12 year old girl speaks against abortion, and she does it well.

[Deleted]

Humans don't face extinction when women get abortions. Harming egles & turtles eggs harms their population, severely. It could make them extinct.

There's also the fact that abortion is legal due to the autonomy of the pregnant party with pregnancy taking place within her body rather than anything else.

[gamingmuscle]

There's also the fact that abortion is legal due to the autonomy of the pregnant party with pregnancy taking place within her body rather than anything else.

Plus killing those eggs is more akin to willfully terminating a pregnancy without consent from the mother than an abortion. It was a pretty terrible comparison.

[Halyon]

Wow, the thread is still going...I'll nudge it a bit.

A fetus has brain development pretty early, however, it is not in any way a sentient one. It cannot process anything in terms of responding or processing stimuli, it can't feel pain in any way either. Any movement before the 24th week is purely reflexes and random spasms, it is not willful or coordinated by the brain. Thus, personhood, which some people are basing their resistance to choice on, is not present until after the 24th week when those processes start to develop and actually become active in the brain.

I must say it was really hard not to laugh hard at some people and their basis for being pro-'life'. I need to make more popcorn.

[Celista]

does the facts that the 12 year old presented any less truthful because she is 12 years old?

What facts are you referring to? I watched her video and it was mostly an appeal to emotion.

[Deleted]

In that case the woman does not give consent to remain pregnant for a prolonged period of time since she knows going into sex that pregnancy can be reversed.

If abortion is illegal, then no, that argument is stupid.

[Halyon]

If abortion is illegal, then no, that argument is stupid.

But it isn't.

[Deleted]

How can a "persona" exist without the mental capabilities to support it? It's not like there's some latent personality lobe in the brain that operates and grows independently until one day *poof!* there it is.

I gave you the "scientific reasons" earlier as have others...which you have just summarily rejected, then called for an "ethical debate..."

Which is it? Because thus far, science/medicine disagrees with you and ethics are subjective.

that was a typo, Persons, not persona.
There are no scientific reasons, the foetus is always human and always alive.
you arbitrarily assigning value to brain function is not in any way scientific, because what life is or is not valuable is not a scientific concern.

[Endus]

it wasn't against her will she gave consent for the unborn to do so when she gave consent to have sex

No. This argument is complete nonsense.

The entire basis for this is a completely false and baseless assumption that women shouldn't be having sex, and if they do, they should therefore be punished by having to "face the consequences".

The "consequences" are treatable. This argument is tantamount to arguing that women who contract chlamydia should be denied antibiotics to treat it because they should be punished for that casual sex. They knew the consequences, after all, right? Same argument, and it's heinous and wrong-headed and misogynist for exactly the same reasons it's wrong when applied to abortion.

She gave no "consent" to anything, and getting pregnant and having to bear to term is not a consequence of sex, in the modern era. It may have been, but medical science has taken us beyond that point. At one time, the Black Death was a death sentence, but it's easily treatable; we don't refuse treatment on religious grounds, because that would be ridiculous.

If you have religious objections to abortion, you're free to choose not to have an abortion. You have no right to try and force all other women to abide by your creed.

[Deleted]

But it isn't.

i have sex knowing that if i get pregnant i must carry it, i know the consequence yet i engage in sex.
arguing for abortion on the premise that abortion is legal is moronic.

[Endus]

There are no scientific reasons, the foetus is always human and always alive.

And so were the sperm and ovum, before they were fertilized.

And before you come back with "nuh uh, mitosis", meiosis. You're wrong, and you won't find a single doctor or scientist who'd claim gametes aren't "alive". Particularly since they can easily determine whether they're alive or dead, in fertility testing.

you arbitrarily assigning value to brain function is not in any way scientific, because what life is or is not valuable is not a scientific concern.

When you use words like "valuable", no, that isn't scientific. But we can scientifically determine whether or not something is potentially a person, and an earlier fetus fails to qualify.

And even if it did, that doesn't mean it has the right to broach a woman's bodily autonomy, nor is "having sex" in any way a deliberate consent to give that up.

- - - Updated - - -

i have sex knowing that if i get pregnant i must carry it, i know the consequence yet i engage in sex.
arguing for abortion on the premise that abortion is legal is moronic.

It isn't that abortion is legal. It's that abortion is possible, and safer than the pregnancy. That is why it should be legal.

Pregnancy is completely endable. It isn't a consequence that creates any direct obligation.

[Deleted]

The "consequences" are treatable.

I don't think any medical professional classifies pregnancy as a disease however.

This argument is tantamount to arguing that women who contract chlamydia should be denied antibiotics to treat it because they should be punished for that casual sex. They knew the consequences, after all, right? Same argument, and it's heinous and wrong-headed and misogynist for exactly the same reasons it's wrong when applied to abortion.

Except that would be predicated on us thinking chlamydia is a life form worthy of protection, we don't so, Moot point.

She gave no "consent" to anything, and getting pregnant and having to bear to term is not a consequence of sex, in the modern era. It may have been, but medical science has taken us beyond that point.

Arguing for abortion to be legal because it is legal, is a tautology.

If you have religious objections to abortion, you're free to choose not to have an abortion. You have no right to try and force all other women to abide by your creed.

i have objections to people killing female babies due to them being female, (not abortion) i don't have the right to tell people not to kill people?

ED:

It isn't that abortion is legal. It's that abortion is possible, and safer than the pregnancy. That is why it should be legal.

Pregnancy is completely endable. It isn't a consequence that creates any direct obligation.

Yes that is a good argument for it.
arguing that it should be because it is (that you did not do) is not however.

[Halyon]

i have sex knowing that if i get pregnant i must carry it, i know the consequence yet i engage in sex.
arguing for abortion on the premise that abortion is legal is moronic.

That is your view, and that's fine, but imposing it on others is beyond your right. There are people who want children, and are fertile, but simply cannot sustain a pregnancy. Those people may have a lifelong partner, and you seriously want them to never have sex? Forcing people to be abstinent for a risk of pregnancy when there is a solution to it (abortion, which is a safe procedure, and legal, nowadays), is simply not something that is fair to anyone.

Abstinense is a choice. Sex is something people do to bond with an intimate partner, regardless of how short the relationship is, or simply for the pleasure that it produces, which is btw healthy for mind and body, force and abusive relationships not withstanding.

[Darkis]

i have objections to people killing female babies due to them being female, (not abortion) i don't have the right to tell people not to kill people?

Sometimes it's wiser to keep your opinion to yourself, no matter how wise you think it is. Especially, when it's regarding other people's actions, that do not influence you in any way.

[Tradewind]

that was a typo, Persons, not persona.
There are no scientific reasons, the foetus is always human and always alive.
you arbitrarily assigning value to brain function is not in any way scientific, because what life is or is not valuable is not a scientific concern.

Then why do you keep asking for scientific validation on why abortion is unethical? If it's not a scientific matter.

"Alive" is a very broad term...is it alive when it cannot survive without a host? Is your liver alive?

[Endus]

I don't think any medical professional classifies pregnancy as a disease however.

And? That isn't in any way relevant to the point.

Except that would be predicated on us thinking chlamydia is a life form worthy of protection, we don't so, Moot point.

Do you think a 12 year old girl who was raped by her father should be able to get an abortion?

If you do, then you aren't basing your argument on right-to-life for the fetus to begin with. So kindly stick by your real motivations.

Arguing for abortion to be legal because it is legal, is a tautology.

It already is legal, we don't need to make the argument as to why it should be legal.

The point is; it's safe, and it's effective, and its existence means you cannot argue that pregnancy is an inviolable result of sex. It isn't. Abortion can end it. That's plain fact. The argument that you should be obligated to bear to term because you chose to have sex is simply baseless.

Unless you're basing it on the premise that women should be punished for choosing to have casual sex. Which is unconscionable and misogynist, and should be ignored.

i have objections to people killing female babies due to them being female, (not abortion) i don't have the right to tell people not to kill people?

Not unless you can actually prove in an incontrovertible way that the fetus must be considered a person at conception, and that it must have the right to abrogate a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Neither bar has been passed, and both need to be, if you want to make this case.

Otherwise, what you're doing is making a religious argument, and religion doesn't affect what other people should do. It affects what you should choose, for yourself. If your religion is against abortion, fine. Don't choose to abort. That gives you no right to attack others for exerting their rights. Can you express your opinion? Yes. Without opposition and counter-attack? Absolutely not. Your right to free speech in no way infringes on everyone else's right. You have no right to speak without rebuttal.

It's like if Jewish people tried to force all food to be kosher, and ban non-kosher food completely. That would be ridiculous, right? Same difference. Except Jewish people know it's ridiculous, and are perfectly happy making their choices for themselves, and not trying to force it on others.

[FlyingWoodchuck]

i have sex knowing that if i get pregnant i must carry it, i know the consequence yet i engage in sex.
arguing for abortion on the premise that abortion is legal is moronic.

If you have sex, knowing that stds are possible, do you seek treatment for it if you contract something, after all, you know the risks right?

[Deleted]

And so were the sperm and ovum, before they were fertilized.

And before you come back with "nuh uh, mitosis", meiosis. You're wrong, and you won't find a single doctor or scientist who'd claim gametes aren't "alive". Particularly since they can easily determine whether they're alive or dead, in fertility testing.

fine they arent of the human species then, or if one pretends they are an organism, they cant replicate, and thus cant modulate its DNA, in fact it fails the 7 life things quite horrible, also even if i buy that they are alive, So what ? that doesn't make the zygote not alive.

When you use words like "valuable", no, that isn't scientific. But we can scientifically determine whether or not something is potentially a person, and an earlier fetus fails to qualify.

Yeah no, we can determine when it is a person, but that point is outside of womb, and if you are arguing potential to be a human, yeah that is conception.

And even if it did, that doesn't mean it has the right to broach a woman's bodily autonomy, nor is "having sex" in any way a deliberate consent to give that up.

sorry but my bodily autonomy ends well before i have the right to kill another human being.

- - - Updated - - -

That is your view, and that's fine, but imposing it on others is beyond your right. There are people who want children, and are fertile, but simply cannot sustain a pregnancy. Those people may have a lifelong partner, and you seriously want them to never have sex? Forcing people to be abstinent for a risk of pregnancy when there is a solution to it (abortion, which is a safe procedure, and legal, nowadays), is simply not something that is fair to anyone.

Abstinense is a choice. Sex is something people do to bond with an intimate partner, regardless of how short the relationship is, or simply for the pleasure that it produces, which is btw healthy for mind and body, force and abusive relationships not withstanding.

my point was about the argument, its stupid, not the act.

[Deleted]

sorry but my bodily autonomy ends well before i have the right to kill another human being.

Not if it were using your body and causing your body to change.

[Deleted]

Vyxn, you still haven't answered my question about you being vegan or not. Not only that it's really rude to dodge it, it also suggests that the answer is no, which simply means that you value a chump of cells, which does not feel anything, higher than an animal only because the latter isn't human. You obviously don't give a fuck about facts and you surely don't value life itself. You're an anthropocentric, indoctrinated fundamentalist and yeah, I've got a massive problem with that - because it's unbelievable hypocritical.

In my opinion, speciecism isn't any better than racism or sexism. And it's pathetic, too, just like your botched fetus-egg-comparison.

[Sunseeker]

Vyxn, you still haven't answered my question about you being vegan or not. Not only that it's really rude to dodge it, it also suggests that the answer is no, which simply means that you value a chump of cells, which does not feel anything, higher than an animal only because the latter isn't human. You obviously don't give a fuck about facts and you surely don't value life itself. You're an anthropocentric, indoctrinated fundamentalist and yeah, I've got a massive problem with that - because it's unbelievable hypocritical.

In my opinion, speciecism isn't any better than racism or sexism. And it's pathetic, too, just like your botched fetus-egg-comparison.

I'd argue that a fetus is less valuable than a cow because the former doesn't taste as good. But I've never tried one so I can't argue that.