribute that they are thus the same.
Geogeer says2017-05-16T19:26:22.3462431Z
Let's make this one more step of concrete. You would thus argue that there is nothing immoral about flushing sperm down the toilet. By the logic you've been presenting you too are sperm because sperm is a part of you. Thus it should be perfectly legal to flush you down the toilet. This is the logical conclusion to the argument you've presented here.
reece says2017-05-16T19:30:59.7142431Z
Everything is relative. We just have categories to make life simple. The only thing that isn't relative, is the cosmos.
Geogeer says2017-05-16T19:47:48.6910431Z
Lol. I'm done. One cannot argue against gibberish. Enjoy.
reece says2017-05-16T19:57:57.3562431Z
If you have no logical rebuttals or counter arguments...
DavidMGold says2017-05-16T20:34:36.0358431Z
Pro-choice is not "proper terminology." It's a semantical distortion. Then he flips back to red herrings about the cosmos after reaching into the pro-Abortion toolbox trying to dehumanize the victim. He isn't capable of logical consistency and his side doesn't have an argument.
reece says2017-05-16T22:13:39.8531534Z
@DavidMGold No, it is proper terminology. Pro-abortion would be in the same realm as the VHEMT movement. Anyway, you didn't read our full discussion. I was just playing by his game.
DavidMGold says2017-05-16T23:09:33.4475534Z
Reece, by all means, don't let me interfere with the amusement of games but perhaps someone could just buy you an Xbox for Christmas. Pro-abortion is not necessarily the same as the voluntary extinction movement. At any rate, maybe VHEMT could adopt the slogan "It's never too late for an Abortion" and start with themselves.
reece says2017-05-17T02:16:45.6035534Z
DavidMGold, please try to be more creative with your "insults". Semantical distortions...
Mharman says2017-05-17T14:20:33.2760947Z
"I have noticed that all advocates for abortion have already been born themselves." -Ronald Reagan
reece says2017-05-17T14:46:10.2192947Z
He was a bright one
Mharman says2017-05-17T15:11:45.3440822Z
Indeed
Envisage says2017-05-23T05:19:21.8702154Z
Don't see how being pro-choice is inconsistent with any human rights concept. Mine is simply that society decides who to extend human rights to. We simple have to not extend it to foetuses.
Geogeer says2017-05-23T14:10:15.3197874Z
Then it is not an inherent right, but something granted by government. That which is granted can be revoked. This means that you would effectively have no rights.
Envisage says2017-05-23T20:52:14.7883442Z
"Then it is not an inherent right, but something granted by government. That which is granted can be revoked." Correct. "This means that you would effectively have no rights" Nope, that doesn't follow. Would have no inherent rights, yes, but would have rights that are granted by society, or in practice, the Government.
Geogeer says2017-05-23T21:02:49.4119442Z
Those are not rights, but social conventions. It would effectively mean that the way that North Korea treats its citizens is just as just as the way Britain treats its citizens. It also means that you have no real right to defy whichever authority is in place because there are not inherent rights. So peoples that revolt against tyranny have no legitimate authority to do so because they are contravening the whichever established rules and rights (or lack thereof) exist. However, if inalienable rights do exist, one becomes fully justified to assert ones rights even if the governing authority refuses to properly recognize them.
samuel88 says2017-11-07T11:00:51.9159093Z
Before 26th week, No women should be kept slave to her body. If she does not want it she should be able to abort. From 26th week, if the pregnancy is medically dangerous to the mother, she still must have the right to abort.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2018-01-15T07:43:33.0346840Z
I'm pro choice. 1. Foster homes 2. Motherhood/fatherhood 3. Abstinence 4. Contraceptives I am not alright with murder. It is alive (it's growing and understands it's surroundings to an extent) It is human (needless to say a rhinoceros won't pop out, has all human chromosomes) And it is it's own body (although it requires nourishment, it's DNA is it's ow). It is not a parasites. Parasites naturally need to feed off of others at a fully developed state. Fetuses fully developed are humans, and therefore are human themselves.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.