Opposition to abortion doesn't necessarily make someone a bigot.

[Halyon]

Where did I say anything about how things should be, is it my pro choice stance? What facts did I disregard?

Because you reject actual reality and substitute your own.

[Jotaux]

Because you reject actual reality and substitute your own.

How so? I just asked when is the fetus considered a person/alive/whatever. I never put forth a reality.

If I did, please point it out to me.

[Deleted]

If god didn't want abortion why did he invent the coathanger

[Halyon]

How so? I just asked when is the fetus considered a person/alive/whatever. I never put forth a reality.

If I did, please point it out to me.

It doesn't matter that it's alive or not. The parts that form a zygote were alive before it was a zygote... Life is perpetuated through conception, it isn't started.

[ImpTaimer]

If tax dollars directly fund abortions then so must chemical castration of irresponsible people (male or female).

Keep your legs closed and your dick in your pants if you don't want the consequences. Nobody cares if your religion thinks masturbation is a sin, just don't do it in public. Religion is forbidden from having any legal power in the US via the 1st amendment.

A fetus forms because of two people. That is the all the legality that matters. Who's responsible is up to the judge, because legality is irrelevant in court.

If your goal in life is to (or cause someone to) pump out babies to take advantage of welfare you deserve to be castrated, chemically or otherwise.

[Cwimge]

Abortion is fine. There should be less restrictions placed on it.

Abortion should be available at every hospitable and equipped clinic. In a worst-case scenario the government can supply trained abortionists, as you can't trust a doctor not to refuse or otherwise fuck with a pregnant woman out of some misplaced moral objection.

Birth control can and does fail, being the unlucky one should not sentence a woman to 9 months of hell, ruin her body and do all sorts of other unpleasant shit. Just because "muh sanctity of human life" and ultimately, if a woman wants to keep paying for them then there's no reason not to keep aborting

[Deleted]

It doesn't matter that it's alive or not. The parts that form a zygote were alive before it was a zygote... Life is perpetuated through conception, it isn't started.

No prior to being a zygote other things was alive after becoming a zygote, the zygote is alive.

[Endus]

It doesn't matter that it's alive or not. The parts that form a zygote were alive before it was a zygote... Life is perpetuated through conception, it isn't started.

That's sort of why it's called the "reproductive system", not the "productive system". It's how life perpetuates, not how it's created. The creation of life is scientifically described as abiogenesis, and as far as we know, it happened some 3.8 billion years ago or so.

If tax dollars directly fund abortions then so must chemical castration of irresponsible people (male or female).

Keep your legs closed and your dick in your pants if you don't want the consequences. Nobody cares if your religion thinks masturbation is a sin, just don't do it in public. Religion is forbidden from having any legal power in the US via the 1st amendment.

A fetus forms because of two people. That is the all the legality that matters. Who's responsible is up to the judge, because legality is irrelevant in court.

If your goal in life is to (or cause someone to) pump out babies to take advantage of welfare you deserve to be castrated, chemically or otherwise.

There's really no reason to "chemically castrate" anyone, when we have birth control methods, including abortion services, that will handle the problem just fine, thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

No prior to being a zygote other things was alive after becoming a zygote, the zygote is alive.

The point is, it's a meaningless distinction.

People are alive, the gametes they create are alive, the zygote that forms when two gametes come together is alive, and so on. Everything is "alive" the whole time. There is no point where something un-alive starts suddenly living, not in the last couple billion years, so far as we know.

[anon5123]

Wanting to limit womens' rights to their own body kinda does seem like a bigot-y thing to do, though.

[Halyon]

No prior to being a zygote other things was alive after becoming a zygote, the zygote is alive.

No. A human cannot reproduce with a dog. It's human swimmers, human eggs. It doesn't magically turn into a chicken. It's human tissue and DNA.

By your logic, 'other thing', it's the same as saying a fetus below 20 weeks is a 'thing' that can be aborted, while a fetus above 20 weeks has changed enough to be 'another thing' that we deem cannot.

We draw lines for a reason, not all lines have valid arguments... You clearly draw a line too. Why is it of importance? The half-baked 'good-will' that it's human and by that alone should be protected? A soul? Unique DNA? All of them? The reasons why you think these things are important are a lot more subjective and philosophical than reasons based in biology and human rights...

- - - Updated - - -

Abortion is fine. There should be less restrictions placed on it.

Abortion should be available at every hospitable and equipped clinic. In a worst-case scenario the government can supply trained abortionists, as you can't trust a doctor not to refuse or otherwise fuck with a pregnant woman out of some misplaced moral objection.

Birth control can and does fail, being the unlucky one should not sentence a woman to 9 months of hell, ruin her body and do all sorts of other unpleasant shit. Just because "muh sanctity of human life" and ultimately, if a woman wants to keep paying for them then there's no reason not to keep aborting

9 months + 18 years+ of rearing the kid...

[Jotaux]

It doesn't matter that it's alive or not. The parts that form a zygote were alive before it was a zygote... Life is perpetuated through conception, it isn't started.

It doesn't matter is not an answer to the question nor does it explain where I put forth any kind of reality.

[Underverse]

Q: How do you tell if something, such as a cell, is alive or not?
A: Living cells grow and multiply. Dead cells do not.

Q: What determines whether we are a human?
A: Our DNA

Q: How do we know a fetus is not part of the mother?
A: The placenta and umbilical cord exist precisely because the baby has a different and separate circulatory system from the mother and their blood must not intermingle. If the fetus were not a separate human being but were only another part of its mother’s body, it would not need a placenta and umbilical cord to separate them. It could simply grow inside one of her body cavities like a tumor without any barriers between the two to protect each of them.

"Who do we think we are that we can decide that the unborn baby matters less than any other living human? Is it okay to kill a person for convenience? Is this really the kind of society in which we want to live?"

Who do we think we are? We are people who make value judgements on others, whether we accept it or not. Or would you be that one moral crusader who, when given a choice to save Stephen Hawking or that homeless drunk at the corner, would flip a coin?

[Halyon]

It doesn't matter is not an answer to the question nor does it explain where I put forth any kind of reality.

Then why does that specific stage of developement hold more meaning over biological facts and human rights.

[Jotaux]

Then why does that specific stage of developement hold more meaning over biological facts and human rights.

Please answer the question, when was it that I rejected any reality and put forth my own. What stance did I even take that you find so objectionable? I have no idea what this reply from you has anything to do with answering the question nor your accusation of me.

[Underverse]

Please answer the question, when was it that I rejected any reality and put forth my own. What stance did I even take that you find so objectionable? I have no idea what this reply from you has anything to do with answering the question nor your accusation of me.

What's the question? When is it considered a person? Or when one can no longer abort?

[Jotaux]

What's the question? When is it considered a person? Or when one can no longer abort?

This question:

Where did I say anything about how things should be, is it my pro choice stance? What facts did I disregard?

[Underverse]

This question:

Oh, well I can't help you there sorry.

[Jotaux]

Oh, well I can't help you there sorry.

Well thats because I never made any statements I just started asking questions about life and when the line is for abortions. I think I may have mentioned I would be uncomfortable with an abortion hours before the baby is set to be born.

[Halyon]

Please answer the question, when was it that I rejected any reality and put forth my own. What stance did I even take that you find so objectionable? I have no idea what this reply from you has anything to do with answering the question nor your accusation of me.

No, because it'd be wasting my brain power going over everything again. I'm not in favor of arguing to 'convert' people, but at least try to make them see other perspectives and re-evaluate their own stance on things, I expect the same of others, but with you it's like drawing blood from a rock; not gonna happen, so I'm done with you.

[Symphonic]

Who do we think we are? We are people who make value judgements on others, whether we accept it or not. Or would you be that one moral crusader who, when given a choice to save Stephen Hawking or that homeless drunk at the corner, would flip a coin?

You'd be ok with deciding that people should die because it's inconvenient to deal with them? That's the argument I see. "There's so many orphans already, you're doing a favor by aborting an unwanted baby." So when are you going to start advocating for the death of foster children who burden your society? If the facts that so many couples are infertile aren't enough to show that there is enough people willing to adopt a baby, I don't know how to better help people understand that unborn babies are unique individuals separate from the mother and should not be killed for convenience. Even though I'm willing to accept that abortion should be available in times of need (mothers life at risk, rape, incest) I think it's quite telling when 80% (I'm pretty sure that's what the stat was) of rape victims who became impregnated due to it actually choose to have the baby instead of abort. Even they understand that killing a baby who didn't do anything wrong is not going to erase the rape from happening, and may actually cause them to spiral into deeper depression.

In your scenario of choosing hawking or a drunk guy, why can't you save both? Or do everything you can to not lose either of them. I don't understand your scenario and why that would ever be a choice to make.