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

[Deleted]

A miscarriage is the woman's body aborting the fetus. The medical term is literally Spontaneous Abortion. It has every bit of weight in this conversation, as it's exactly the topic you proposed.

Spontaneous Abortion makes the event sound far more hilarious than it should be.

Then again, the professional term for Animal Euthanasia is "Destroying the Animal"

Another hilarious choice of words and makes me think Animal control is run by Darth Vader.

[Crissi]

I am not trying to discredit science, because science isn't pro-choice.

Let me explain you what isn't arbitrary:

Is it a human fetus? Yes.

Is it alive? Yes.

Then killing it is murder. No arbitrary 'set period of time' before it becomes alive.

Also, people protest for things all the time that the law doesn't agree with. I don't want to bring up any here and start a whole new string of comments though.

I thought the law said the killing of a PERSOn was murder, not just anything of Homsapien Species. a zygote / fetus is not legally defined as a person, so calling it murder is a matter of opinion, not legal fact as far as Im aware.

[Deleted]

I guess that would mean that a heart attack would classify as suicide then?

Under your logic yes.

Cancer would technically be Patricide. Diseases are Genocide.

[Crissi]

I guess that would mean that a heart attack would classify as suicide then?

Im sure if the radical right cared enough about suicides they;d make that argument

Seriously, Ive heard absolute wacko opinions. This is the state that condoned affluenze afterall.

[Radux]

I guess that would mean that a heart attack would classify as suicide then?

An acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) is due to lack of oxygen getting to the heart (for whatever reason) and the heart being damaged because of it. The "suicide" would be eating shitty foods that clog your heart.

It's not that difficult to look up these medical things to see if the analogy is sound.

[Immitis]

i think its pretty awful that a 12 year old had to have an abortion in the first place

[spinner981]

I thought the law said the killing of a PERSOn was murder, not just anything of Homsapien Species. a zygote / fetus is not legally defined as a person, so calling it murder is a matter of opinion, not legal fact as far as Im aware.

Oh, I'm sorry, I had no idea that just because the law says something that automatically makes it right. I mean, it's not like any law anywhere has ever said anything that you personally disagree with or something.

Let me change my statement then, since murder has the baggage of how it is defined 'by law'. It is the killing of a human. It happens all the time past the point at which there is a brain, heart, fingers, nose, etc. so the argument that it isn't killing a human because it doesn't have those things is moot. That definition doesn't affect what you are legally able to murder at all.

[Deleted]

Oh, I'm sorry, I had no idea that just because the law says something that automatically makes it right. I mean, it's not like any law anywhere has ever said anything that you personally disagree with or something.

Let me change my statement then, since murder has the baggage of how it is defined 'by law'. It is the killing of a human. It happens all the time past the point at which there is a brain, heart, fingers, nose, etc. so the argument that it isn't killing a human because it doesn't have those things is moot. That definition doesn't affect what you are legally able to murder at all.

Then you get the issue that killing isn't always wrong.

[Garnier Fructis]

Let's say abortion is murder.

So what?

[Crissi]

Oh, I'm sorry, I had no idea that just because the law says something that automatically makes it right. I mean, it's not like any law anywhere has ever said anything that you personally disagree with or something.

Let me change my statement then, since murder has the baggage of how it is defined 'by law'. It is the killing of a human. It happens all the time past the point at which there is a brain, heart, fingers, nose, etc. so the argument that it isn't killing a human because it doesn't have those things is moot. That definition doesn't affect what you are legally able to murder at all.

Murder is a legal definition, so yes you have to go by the legal definition. We dont call one cat killing another cat murder, and we certainly dont call all humans killing other humans murder.

Also, does "human" in law define everything in that species because that's the only way to include a fetus that way. biologically it will become a human, but it currently is not conisdered so.

[Kasierith]

I am not trying to discredit science, because science isn't pro-choice.

Science isn't pro-anything. It is establishing observations from which you can draw conclusions; your stance is based on your interpretation of the gathered knowledge.

Let me explain you what isn't arbitrary:

The majority of what you are saying is completely arbitrary.

Is it a human fetus? Yes.

Mutually agreed upon.

Is it alive? Yes.

So is a tree. How's your desk doing?

Then killing it is murder. No arbitrary 'set period of time' before it becomes alive.

1) you are wrong in an absolute sense because abortion is legal, thus is not murder. The most you can say is kill, unless you want to get into a dispute with the nearest dictionary.
2) Again, no one is disputing that it is alive. The dispute is that the rights of something not a person yet in no way supersedes the right of the woman to her own health. If it were any other way, self defense would not be a right because you could not place your own health above that of your attacker.

[Kraenen]

Spontaneous Abortion makes the event sound far more hilarious than it should be.

Then again, the professional term for Animal Euthanasia is "Destroying the Animal"

Another hilarious choice of words and makes me think Animal control is run by Darth Vader.

Most of the neurobio articles I read use "Sacrifice the Animal" which gives it a certain creepy Aztec vibe

[Shakari]

Caterpillars become butterflies.

Are caterpillars not the same thing as a butterfly?

Nope catarpillars are catapillars basic school stuff there they do however changing into butterfly's thats the important bit .. change into

[Immitis]

i dont know why people are getting so caught up on whether or not abortion is wrong.

babies dont even have souls guys

[Crissi]

Boy, do I feel completely weird describing a human fetus in logical terms, but must separate my emotional feelings from logical debate! >.<

[Common Sense]

Interesting how adamant conservatives are to ban abortion while simultaneously trying to ban birth control. Fascinating how much conservatives care about unborn "children" while simultaneously cutting down food stamps and taking away food from starving children that are already struggling in low income households.

I'd call it hypocrisy, but God forbid someone point out the obvious.

[Deleted]

While I applaud the kid for speaking out, there is no way in hell this came to mind on it's own. Whoever the adult is who puts the ideas in this girls head should be ashamed.

Good job, you already fucked up this child before sche even has a chance to develop her own opinion on the subject.

[Soeroah]

I am not trying to discredit science, because science isn't pro-choice.

Let me explain you what isn't arbitrary:

Is it a human fetus? Yes.

Is it alive? Yes.

Then killing it is murder. No arbitrary 'set period of time' before it becomes alive.

Also, people protest for things all the time that the law doesn't agree with. I don't want to bring up any here and start a whole new string of comments though.

What is arbitrary in your example, however, is the conclusion that just because it's a human fetus and it's alive logically means it's a human.

You yourself have said people shouldn't jump to conclusions and arbitrarily define what makes a human, yet you do so to support your argument.

You say science doesn't try to make moral choices, and to a degree, that is correct. However, ignoring science completely seems counter productive. Science is necessary to help define some of the parameters our morals work with. Morally, a normal person shouldn't want to kill another person. Intellectually, what constitutes a 'person' depends on the thinker's point of view. Scientifically, their point of view can be validated or otherwise by science.

For example, I would say that the following qualities are necessary to define a human. Individuality, the ability to survive as an independent organism, a sense of self, the ability to feel, and the ability to react to stimuli.

Scientifically, the majority, if not all, of these qualities don't apply to a fetus prior to a certain point in its development. Scientifically, a 'person' does not exist, if you use those qualifiers to define a human (which I personally believe are fair qualifiers).


Of course, you may argue about what qualities define a human, and that is of course your right. However, since the nature of a human is subjective, the science can't support any one person. This means that the pro-choice side don't really have a leg to stand on scientifically and are restricted to the moral arguments, yes. The same applies to the pro-life side, though. Essentially, what I'm getting from your arguments is that no one is right or wrong, as there is no 'correct' stance, in which case why are you even arguing in the first place? If no one can be right or wrong, the argument is pointless, and people are free to do as their moral code decides.

[spinner981]

Murder is a legal definition, so yes you have to go by the legal definition. We dont call one cat killing another cat murder, and we certainly dont call all humans killing other humans murder.

Also, does "human" in law define everything in that species because that's the only way to include a fetus that way. biologically it will become a human, but it currently is not conisdered so.

I don't think you understand the point. The point is to change the law so that abortions aren't legal, even if we could get to the point where the only abortions were rape, incest, life of the mother, etc. it would still be stopping about 99% of all abortions. Also, yes, I would assume that when it refers to 'human' it refers to the species of humanity.

[Kraenen]

Interesting how adamant conservatives are to ban abortion while simultaneously trying to ban birth control. Fascinating how much conservatives care about unborn "children" while simultaneously cutting down food stamps and taking away food from starving children that are already struggling in low income households.

I'd call it hypocrisy, but God forbid someone point out the obvious.

Keep the women as brood mares for the nation.