Abortion should be banned.

[hornetsnest]

Instead of banning abortion, we should make vasectomies compulsory for all males at age 14. They are reversible, so once a man has proven he is responsible enough to have kids, and raise them, we should allow him to reverse it.

Your proposals sound like those of a complete psychopath, but I do agree that deadbeat men who impregnate women and run away from their responsibilities should be held to account.




I agree with these terms. No quarter should be given to deadbeats who spread their seed without accountability especially the seed of imbeciles. There is a flipside to this though for promiscous women who cheat on their husbands and abandon their families. They too should face repercussions

[1714060332]

1714060332

[1714060332]

1714060332

[1714060332]

1714060332

[Natsuu]

Again, viability does not define human life. Viability refers to chance of survival.

And humans with a 0% chance of survival due to lack of higher brain function are both medically and legally dead.

The start of human life begins at the formation of a zygote.

A zygote is no more a human life than a skin cell.

Do we consider living to be sentient or conscious? If that were the case, that means we are are no longer alive while sleeping?

You don't need to be conscious, but you need to have the capacity for consciousness. Adults without the capacity for consciousness are declared dead. Fetuses without the capacity for consciousness are not yet a life.

This comments gave the most valid points and you guys just disregard this for what?, to pretend you didn't see a thing and continue with the debunked argument... what a loser

[Gyfts]

Again, viability does not define human life. Viability refers to chance of survival.

And humans with a 0% chance of survival due to lack of higher brain function are both medically and legally dead.

The start of human life begins at the formation of a zygote.

A zygote is no more a human life than a skin cell.

Do we consider living to be sentient or conscious? If that were the case, that means we are are no longer alive while sleeping?

You don't need to be conscious, but you need to have the capacity for consciousness. Adults without the capacity for consciousness are declared dead. Fetuses without the capacity for consciousness are not yet a life.

This comments gave the most valid points and you guys just disregard this for what?, to pretend you didn't see a thing and continue with the debunked argument... what a loser

Because it goes in circles and was already refuted in my earlier comment.

A fetus does not have a 0 percent chance of survival, inaccurate. A fetus will survive as it continues development in the womb and then post birth.

A skin cell does not differentiae into a full human being, a zygote does. And as I've mentioned, it is less cruel to abort a zygote than it is a 9 month old fetus in the womb.

Consciousness doesn't even exist for babies post birth. No one remembers being a one month old. No one remembers any feelings or emotions as one month old. The brain is so under developed, with so little neurons, there is no complex thoughts. A baby at one month old could die without knowing it, or being aware of it. Do you begin abortions post birth because the baby is so young and would not remember or even comprehend being killed? Consciousness isn't any good metric to determine when human life becomes valuable. Human life is human life with or without consciousness.

If it were, why would it be a tragedy if someone passed away in their sleep? Why would it be a tragedy if everyone in this world passed away in their sleep tonight? No pain, you won't be aware of it, and you were consciousness for it either. For the same reason why abortion is unethical. You deprive someone the privilege and experience of human life.

[Natsuu]

You are nitpicking from the statement in every comment box... try to tie all of your arguments into one long essay, then the statements he gave will make sense to you as it is continuation and not repetitive.

A fetus does not have a 0 percent chance of survival, inaccurate. A fetus will survive as it continues development in the womb and then post birth.

A skin cell does not differentiae into a full human being, a zygote does. And as I've mentioned, it is less cruel to abort a zygote than it is a 9 month old fetus in the womb.

Consciousness doesn't even exist for babies post birth. No one remembers being a one month old. No one remembers any feelings or emotions as one month old. The brain is so under developed, with so little neurons, there is no complex thoughts. A baby at one month old could die without knowing it, or being aware of it. Do you begin abortions post birth because the baby is so young and would not remember or even comprehend being killed? Consciousness isn't any good metric to determine when human life becomes valuable. Human life is human life with or without consciousness.

As he, Oeleo, already said "A person without brain function even under medical equipments are both medically and legally dead, or having no life by any means. Similarly, a zygote that has no brain function are both medically and legally dead or no life at all."

If it were, why would it be a tragedy if someone passed away in their sleep? Why would it be a tragedy if everyone in this world passed away in their sleep tonight? No pain, you won't be aware of it, and you were consciousness for it either. For the same reason why abortion is unethical. You deprive someone the privilege and experience of human life.

We stick with the physiology and not about the consciousness. A person's brain doesn't stop functioning even when he's asleep, therefore he is alive.

[o_e_l_e_o]

A fetus does not have a 0 percent chance of survival, inaccurate. A fetus will survive as it continues development in the womb and then post birth.

By that argument, an egg cell does not have a 0 percent chance of survival either. It will also survive if it meets the right conditions in the womb.

If you then claim that an unfertilized egg cell isn't a human but a fertilized egg cell is, the only different between the two is that it has gone from 23 single chromosomes to 23 pairs of chromosomes. If that is your criteria, then that means a skin cell is also a human.

Your cut off is entirely arbitrary. A ball of cells is not a human being.

Consciousness doesn't even exist for babies post birth.

That's just not true. They can sense their environment, they can react to stimulus such as bright lights, pain, or skin to skin contact, they can communicate that they are hungry or tired, etc. A fetus before the limit of viability cannot do any of that because it does not have a functioning cerebrum.

No pain, you won't be aware of it, and you were consciousness for it either. For the same reason why abortion is unethical. You deprive someone the privilege and experience of human life.

I've already addressed this. Being temporarily unconscious is not the same as having no capacity for consciousness because your brain has either died or doesn't exist.

[PrimeNumber7]

Humans say it is a human right not to be excluded from medical procedures based on sex.  Not allowing women access to medical procedures is discrimination.

Science says when a fetus is viable based on the study of human developmental biology.

There are many abortions performed when the fetus would have been able to survive if it had been delivered rather than aborted. These abortions are the most clearly wrong. With advancements in medical technology, viability outside the womb has become increasingly earlier in pregnancy over time.

Restrictions on abortion are not prohibiting women from receiving abortions based on their sex.

[af_newbie]

Humans say it is a human right not to be excluded from medical procedures based on sex.  Not allowing women access to medical procedures is discrimination.

Science says when a fetus is viable based on the study of human developmental biology.

There are many abortions performed when the fetus would have been able to survive if it had been delivered rather than aborted. These abortions are the most clearly wrong. With advancements in medical technology, viability outside the womb has become increasingly earlier in pregnancy over time.

Restrictions on abortion are not prohibiting women from receiving abortions based on their sex.

Abortions until viability is a decision only the mother should be taking.  Science tells us that viability is around 22-24 weeks.

If you want to be on the side of caution, make the laws allowing all abortions until 16 weeks, or thereabouts.

Restrictions on abortions implicitly discriminate against women.

Imagine if states had different laws against receiving cancer treatments based on the size of your prostate.  Some states would allow treatments as soon as the cancer is detected, others will say that your prostate has to be larger than 4 inches.  Most men with prostate cancer will be prevented from receiving their treatment in that state.  The laws would discriminate against them without explicitly stating that men are prevented from receiving their cancer treatment.

[Gosgosking]

It serve for good and bad purpose, let's not lie to our selves

[PrimeNumber7]

Humans say it is a human right not to be excluded from medical procedures based on sex.  Not allowing women access to medical procedures is discrimination.

Science says when a fetus is viable based on the study of human developmental biology.

There are many abortions performed when the fetus would have been able to survive if it had been delivered rather than aborted. These abortions are the most clearly wrong. With advancements in medical technology, viability outside the womb has become increasingly earlier in pregnancy over time.

Restrictions on abortion are not prohibiting women from receiving abortions based on their sex.

Abortions until viability is a decision only the mother should be taking.  Science tells us that viability is around 22-24 weeks.

If you want to be on the side of caution, make the laws allowing all abortions until 16 weeks, or thereabouts.

Restrictions on abortions implicitly discriminate against women.

Imagine if states had different laws against receiving cancer treatments based on the size of your prostate.  Some states would allow treatments as soon as the cancer is detected, others will say that your prostate has to be larger than 4 inches.  Most men with prostate cancer will be prevented from receiving their treatment in that state.  The laws would discriminate against them without explicitly stating that men are prevented from receiving their cancer treatment.

Biology tells us that only women can get pregnant. However, it is often the case that men are pressuring pregnant women to get an abortion because they want nothing to do (including financially) with the baby.

If radical, far-leftists were serious about "my body, my choice, they would make it illegal for men to pressure women to get abortions for unwanted babies. This is not the case, leftists, celebrate late-term abortions, and encourage women to cede the choice to get an abortion to leftist men who wish to avoid responsibility to pressure women to get an abortion.

[af_newbie]

Humans say it is a human right not to be excluded from medical procedures based on sex.  Not allowing women access to medical procedures is discrimination.

Science says when a fetus is viable based on the study of human developmental biology.

There are many abortions performed when the fetus would have been able to survive if it had been delivered rather than aborted. These abortions are the most clearly wrong. With advancements in medical technology, viability outside the womb has become increasingly earlier in pregnancy over time.

Restrictions on abortion are not prohibiting women from receiving abortions based on their sex.

Abortions until viability is a decision only the mother should be taking.  Science tells us that viability is around 22-24 weeks.

If you want to be on the side of caution, make the laws allowing all abortions until 16 weeks, or thereabouts.

Restrictions on abortions implicitly discriminate against women.

Imagine if states had different laws against receiving cancer treatments based on the size of your prostate.  Some states would allow treatments as soon as the cancer is detected, others will say that your prostate has to be larger than 4 inches.  Most men with prostate cancer will be prevented from receiving their treatment in that state.  The laws would discriminate against them without explicitly stating that men are prevented from receiving their cancer treatment.

Biology tells us that only women can get pregnant. However, it is often the case that men are pressuring pregnant women to get an abortion because they want nothing to do (including financially) with the baby.

If radical, far-leftists were serious about "my body, my choice, they would make it illegal for men to pressure women to get abortions for unwanted babies. This is not the case, leftists, celebrate late-term abortions, and encourage women to cede the choice to get an abortion to leftist men who wish to avoid responsibility to pressure women to get an abortion.

You know that political leaning has nothing to do with this issue. Don't you?

I am a conservative, pro-free-market capitalist, anti-religion, pro-guns, pro-choice, feminist, and humanist. 

Who told you men are pressuring women?  Other men?

Talk to women.  Do you know what happens to a woman's body during pregnancy?  For most, it is not a walk in the park.

If anything, the stance for or against abortion is driven by religious indoctrination.  It is about controlling women's rights as all Abrahamic religions are ("women shall be quiet and must obey men").

Men who pass these laws think they are 'punishing' women who have sex before marriage, not realizing that there are married couples
who want to abort their pregnancies.

The legislation should be driven by science, not a religious delusion.

[_Miracle]

what's your take on that?

Abortions should remain safe and legal
And a private medical decision.



If you are against abortion you should definitely not have one.

[Twinkledoe]

what's your take on that?

Abortions should remain safe and legal
And a private medical decision.

If you are against abortion you should definitely not have one.

It depends on your beliefs in life. And for me, I am not blaming anyone in case they will go thru this process. It is their body and who knows, they have valid reason why they need to. It is only them that can truly answer the reason why?

[_Miracle]

Instead of banning abortion, we should make vasectomies compulsory for all males at age 14. They are reversible, so once a man has proven he is responsible enough to have kids, and raise them, we should allow him to reverse it.

While I understand the point that's trying to be made with this perspective (and yes it is nice to have men in particular see it from a different angle).
Can we not advocate for more oppression?

We don't need to create a war on males to keep liberty for woman.

[hornetsnest]

If radical, far-leftists were serious about "my body, my choice, they would make it illegal for men to pressure women to get abortions for unwanted babies. This is not the case, leftists, celebrate late-term abortions, and encourage women to cede the choice to get an abortion to leftist men who wish to avoid responsibility to pressure women to get an abortion.

The extremists have been created through a false narrative spread across society like a cancer by the "too many useless eaters brigade" The extremists are "useful idiots" like all radicals that are used to acheive the goals of violent revolutionaries in sheeps clothing infecting the corridors of power all across western democracies today.

[Gyfts]

If you then claim that an unfertilized egg cell isn't a human but a fertilized egg cell is, the only different between the two is that it has gone from 23 single chromosomes to 23 pairs of chromosomes. If that is your criteria, then that means a skin cell is also a human.

Can a sperm or egg differentiate into a human being? No. A zygote is the only thing that can differentiate into a human being. And if you are pro-abortion, again, that means there is no difference between a zygote, embryo, and fetus.

Let's make it simple - is a fetus human life? What separates a fetus at 8.5 months of a development and a baby that is post birth by 1 day? What makes it okay to end the life at 8.5 months, but not post birth by 1 day.

Being born is not the difference, the life inside the womb and outside the womb is the same. At 8.5 months, almost all development has been completed. So it would be the pro-abortionists with arbitrary limits as to what they constitute as human life.

Abortion becomes more unethical as the baby is further developed in the womb. I don't care if a zygote is aborted. It just becomes more cruel as you go on.

That's just not true. They can sense their environment, they can react to stimulus such as bright lights, pain, or skin to skin contact, they can communicate that they are hungry or tired, etc. A fetus before the limit of viability cannot do any of that because it does not have a functioning cerebrum.

So your limit for abortion would be the ability to respond to stimuli, then?

A plant can respond to stimuli, so can insects. That does not mean they are "conscious". Babies are not aware of what's going going on, they are essentially floating balls of cells merely existing. I consider consciousness to be a condition at which you are aware of what is going on, and surely babies that are 1 or 2 days do not possess any ability to recognize or understand their environment at any deep level. By baby, I mean one that is under 1 week old. When you are an infant, your brain develops rapidly.

I've already addressed this. Being temporarily unconscious is not the same as having no capacity for consciousness because your brain has either died or doesn't exist.

Exactly, this is my point, similarly, a zygote, embryo, and fetus have the capability for consciousness, which is why it is a tragedy to abort them.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Can a sperm or egg differentiate into a human being?

Absolutely, given the right conditions. A human skin cell could be made to grow in to an entire human given the right conditions. A fertilized egg cell will only grow in to an entire human given the right conditions. Your cut off of fertilization is complete arbitrary and not based on any scientific data. The only difference is the number of chromosomes.

Let's make it simple - is a fetus human life? What separates a fetus at 8.5 months of a development and a baby that is post birth by 1 day? What makes it okay to end the life at 8.5 months, but not post birth by 1 day.

Please point out where I have ever argued for abortions at 8.5 months. We are talking only about abortions of non-viable fetuses. Creating strawmen like this only weakens your argument, as does using clearly hyperbolic terms like pro-abortion and celebrating abortion. Thinking that women should have a little bit of bodily autonomy is not the same as celebrating abortion.

Exactly, this is my point, similarly, a zygote, embryo, and fetus have the capability for consciousness, which is why it is a tragedy to abort them.

Not before they are viable they do not.

[Gyfts]

Can a sperm or egg differentiate into a human being?

Absolutely, given the right conditions. A human skin cell could be made to grow in to an entire human given the right conditions. A fertilized egg cell will only grow in to an entire human given the right conditions. Your cut off of fertilization is complete arbitrary and not based on any scientific data. The only difference is the number of chromosomes.

That's not true, a sperm or egg cell can't on it's own differentiate into an entire human, only a zygote can do that. And so human life begins at conception, so there isn't any arbitrary cut off. That is what the science says - human life begins when a sperm cell attaches to an egg. This isn't about data, the biology is clear on when human life begins.

If you don't think abortion is okay at 8.5 months, then viability is arbitrary too because consciousness is fairly subjective. The brain at viability in the womb is no where near advance enough to experience any level of lucidity or awareness.

Please point out where I have ever argued for abortions at 8.5 months. We are talking only about abortions of non-viable fetuses. Creating strawmen like this only weakens your argument, as does using clearly hyperbolic terms like pro-abortion and celebrating abortion. Thinking that women should have a little bit of bodily autonomy is not the same as celebrating abortion.

I didn't say you were arguing this - only pointing out that human life does not magically become something else only because the brain isn't fully developed yet. Consciousness isn't what defines a human.

Not before they are viable they do not.

And again, viability isn't anything objective, because you cannot define human consciousness at any specific point during development to any degree of accuracy. Even post birth, the brain is so under developed that "consciousness" is hardly achieved, if achieved at all. Science isn't even sure how consciousness works, so to pinpoint it through development in the womb is just pseudo science.

[hornetsnest]

Life begins at conception.

[af_newbie]

Life begins at conception.

And ends with an abortion.  What is your point?

[o_e_l_e_o]

That's not true, a sperm or egg cell can't on it's own differentiate into an entire human, only a zygote can do that.

Neither can do it on their own. A sperm or egg can't do it without the other. A zygote can't do it without a uterus, a placenta, an amniotic sac, an umbilical cord, a constant source of oxygen and nutrients, efficient removal of carbon dioxide, urea, electrolytes, and other waste products, warmth, protection, etc. The only difference between an unfertilized egg cell and a fertilized egg cell is the number of chromosomes. If that is what you are going to base "personhood" on, then exfoliating your skin becomes mass genocide.

That is what the science says - human life begins when a sperm cell attaches to an egg.

But it is not a human being. A fertilized egg cell is no more a person than an acorn is a tree.

If you don't think abortion is okay at 8.5 months, then viability is arbitrary too because consciousness is fairly subjective.

Not really. The structures in the brain required for any degree of consciousness or higher level thinking don't even exist prior to around 26 weeks.

And again, viability isn't anything objective, because you cannot define human consciousness at any specific point during development to any degree of accuracy.

See above. A fetus without a functioning cerebellum cannot be conscious.