+zaro33 Exactly. They want to avoid nuance at all cost. What this means is that they say abortion is morally wrong regardless of circumstance EXCEPT for a handful of cases. Obviously, these are cases where suffering of the mother is in question. The problem is that they put right to life on a pedestal above all else, and so regardless of the amount of suffering of the mother, if it's not life-threatening, they don't care.

@@ThePharphis this is completely disingenuous, and saying they don’t care about all the suffering women is completely disingenuous.

This is where it gets more complicated most of these cases are not abortions they’re actually, ectopic pregnancies, or cases where the fetus has already miscarried. My view is that the goal should always be to save both lives, if the child dies while trying to save both the child dies we did the best we could and vice versa.

@@pleaseenteraname1103 I didn't say they didn't care, I said they put the right to life of the fetus above all other concerns in the debate

@@ThePharphis well that’s not true, The value the life of a fetus in the mother equally.

That is a myth. So many people who are pro life take those children in. Statistically speaking, who do you think a majority of the people are that adopt kids? I’ll give you a hint. They attend church every Sunday

She’s anti-woman. Don’t be confused.

Adoption is normally the response given. A bad response obviously.

Perhaps she also will adopt ALL the children who are born and are orphans.

@@goldencalf13 It's actually a perfectly acceptable response

saying 'nature designs wombs' is the unsubstantiated claim of a religious-freak. christine said nature designs wombs

hey I hope you're still alive

Well except the "life [only] comes from life" and "after their own kind" (20:14) that she opened with, but that wasn't delved into because Matt chose to not focus on those statements.

She was too busy making empty emotional appeals with gore.

Michelle Size do you know what a uterus even is? It’s not for you. It’s only yours in the sense of it’s attached to you.

@@TheMetalBison Fuck you, you pathetic shitheel. By YOUR standard, what are you doing with both your eyes, both your kidneys, and all of your liver?!?! There are people out there who NEED them, and you're selfishly hoarding them You don't get to decide if they're 'deserving', just do your duty and give up your body parts.

Douglas Thomas Hayden I’m in Charleston SC. If you’d like to make an official complaint in person, I am accepting appointments. We can discuss these issues, and who should have their eye knocked out. Thank you.

@@TheMetalBison O 'brave' keyboard 'warrior'. I'm just calling you out as the contemptible selfish coward you are, demanding from OTHERS what YOU refuse to offer. And you're not worth my time. C'mon up to Danbury, CT if you want a confrontation...just be sure you have ambulance fare back home if you're stupid enough to initiate physical violence.

+TheMrsmartiekid same here man. I will also raise 2 other considerations that maybe you are not aware: 1) Banning abortion won't stop abortion itself. Ireland is one example. When Ireland bans abortion, abortion did not go down. People turned to homemade inventions to try to do self-induce abortion, causing a lot of unnecessary deaths and health risks! 2) Economy. If we ban abortion, this means over 1 million babies will be born per year into poor families. Have you thought about what kind of burden this will cause on our social welfare system? I'm not necessarily pro-choice or pro-life...but these are just 2 other issues we need to think about before jumping into a legislation!

Puglous we do have over 50+ million people currently living in poverty without basic healthcare.... and Republicans' solution = remove universal healthcare???

+TheMrsmartiekid The argument about allowing a child to be born into a shitty life doesn't follow. It's arguable that giving a child a chance at life is far better than giving them no chance at life: it certainly wouldn't be considered moral to stop a child from living if their life was terrible. (Although there's then the whole debate about illness, suffering and Euthanasia)

+La Puerta You do the killing then since your morals are god.

+TheMrsmartiekid "born into neglect, abuse or with a non-life-sustaining illness" how about we also throw in poverty,disabilities, inherited genetic diseases, mutations, babies born without limbs and a gazzilion more harsh cruelties that currently and will always exist because that's a part of LIFE. Yes, I believe no child should ever be born in harsh living conditions but it does happen and you can't blame pro-life advocates for the uncontrollable factors in life. Also, your statement shows that you'd rather children be dead than experience abuse,neglect, non-life-sustaining illness since. That's a BIG slap in the face for all the victims of actual abuse, neglect and other cruel realities of life. "you care more for a fetus than you ever would for a poor child" That's a such a biased pro-abortion statement. First of all, pro-life advocates care EQUALLY for all lives including the poor, rich, wanted, unwanted, unborn and born. We believe that a fetus is already a growing human being in the early stages of life. Life begins at conception, we learned that in biology. Overwhelming majority of biologist and a bunch of pro-choicer agree that life begins at the moment of conception. An elderly, a baby and a fetus are all different stages of the human life. Pro- life: believes that it should be illegal to end the life of an individual who is a member of the human species such as a fetus, baby, teenager, adult and an elderly. Pro-choice: believes that it should be legal for a pregnant woman to decide whether or not a fetus should continue to live.

Well put Sir.

I agree that she focused way to much on the whether it's human life or not bit. The whole discussion should've been way more about body autonomy. however she did actually give some responses to that. She talked about actively and intrusively terminating a pregnancy and thus "killing" a fetus is different from not being willing to give a kidney, or caring for a child. But they were still kind of foot notes for her and it really should've been her entire argument. Great point on the video too. It was totally out of place and cheap.

She said she supports abortion when theres high risk to the womans health try to pay attention.

The bodily autonomy argument is irrelevant. If bodily autonomy is what matters then he would have to demonstrate why the baby doesn’t also deserve bodily autonomy. If the mother has the right not to be aggressed upon, why not the child?

Ryan Price - You’re actually making the point for body autonomy. The fetus doesn’t have body autonomy until it can survive on its own. Until that point, it’s technically a parasite.

John Welch In a sense they are. I don't watch horror movies because I can't stand violence.

John Welch How do _you_ define _abortion_, John? I bet _you_ think WALT DISNEY movies are full of wonderful, bloodless, FEMALE EMPOWERING ABORTIONS (the good kind). What a whacko piece of commentary you typed!

***** How was it whacko?

+TedVeron I must have missed this. As far as I know Disney doesn't have any abortions (although there may be a miscarriage implied in the opening sequence of Up, unless they were really jumping the gun in decorating the room). I'd define an abortion as a planned premature termination of a pregnancy. The point I was making that you seem to have missed is that instead of giving her definition of an abortion as requested, she gave some rhetoric plea to emotion, which didn't even mention pregnancy, foetus or even baby. This struck me as a dishonest answer to a simple question.

You do understand the topic is about babies

yeah that is funny lmao

And as frauditors usually learn the hard way, people can be evicted even from public property.

it has an unreal ring to it right?!, but its true when looking at these fascist laws that are now being promulgated in the USA

@@ferlandpetrus2157 Oh my the stupidity in your comment amazes me, fascist laws anti-abortion laws are fascist, you literally know the second country to legalize abortion was Nazi Germany right, along with Fascist Italy and Spain.

@@pleaseenteraname1103 um… so watch the video?

THANK YOU!

Ebony Skeptic. Well, my dear friend, we certainly cannot be skeptical about you undoubted and abundant beauty! :)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_age_reckoning

You said it. Your age is "counted" after yo are born. That's a human plan. There is aging going on in reality.

What sort of insane straw man is this?

@@pythondrink What is being misrepresented or characterized poorly about the argument?

@@XisoLate "it WILL be sunflower" Prolifers believe the fetus or embryo, making this a straw man

+Claudio Lima Fly me in. I'll do it, ;-)

+Claudio Lima Sim, precisamos sem dúvida!

It's about consent. No human gets to use my body without my consent. Even if I initially gave consent, if I revoke it, then poof. There goes the other person's right to violate my autonomy. That's how it works. If you don't also make a father make a bone marrow donation to their already born child to save their life, you don't get to do that at any stage in the life of the dependent entity. Unborn people don't get more rights or special rights that born people don't get. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Not the killing of a fetus. Cesarean sections are also abortions. Most abortions are also done before sentience could even be detected. And the ones that happen after that are done to wanted pregnancies that end up endangering the life of the woman. Don't try to boil this down to just protecting all life. Because you can't make someone be an incubator for someone else when they do not consent to it. Well, not if you say you care about bodily autonomy, anyway.

@@mileswright7294 If it's about consent then no innocent human being should be killed without their consent. The solution in a pregnancy - COEXIST. Death is permanent. A woman won't be pregnant forever (she will eventually give birth). Besides even Roe v Wade said states could restrict abortion at a certain point in the pregnancy without regard to ongoing consent. Why? Because at some point the recognized the unborn child as a "potential". Now that we know an unborn child is an ACTUAL human being, they need to be protected before and after viability. An unborn child has done nothing wrong. They are not violating anything or anyone. Comparing them to a rapist is beyond disgusting. I see the lame "donation" attempt at an analogy all the time. How can you not realize it's not even close to pregnancy? A slightly closer analogy would be that you actually DID donate bone marrow to someone else and then wanted to kill them to get your precious uter... I mean bone marrow back. That would never be allowed. Killing your unborn child to get your precious uterus back (which you already had anyway) should never be allowed. A closer analogy would be that pregnancy is dependent care. People are supposed to be responsible and provide food and shelter for their dependents (at least as long as it takes to hand them over safely to someone else), not make up excuses to kill them. The right for an innocent human being not to be killed is not a special right, it's a fundamental right.

@@mathildeyoung1823 using someone without their consent is NOT innocence. That's where you trip over yourself. Let's grant both of them the fact that they each consent to live. Fine. I grant that to each of them. But when one party does not consent, and the other is dependent upon the other, all of that stops. When having sex, and then you say stop for whatever reason, if the man continues going without that consent, the sex is then considered rape. It is a violation of your autonomy even if you initially gave consent. The man doesn't get to keep going. No one gets to use your body for pleasure or to sustain themselves without that consent. Even if you find it morally repugnant. Once you say the government can force someone to remain pregnant, it can then also turn around and say someone must have an abortion. That is why the choice ought to be left with the individual it concerns. You also wouldn't jail a parent for refusing to donate their organs to their born child. Even if we would look at that and say yeah that's shitty. Using the law to make someone donate an organ AGAINST THEIR WILL is a twisted and horrible situation. A uterus is no different than a kidney or a liver. Bodily autonomy is ubiquitous. It encompasses the whole body throughout all life stages. And that means being dependent on someone else at any time does not mean that someone can override the bodily autonomy of another WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. And yet that is exactly the position you argue. You emphasise the unborn so much that you bypass the born person's consent. That is not "innocence" by any means. Doesn't matter how precious you find the dependent entity. Without consent, it is a violation. Why do you support giving a fetus rights than no born person would ever be granted? It should be incredibly obvious as to why the state shouldn't be forcing people to have their body used by someone else. Especially given the variety of complex situations that arise with pregnancy. My mother conceived me through in vitro. And she also had a miscarriage before me. I am the only one to make it. I was born 26 years ago this month. I hope you don't think she belongs in prison or should be jailed for either of those things because how are you gonna tell she ACTUALLY had a miscarriage? Or are you gonna charge her for murder of the other embryos that didn't survive? I can assure anyone who tries to apprehend my mother for this would probably find an axe near their neck very quick. :) The unborn person does not have rights over anyone else's body. The born person does not have rights over someone else's body. The unfortunate circumstances of our biology is just that, unfortunate. I also find it funny because the caricature of this is portrayed as murder, like we just want babies to be murdered. Well, if that were true, why aren't woman running around slaughtering born children en masse? Because they don't want to fucking kill children you dumb fucks. That's not what it's EVER fucking been about. It's about the unwarranted use of the body without consent. Period. Pregnancy is a condition that happens to people. It is not a choice. Some people get pregnant without wanting to. And some people can't get pregnant even tho they want to. There is little choice involved there. Consent to driving is not consent to getting into a wreck. Even if there is "risk." That heartbeat bullshit is about an electrical pulse which isn't done by a heart. The heart hasn't fucking formed yet. Brain activity comes much later and usually when there is brain activity during an abortion, that pregnancy and child were wanted. This isn't about murdering kids you fucking ass hats. It's about the right to govern your own body without having that impeded by another individual. If you wouldn't let another adult siphon off resources from another adult, you don't grant that to kids, babies, or fetuses, or old people, either. Using someone's stage of dependency as an excuse to side step the consent of another opens up a whole Pandora's box of unpleasant consequences, the likes of which you seem to not have thought through to their full extent. Bodily autonomy is not a difficult concept to grasp. We grant corpses more bodily autonomy than living people. Because scientists can't use someone's body for science just because they're not using it. That person had to have given their CONSENT. Why are you people so obsessed with VIOLATING CONSENT??

@@mileswright7294 An unborn child was placed in the woman's womb though no fault of their own. They have done nothing wrong to deserve death. Your "logic" is like saying a homeowner could kill their child if they wake up one day and say "I don't consent to you being in my house. Get out NOW" and then killing their baby if the baby doesn't get up and walk out of the house immediately. An unborn child cannot consent to being killed (like a newborn cannot). Since they cannot consent they need to be protected. IF there is a full human right to bodily autonomy then unborn children have that right and abortion would violate TWO of their basic human rights - bodily autonomy and their basic human rights (as innocent human beings) not to be killed. TWO > ONE. Therefore abortion still needs to be illegal. Really, you're comparing an unborn child to a rapist? If a woman is having sex and changes her mind and ONLY THINKS "I don't consent" without giving any other indication she doesn't consent she cannot kill her partner - because he doesn't know she revoked consent. An unborn child has done nothing wrong to deserve death and to compare then to a rapist is truly sick.

@@mileswright7294 You got destroyed lmao PS the study he cites has some incredible errors in it for example You need to know that the data reported by abortion clinics to state health departments and ultimately to the CDC significantly under-represents abortion morbidity and mortality for several reasons: 1) abortion reporting is not required by federal law and many states do not report abortion-related deaths to the CDC; 2) deaths due to medical and surgical treatments are reported under the complication of the procedure (e.g., infection) rather than the treatment (e.g., induced abortion); 3) most women leave abortion clinics within hours of the procedure and go to hospital emergency rooms if there are complications that may result in death; 4) suicide deaths are rarely, if ever, linked back to abortion in state reporting of death rates; 5) an abortion experience can lead to physical and/or psychological disturbances that increase the likelihood of dying years after the abortion, and these indirect abortion-related deaths are not captured at all Do I need to destroy matts argument more?

I'm against the death penalty myself, but it's not really comparable to the abortion question. For one, the death penalty is done either as a deterrent or as a manner of justice. If you kill someone, then there is a need for there to be consequences, and many have found that prison is not severe enough. Others argue that it's not so much that it's justified, but that it works as a deterrent. Fewer people will kill if they know there is a chance that they themselves will be killed. So the objective is to prevent death, and or apply consequences for murder. THere's the question of authority and most in favor argue that the state is given this right, as the state is responsible for the safety of its members. Ubiquitously and undeniably, there are situations where the state has to kill(military or police) in order to defend its members from threats of violence. The death penalty is the extension of the same idea. Keep in mind, not all countries have secure prison systems. Abortion, on the other hand, is not really about punishment or deterring people from killing. Rather the debate is mostly surrounding the right to bodily autonomy vs the rights of zygotes, embryos and fetuses. The only similarity this debate has with that of the death penalty is it involves killing, though the justification and argument are entirely different. The distinction isn't really that complicated and can easily be understood from the context alone. The only reason the argument survives is I think people like to accuse their opponents of hypocrisy. That's about it. It's like saying, "oh, you care so much about endangered species, but don't care about aborted fetuses." It's sort of obvious, here that these are two separate issues, with two separate justifications being made.

I really don’t understand why people are always making the comparison between abortion and the death penalty. The two aren’t related at all. I’m pro choice and pro death penalty.

@@erinwhipple4666 The basic jist is that many pro-lifers will say they are against abortion because they feel it involves killing another human being, but will be ok with the state killing another human being via execution.

@@cassandra.wladyslava well the definitive aspect of that argument is innocence. But regardless, abortion is not a “killing”. Fetal death is not the intent, it is an understood byproduct of refusing access to your body.

@@erinwhipple4666 First off, I’m pro-choice. I’m just trying to explain the contradiction. Guilty of a crime or not, you’re still killing someone. Plus we do execute innocent people. It’s more that it’s an issue of them wanting to preserve human life while being ok with the state deciding when it should be taken away. I’m just basing this off of personal and observed interactions, btw.

Andrew Wells So, the mother should have the right to abstain from keeping the child alive even when there is literally nothing else that can do so in her stead? Isn't that kind of like saying it's legal for a fireman to drop the person they're carrying in the middle of a rescue because he simply decides he doesn't want to carry the person out of the building?

Hi Edvard. I don't think that is the same. As it currently stands it is illegal for a fireman (or indeed anyone) not to help someone unless they would be put into immediate danger themselves. That final clause is important. A fireman has enrolled to do a service. It is his swarm duty to serve and protect. A better analogy I feel would be the obligation of a normal civilian witnessing a house fire. He is under no obligation to risk his own life to jump in and try and rescue the person inside. Either lawfully or I think morally. If he chooses to it is an act of bravery or charity, but he shouldn't be compelled to. He does have a moral obligation to perform certain acts which do not cause him any harm e.g., calling the fire brigade. Perhaps a couple have a similar moral obligation to use birth control if they do not wish to get pregnant.

Andrew Wells I more-or-less agree, even if the embryo is a person; it does not in any way invalidate the bodily rights argument. The question itself, is a fetus a person? Is an interesting moral possibility; however I find it to be completely irrelevant to the concept of abortion and pregnancy in general.

+Sabrina Fairchild Function implies intent. Nature does not instill function (for it has no intent), nor does nature or any sentient being obligate us to fulfill function with our body. The function of our own blood is whatever the heck we want it to function as. As with blood, nature doesn't own a woman's body; she does. She decides when and what her own body should function as, not nature.

Sabrina Fairchild It's connected as well to what is moral. There is something in philosophy called the naturalistic fallacy -- where a moral argument hinges on the fact that something is perceived as 'natural'. Kristine's uterus, 'body part of purpose' argument is making this very same error. By appealing to nature, we could say eating apples is a moral act, or natural selection in every form is moral.

So you are basically seeing a child as a "Injuring" man you pro abortioners are immoral perks that need to be deported.

***** should those who commit petty crime such as jaywalking and vandalism be thrown in jail instead of being given tickets?

a pregnancy does indeed come a quite a cost to a woman's body and can indeed be considered a collection of MANY injuries. Perhaps the immoral prejudice stand with you against women. It can be hard to remember the value of autonomy when you literally have no skin in the game.

I just love it when a group of men want to argue abortion.. not one of you has any amount of say. Ever.

Both the man and the woman played a part in it.

His arguement is valid for the same reason that self-defense killing is valid essenially which we as a society have deemed as justified. Both conceded that point that its ok to abort for the health of the woman. She is making the rare logical arguement that is actually quite clever that: 1.) if we value human life and the fetus is human life we should not kill it. 2.) if we are unsure or are still in debate about it we should not kill it. Matt's arguement appeals more to the present day practicallity and emotions on the issue as Kristine's position indirectly accuses people of murder who believe they are justified in aborting (which is why the crowd was more in favor of Matt's position.

Name Display He definitely repeated his main argument multiple times: "Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy..." Over and over again....

***** That's because that's all Dillahunty has. Opinions aren't strong enough to decisively end arguments in the same way facts can. Dillahunty offered his philosophical _bodily autonomy opinion_ and Kristine is rejecting it just like I do.

***** All she has is opinion too. These are two people arguing over ideology basically. The difference I was pointing out of course being, she is arguing against a position that Matt does not hold, and she does not know how to address Matt's actual position, so she just keeps repeating the same strawman bullshit over and over again.

Name Display Actually, she's repeating her scientifically inspired moral opinion (that an unborn child is a person) as he repeats his non-scientifically based _philosophical_, moral opinion that an unborn child is not a person until man declares it a person and that he thinks that would be pretty stupid. BTW, calling her argument a _straw man_ argument seems to insinuate that her argument is no argument. You're not arguing that, are you, *Name Display*?

***** You misunderstand the concept of a strawman. Also, you are wrong about the scientific aspects you just mentioned. Either way, no matter what justification these people propose for their opinions, they are just that. Opinions. Based on ideology. Science does not say it is wrong to abort a fetus. That is a philosophically born concept.

Kristine's arguments are flawed because they have the Naturalistic Fallacy at their heart. Did you notice that whenever the fact that lots of fertilized eggs don't implant, or miscarriages occur, she was FINE with that? Death is death, dammit! If she was going to be consistent, EVERY fertilized egg that doesn't develop into an independent human body should be cause for her concern.

@@douglasthomashayden2566 There is a big difference between natural death and intentionally killing. Intentionally killing a human being that has done nothing wrong should be illegal.

@@mathildeyoung1823 A fetus HAS 'done something wrong'. It's invaded an unwilling host, & it's the host's choice to evict it, and not be victimized by it for anywhere from 9 months to a lifetime, with a certainty that the parasite will cause massive undesired, unDESERVED changes to the host's body. Moochers, freeloaders, & parasites 'bodily rights' are properly ignored in such a scenario.

@@douglasthomashayden2566do babies crawl into unsuspecting mothers where you live? In the overwhelming majority of cases, an unborn child only ends up using a woman’s organs as a direct and foreseeable result of her voluntary actions. In other words, she chose to make her organs available and she can’t exactly complain when someone took her up on her offer; she has no more right to kill her unborn child then she does someone she donated a kidney to. An unborn child is not a parasite either. He/she is a human being. Human beings are not parasites

@@mathildeyoung1823 If a person is on birth control SPECIFICALLY because they don't want to become pregnant, then YES, the ZEF (fuck your 'baby' language...it's not that until it draws its first breath, *biblically* ) is a fucking uninvited guest that can be evicted with extreme prejudice and no need for remorse. If you don't think so, then let me come and live with you, eat your food (even if you have to go hungry), use up all your resources (even if it severely depletes or bankrupts you), trash your house making it the way *I* want it, and you'll accept it, then let me stay for AT LEAST 20 years while you keep paying all the bills regardless of how badly I abuse you. Same thing. FWIW, I expected you to take that tack. By YOUR KIND's standards, smokers who get cancer shouldn't be allowed surgery and/or chemotherapy, people who get sick from eating / drinking impure food / water shouldn't be helped, people who get nearsighted or farsighted should be denied corrective lenses, clothes in general would be *verboten*, so much for Type 2 diabetics, etc. YOUR KIND only rail against abortion for *religious* reasons, then try, post hoc, to fit some (ANY!) kind of supposedly secular 'justification' to excuse your prejudice. And YOUR KIND can't any more. If you could, you'd be off victimizing pregnant people rather than whining in an online forum.

Yes he is those things. And on top of that he is completely immoral for believing you can murder your child

@@andrewdavidson8167 and your immoral for believing you can rape women..

@@andrewdavidson8167 what's wrong, don't like when people make the framing around your stance so rediculous that no one takes you serious..

@Forrest Walker Well I don’t like certain framing that makes any comment look like someone was offended. Kind of like what you did with that last comment What I don’t like is people praising a man who recognizes that a fetus is a human being (fetus is Latin for small child) and because of his lazy selfishness he will fully support the murder of that child. I agree, Matt is super smart. But just because you can articulate yourself in a brilliant way doesn’t give you any moral high ground. If murder is the natural result of your position? It is not a good position and you are in step with the Nazis and southern slave owners that this country had a couple centuries ago

@@andrewdavidson8167 A fetus is a clump of cells not an “infant”. Until late in pregnancy, it has less brain activity than the standard of “brain dead, pull the plug” for an injured patient. So you are giving a clot more rights than an adult human. It’s absolutely ridiculous to pretend that a fetus, which can not survive outside of a woman’s body, can have more rights than the adult, aware woman carrying it.

Nope. Kristine is hung up on the Naturalistic Fallacy, & Matt demonstrated her attempt to invoke *personhood* was insufficent to support her assertion.

Your position is based on subjective morality too, though. The entire concept of "who has the right to decide" is based entirely on personal morality. My problem with your argument is that you're creating distinctions that don't exist. Basically, you're attempting to separate "morality" from "the law" or "morality" from "human rights" or "morality" from "freedom", etc, and you're implying that one's personal morality shouldn't form the basis for any of these things. But morality itself acts as the basis for how we decide human rights, what freedoms a person should have, etc. What you should try to understand is that with subjects like these, there isn't an objective "right" or "wrong" answer. All these arguments are based on personal value systems, that is whether you prefer freedom over one's body vs. the preservation of life. You might be uncomfortable with the law denying a woman from getting an abortion, and a pro-lifer might be uncomfortable with the killing of a fetus, but both positions ultimately rest on emotion, and you don't have any more of an objective basis than the pro-lifer has.

Wrong.

There is no right afforded to ANY human being to use the body of another. End of! No émotion required in making the case that it's the woman's.right to autonomy that takes priority.

Your dna doesn’t change from the time you’re a fertilized egg to now. So yes, younger. I know prolife atheists. Their arguments are better than hers. They’re correct. A single celled organism on Mars would be considered life and protected. And any intentional ending of life is murder. A human zygote is indeed human. It is murder. If prolife people agreed to the .0000003% of abortions, could we end the rest? If no, you’re all the hypocrites. And new studies say babies in the womb could possibly feel pain at 8 weeks gestation, and definitely as early as 12 weeks. When you have to rip arms and legs off of babies to end their lives it’s inhumane. And if the baby is her body, then she is 50% male when pregnant with a male. The natural place for a zygote is it’s mother’s womb. Taking the baby out of the mother doesn’t take the title mother way. They’re a mother of a dead child. I don’t claim that even a born baby is equal to an adult. They’re much better. Innocent. Bodily autonomy when you use abortion as birth control is a fallacy. Don’t have unprotected sex. Those abortions are the 99% of abortions. Not rape. Not ectopic pregnancies. And to kill a viable child inside its mother because she might die is stupid. If she can undergo a late term abortion she could give birth to the child alive. Babies at 22 weeks gestation (20 weeks from fertilization) can live. And we’re getting better at keeping them alive and without brain damage. But many babies are aborted, live through it, and are either left to die by nurses and doctors or are rescued by nurses. They are typically the ones who have the saline abortions but one who had his arm ripped off came out alive and was rescued. Abortion is a horrifying action. If we teach people responsibility, make rape laws incredibly harsh, and enforce the rape laws to make it so the rapist gets no parental rights we can make it better without murdering innocent children.

@@junelledembroski9183 uh, no. Most abortions are just popping a pill. How the FUCK is abortion being an option as your right to bodily autonomy a fallacy? Explain that b.s. to me. And over 50% of women who get abortions USED CONTRACEPTION. Seems like you're a stereotypical anti choice buffoon

@@junelledembroski9183 to add to this, you contradict "pro life" when you say there is no exception to save the WOMAN'S life. If her life is not in your equation, you are not pro life.

@@TrashBunBun childish word play. Apparently you don’t even know someone who has committed suicide or other atrocities because they had an abortion. Men created abortion for men. Plain and simple. Just because I didn’t say blah blah doesn’t mean I don’t agree with blah blah. And all of you who want to kill babies for birth control, shame on you. Name calling, really? My plan isn’t perfect, but it’s better than not having one. You are boring, your arguments are stale. I am following new science. New science says babies can feel pain as early as 8 weeks but definitely as early as twelve. I think you may be talking stats from the 90’s, because so far since raising the gestational age to whenever, the trend is killing babies older and older.

@@junelledembroski9183 I don't care. As a suicide survivor, screw you :) Do you know how many women DIED for their rights? And you wanna make their hardship and sacrifice amount to NOTHING. Shame on you.

Hagan1233 The key is in the word CHOICE.

Hagan1233 Pro-Death (there is a death involved)? Or should we brush that aside?

***** Abortion and abortion doctors SUCK! Literally...

Why not why don’t you like abortion what do you see wrong with it.

It's projection

Oof. If you think both sides of this debate were in any way equal, I fear for your education.

@@Mmmmiloyou seem like the type of person that struggles with understanding the difference between ‘you’re wrong’ and ‘I disagree with you’ I’d challenge you to think of a single person that has different opinions than you on one topic or many topics, but they’re also smart and make good points. If you can’t think of a single person then I think you have something to work on

*Christopher Hitchens was right about abortion, Dillahunty and the ACA are utterly wrong and are immoral pieces of shit.*

Allegra Yang separate argument. Irrelevant to the debate.

David McClanahan True

no, don't cop out like that. all issues are connected, and it's a valid point to point out how pro-lifers are often so anti-helping born children. doesn't matter if the debate was initially about the topic. it's still worth discussing. all discussion is valuable.

westingtyler ideas True too

@@nukeage9856 see the problem with the people who want to take away the choice is they refuse to help afterwards and then blame the child having a bad childhood on the parent when it wouldn’t have happened if she had the choice

J Stevens What does that possible tendency of his have to do with anything?

J Stevens That lady just reminded me of that Carlin line. Somehow. I wasn't joking, I just repeated Carlin's joke :)

Unless you want to fuck Dillahunty, I don't see how you think you're saying anything worthwhile.

MaverickFor44 It wasn't meant to be worthwhile, it was just an old Carlin joke that seemed applicable here.

Well, I think that Carlin could be very funny, especially if he said something that was true but that people usually wouldn't acknowledge. I think that that particular joke was just him being stupid and probably not realizing that he was generalizing based on his surroundings (ie, living in Hollywood, the 'beautiful people' were pro-choice, but if you look at the country as a whole, that doesn't apply). I mean, there's no shortage of hot women who're pro-life, and there are plenty of unattractive ones who're pro-choice. George HW Bush (the father) was once confronted by an angry feminist protesting about abortion who yelled, "Stay out of my uterus." She was a rather large and mannish woman and he said, "Lady, I wouldn't touch your uterus with a 10 foot pole."

Nice catch! " _Should it be legal to separate conjoined twins even if we know that it would kill one of them?_" Without consent from both, probably not. If they are too young to give consent and the parents do, probably yes. " _If not, how does one twin's dependency on the other differ from a fetus's dependency upon its mother?_" Separation of conjoined twins affects the body of both of them directly (simply put, after separation they both have a wound). For conducting a surgery the surgeon needs to have consent of any of the clients involved. A fetus is different in two ways. (i) the person to give consent in the name of the fetus is, I guess, technically, the mother herself. (ii) we don't need to intrude the body of the fetus to conduct the procedure. " _Does one twin have the right to demand a separation according to his/her bodily rights?_" "The right to demand", sure. The right to be separated, depending on how good the case is to be made. Say, if both would die otherwise, there seems a case to be made even without consent from one of them...

@@liquidKi I mean, her arguments are so ludicrous, it’s hard not to laugh. Sure, it wasn’t very classy of him, but he did apologize and at the end, his arguments actually have merit, which is the entire point.

To say that abortion is a bodily autonomy issue is partially incorrect. People who support abortion root their position on the fundamental (first principles) belief that nobody has the right to use another person's body against that person's will. Having this first principle makes abortion a bodily autonomy issue. But, people who do not support abortion root their position on the first principle that nobody has the right to end a human life. For these people, abortion is a right to life issue. So to say that abortion is a bodily autonomy issue as a pro-choice person is to ignore the whole reason for a pro-lifer being pro-life. Furthermore, arguing that everyone has the right to bodiliy autonamy in effort to convince a prolifer is a ineffective strategy because it has nothing to do with their position in abortion. Arguing that every human has a right to live as a prolifer is an ineffective strategy because it has nothing to do with a prochoicers reason to being pro-choice. The abortion argument is like a group of scientists arguing that an object can be moved because an unstopable force will be applied to it, but another group is arguing that when that force is applied to the object it wont move because it is an immovable object. This gets even more complicated. When does the child gain bodily autonomy rights? Removeing it from the womb would violate those rights eventually.

@@steliosconstantinides3459 Fetus has no right to use someone else's body against their will. The issue of abortion is the womb owner's private issue; not yours, nor the government's.

@@macieyid I'm curious about a few things. First off, why do you think some people are pro life? I'm interested to find out pro-abortion people's perspective on why people are against abortion. Second, if a women put a little person in her vagina (like an adult with dwarfism), and that person did not consent to that, would she have the right to kill it to get it out? If there was no way to take it out, would the dwarf have the right to rip the woman apart to get out? Also, what is the difference in the value of an adult dwarf and a one month old baby? Should one have more rights under the law then the other? Remember the baby never consented to being created, and put inside the mothers womb. Also, I would argue that the women has no right to end the life of a human she chose to create inside of her.

@@steliosconstantinides3459 Why? Because they are egocentric pricks who think that their mindset should apply to everyone everywhere.

​@@steliosconstantinides3459 Several red flags detected. 1) "I'm interested to find out pro-abortion people's perspective on" - not pro-abortion, pro-choice. Nobody is arguing for people to abort fetuses, just for the right to choose. If you don't want it - don't do it. people can be against abortion rights for many reasons including religious reasons or naive ideas of equal rights for fetuses, while it is about their special rights, and after being born nobody particulary cares about children... 2) Strange analogy. Woman has not put fetus into herself, it is just the result of biological processes outside her control in many cases, aside from her aiming to become pregnant specifically. And the problem is with unviability of the fetus, not with necessity of killing it during abortion. 3) Humans acquire more rights with age due to more responsibility and more cognitive abilities, generally adults have priority even over newborn for being functional members of society, we value socially and intellectually capable people more than potential intelligent agents in newborn, so pregnant women usually have priority in saving their lives if there is a choice during delivery. 4) So, again. Women going to abortion usually did not choose to create life inside, it is the result of natural processes and we should not bow to nature in our ethics and morality. 5) Prohibition of abortions is so damaging to society that even if we consider abortion immoral we should not make it illegal.

It wouldn’t be abortion, you’re describing a miscarriage, and yes a woman should absolutely have every right to remove a miscarried fetus, i’ve never met any pro-life person that thinks otherwise.

​@@pleaseenteraname1103actually yes it's still an abortion because an abortion is still determination of a pregnancy I'm sorry you don't know what an abortion is

@@tannermclaughlin5001 No it is not. Yes I am aware the medical terminology is spontaneous abortion, but that’s usually because abortion is defined in the medical field normally as the termination or the removal of pregnancy, and there’s a huge problem with that definition it’s incredibly narrow, and reductive, if that’s all it is then carrying a baby to term at all with technically be an abortion since you’re removing a pregnancy. There is an obvious difference between an abortion and a miscarriage, one is something that is that is completely out of our control and the other is some thing that requires premeditated intent. They’re not remotely the same thing and people who can sleep them are either ignorant or intellectually dishonest, or they’re just using a different definition. The best definition in my opinion to describe abortion as the intentional killing of a fetus that’s a definition I think both pro-choice and pro-life can get around. And even if we’re using that definition how are you terminating a pregnancy exactly? The baby is already dead if you had a miscarriage what are you terminating? Oh what the fuck, why the hell am I even wasting my time and energy responding to a douche bag elitist troll who obviously has his head up his ass, so he’s incapable of recognizing the stench of his own shit.

+Elijah Jones She's completely out of her depth. Her entire basis seems to be emotional. That's not how she tries to argue, I'm not even sure if she understands that this is where she seems to come from... but there isn't an reasonable position you can take in favor of the anti-choice movement, and yet people hold it very strongly. It's emotional. That's all it is.

X- Com Yeah, I didn't think she did well. I also don't like her cause.

+Elijah Jones totally agree pro choice all the way

He debated a nervous student. Would like to see him actually debate someone such as Scott Klusendorf.

Typically, its because pro choicers act like they want to kill us. I get nervous when I'm debating the issue 10 to 1 as the only pro life athiest in the group.

right on girl! being a man and pro choice here and ive always wondered why men werent more empathetic towards a woman, i bet that if men knew what nine months of pregnancy and 12 hours of labor were like i firmly believe that abortion would be 100% legal without question, a pro life slogan is "the body inside your body is NOT your body" my response: neither of the bodies are yours to begin with hypocrites!

Exactly! Great response :)

It does matter if its alive! A tumor isnt. So that example is stupid! Plain Stupid The fetus didnt on his own will arrive to the uterus of the woman, so who is actually RESPONSIBLE? Donnating a kidney doesnt really apply either to an acurate analogy, because you are never going to get your kidney back.

Aborting a child that you didn't plan for IS being responsible. You acknowledge the situation you are in and take care of it to the best of your ability. And it really doesn't matter if it is alive or not. It is inside of another person. Both the mother and the child have equal rights; the child may have a right to life, but the mother's right to decide what does and does not happen to her body allows her to take the child out of her body, even if it means killing it. The child may have a right to life, but it doesn't have a right to be born. It's right to life is the same as everyone else's right to life: we live until we die. So the child is living in the mother's body until the mother decides she doesn't want it there anymore and has an abortion. It DID live, it just wasn't born.

***** Really? How so?

***** You're like a super lawyer finding various ethical loopholes to make it ethically awesome to abort unborn baby girls and boys.

***** Nice straw man dip shit. Fuck off.

***** A fallacy ? please give me a example . Because i can give you a list of fallacy, illogical, and contradiction the pro choice side gives.

***** _A fallacy ? please give me a example_ Let's start with the "pro-life" logic chain. The "pro-life" logic chain typically works out to be something like the following: (Human) life begins at conception. Humans have a right to life. Abortion should be illegal because it ends a human life. In an intellectually honest debate, terms must be defined and ultimately agreed upon in order for any truths to be discovered. The terms "life," "human," "person," and "being" are all fairly vague and typically get thrown around by both sides of the reproductive rights debate without having any sort of meaning formally attached to them. The term "Life" is especially ambiguous as it has over 20 definitions listed in most dictionaries. Since "pro-life" is the group making the positive claim that "life begins at conception," the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence that supports this claim, first by defining what they mean by "life" and then by explaining how this definition should inform how rights should be applied in the real world. _Because i can give you a list of fallacy, illogical, and contradiction the pro choice side gives._ I'm sure you can, pro choicer's say a lot of stupid shit.

***** I think failing to point out the naturalistic fallacy in Kristine's uterus argument was perhaps the most glaring. Just annoying that the audience ends up having to dissect her premise instead of the arguer.

Eden Grey And your point is? No one is saying that sex and pregnancy aren't intrinsically linked, what i am saying is that we should not remove the rights of women to do what they want with their own bodies. I'm going to flesh out your logic here, let me know if i miss something: Sex is both required for pregnancy and is it's purpose, therefor anytime a woman willingly has sex, they are also agreeing to get pregnant if that does in fact happen, and they should not be allowed to prevent said pregnancy because they agreed to have sex. And i presume they are also agreeing to carry said pregnancy to term, correct?

Eden Grey Abstinence is the best way? Tell that to Texas, oh wait...Highest rate of "repeat" teen pregnancy, oops, maybe they're just doing it wrong? - That wasn't relevant, i just like poking fun at Texas! xD No it doesn't, but your missing the point, we are not talking about a child that is already born, we are talking about a clump of cells that isn't even a person yet. I fully agree that she shouldn't kill it, if she can't support it, put it up for adoption, not that that's much better mind you. "Freedom comes with responsibility, and rights come with obligations", indeed they do, but so what? Abortion IS taking responsibility for a child and what YOU think is an obligation doesn't make it so. "Right To Life" does not apply simply because it is far to inflexible of a sentiment, a nice one, but utterly useless, under this blanket statement raped women will be forced to birth and care for their rapist child, married couples will never be able to get intimate without bringing a child into the family and teens will be forced to throw away their whole lives for a single mistake. And you think this is an adequate system? I think not. No no, i didn't say there is a right to sex, i am saying that there is a right to choice. I see, so you value the supposed rights of a potential human over the rights of an already established, fully mature human being, no matter what circumstances this adult may be in? I'm sorry, but children are a choice, the parents choose when, where, how and with whom them make a child, some even go as far as to choose the sex of said child by aborting the sex they do not want, i do not agree with that, but who am i to dictate what others do with their own bodies? In fact, who are "You" to dictate what people can and cannot do with their own bodies? Again, i'm sorry but...You really have no idea what your talking about. People said the exact same about many other things before abortion, and they were dead wrong, we have no reason to believe that this is any different, besides, abortion is what will destroy us? Not how we treat those of us that are already here? Or fucking with the planet? None of that? Your just worried about abortion? I honestly can't help but think your just another painfully ignorant Christian throwing his/her opinion around as if it should be law.

Eden Grey I would like links to multiple studies that support your blind assertion that crime has risen by a factor of four since abortion was legalized. I would also like links to charts of crime rates since at least the 1950's to now for cross referencing. You are the one that claimed it, i am not going to do your work for you.

Eden Grey Really? You claim that crime has increased due to abortion and you link me to articles talking mainly about single parents? I mean, i'm not complaining or anything, your doing my job for me, but that's not fun for me! xD

You do not address whether another human being is killed or not in an abortion.

The word "choice" is a lazy ploy to try to justify killing.... Sure, some choices are great - e.g. the choice to pick what flavor ice cream or body piercing you want. The choice to kill an innocent human being - born or unborn - not a great choice and not one that should be illegal.

@@mathildeyoung1823 What about a choice as to whether or not your uterus, kidneys, liver, heart, lungs, stomach, and other organs are used by another (wait for it...) *person* for 9 months?

@@ghurcbghurcb make the choice with your partner BEFORE you create the new human being. Once you and your partner create that new human being and put that defenseless human being in a position of dependence on you then their right (as an innocent human being) not to be killed takes precedence over you not wanting to be responsible and ensure their safety.

@@mathildeyoung1823 Consent to cross the road is not consent to being run over. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. And, like you can demand the doctor to stop in the middle of a blood donation, you can end your pregnancy even if starting it was intended. Sure, the fetus will die as a consequence of you revoking your consent, but so will the poor violinist. Really sucks that their lives hinge on another person's charity. And no, no one "forces" a fetus into a state of dependance, it was never INdependent to begin with.

@@ghurcbghurcb Consent to cross the road is consenting to the possibility of getting run over - which is why you need to be responsible and try to prevent that from happening (e.g. look both ways before you cross). Consent to sex IS consenting to the possibility of getting pregnant. Once pregnant there is a new human being involved - one that you consented to the possibility of creating and one that you obviously now need to be RESPONSIBLE for. Our offspring don't need consent to be cared for - they are supposed to be cared for - at least as long as it takes to hand them over SAFELY to someone else. If you don't wannnnaaaa consent to caring for your born child for even one more millisecond can you abandon them to die or are you supposed to ensure their safety at least as lonnnngggggg as it takes to hand them over SAFELY to someone else?

+Joakim Nybäck I admired her for debating Matt. She's wrong, but she has Chutzpah. Sadly, it's a big deal in the US although typically it's the right wing and religious people.

+Joakim Nybäck Yes because it's the issue of the religious, and religious nations are obviously a step behind in morality.

+jhon doe Correlation is not causation. But statistics depend on good data collection, anyway. Nobody else in the world counts the same way as they do in Sweden. "In Sweden there has been this ambition explicitly to record every case of sexual violence separately, to make it visible in the statistics," according to Klara Selin, a sociologist at the National Council for Crime Prevention in Stockholm. II. As everyone who has ever studied criminology knows, in the case of rape, there is insane latency rates. If there is willingness to report rape, the number will skyrocket in any country." This is why I track murder rates. Let me tell you, Sweden is an incredibly safe country.

+8bit chess I actually think it shows that non religious countries like Sweden are clearly lacking in Moral depth. Kill a human and pretend its good, maybe you need religious people there to challenge that wickedness

lekmon5555 So you are saying that people who don't believe in God lack rationality? Yes or no?

+ThePharphis Note to self: One year later I'm going to give this a second attempt.

Not at all. She made astounding arguments, while Dillahunty resorted to logical games partly off reality.

nope, wrong again bob

Torrriate If you rephrased "logical games" as "logical arguments based upon reality" then you'd be right about Matt...

Torrriate She sounded pretty pathetic to me. Matt noted numerous times that his argument on bodily rights applied even when the embryo is considered human and quite frankly he's right, she sounded... really bad. Then there was PZ Meyers backhanding her at the end. She did not win by any stretch of the imagination.

My thoughts exactly.

Exactly! Agreed.

That's like saying that if the law tells someone that they cannot leave their unwanted baby to die that means we are treating people like babysitters. When the law tells a man or a woman not to k-ill their child, born or unborn, it's not about treating them like slaves, babysitters, bank accounts etc it's about protecting defenseless human beings from being k-illed.

​@@mathildeyoung1823you're confusing care for a with body autonomy rights which aren't the same. You can drop off a new born at pretty much any hospital or fire department. That's still taking care of it without the use of body autonomy. But you can't drop off a fetus, a fetus can't live without using the body of the mother. Why is this simple concept so beyond your level of understanding?

@@tannermclaughlin5001 Having to drop off a newborn may involve a poor, poor, person having to do something with their body against their precious will - boo hoo... And say that person was in a situation with their unwanted child (e.g. a natural disaster) where they could not drop off their unwanted child - how long should they be "forced" (boo hoo) to use their body against their will to care for their unwanted child before they can k-ill them? minutes? hours? days? longer? If you put a defenseless human being in a position of dependence on you then you need to BE RESPONSIBLE for that new human being at least as lpooonnnnngggggg as it takes to hand them over SAFELY to someone else - whether that handoff takes 1 second or 9 months.

@@mathildeyoung1823 yeah that's not body autonomy rights like maybe Google what these words mean before you argue against them

He should be held accountable for violating the woman's bodily sanctity. I'm not sure what we would call this legally (rape doesn't seem quite accurate; perhaps malicious bodily harm) but he should be held accountable for violating the woman's autonomy. On the other side of the coin, I believe someone who forces a woman to give birth against her will should also be punished in a similar manner.

A man came over and put a pill in her vagina without her realizing it? How did he manage that?

Kristine is nervous, and she doesn't understand her premise as much as she thinks she does, but you don't understand the implications of your thesis either. First you say that you wouldn't sacrifice a woman for the sake of a blob of cells, and then you go on to say that it's not about size. I couldn't help but wonder whether you thought about what you wrote before you posted your comment. Regardless, you go on to propose your case in support of abortion. You say that it's all about dependency, but I'm fairly certain that if you had thought about it a little bit, you would see just how problematic that argument is. This is not even about me taking either side of the debate, rather I'm puzzled by the way in which you think you propose a good argument, and critize Kristine, when in fact what you say entails very bad ethics. Let me clarify. Your argument, I think, is that women are entitled to an abortion because a fetus is solely dependent on them, and if they want to, they can choose to get rid of it. Don't you realize the implications of this argument? If we were to justify abortion in this manner, we would also have to justify the murder of anyone who is dependent on the state, or his family due to a health condition or something of that sort. For something that is more familiar to us, you should note that children too, are dependent on their families. Does that mean that every family should be entitled to murder their kids? Absolutely not. The argument from dependency is certainly not a good argument, that is unless you're willing to defend the murder of children that are dependent on their families, as well as anyone else who cannot take care of him/herself

***** Sorry, but you must be terribly uneducated about the goings-on of a free, civilized socieity.. do you live in a third-world country where people are forced into slave labor, and not allowed to choose their own destiny..? Noone is forced to become a nurse, parent, doctor, caretaker.. a provider of any kind.. anyone can quit their job if they don't like, and be replaced easily. Adoption is a legal, supported, even often purchased event in America, land of the free, educated, and mostly-NOT-batshit-insane.. xD haaa.. You cannot adopt a uterus, or embryo or fetus.. all you can do is sign papers and struggle.. for 9 permanent months. The developing blob of cells, and eventually shell-body-husk-without-a-mind is just that.. until consciousness is turned on after birth, when the fetus, developed enough TO be physically capable of consciousness physically AND independence physically((unless something is wrong with it, in which case- see above about adoption and people CHOOSING to be care providers..)) CAN actually be adopted. You can't say that's a person, or even a completed task until birth, or very late-term, without either being uneducated about basic human development, or just being a liar. It's not a finished product. ..and basic development and AGE are two different things.. so, no, it's not about size.. it's about development- a wad of cells or half-formed body with no mind or memory does not constitute anything remotely close to a person. ..so, that being said.. if the pregnancy proves to be risky or unwanted, there is absolutely nothing wrong with terminating it, b/c there's literally next to no loss whatsoever. It was a potential, not an actual. Not to mention, the whole 'no consent' thing.. consent to sex is not consent to repriduction.. so forcing an unwanted pregnancy to continue is literally a form of rape from afar, seeing as how there is no 'person' present in the woman's body, and it is someone ELSE'S pleasure/desire to force her through it for personal or religious satisfaction- using someone's genitals/body against their will is rape and slavery, depending on the circumstances/details.. seeing as how this involves a woman's reproductive system- using her genitals against her will/with no consent is rape. ..so.. your response is VERY poorly-thought-out.. B/c those comparisons make absolutely no sense. In any direction..

ryddelwearsahat That's ludicrous. If anything, it's obvious that don't come from an academic background. I on the other hand know what I'm talking about. I'm a New Yorker you imbecile. It has become apparent by the way in which you construct your periods, and the way in which you argue that you are a layman. Nothing but attacks on my personality. My arguments would not be any less valid if I lived in South Africa. " Adoption is a legal, supported, even often purchased event in America, land of the free, educated, and mostly-NOT-batshit-insane.. xD haaa.. " Adoption is not "purchased". That sentence pretty much sums up why people are opposed to us. The education and literacy level on our country is horrible by comparison to that of the Europeans, Australians and some Asian countries. You boast, and yet you're a morally bankrupt buffoon who has no idea of formal logic. I do not see how most of what you have said is relevant as to the matter at issue. I managed to extract a few points that you've made and extrapolate from there into formulating a few arguments, just barely. So your sole point being that since the fetus is not conscious, and since it's dependent on the mother, we have the right to kill it until it's conscious, and no longer dependent upon the mother. Sigh... The fetus does have access to consciousness and rationality, it just doesn't have IMMIDIATE access to consciousness and rationality. If we are allowed to kill anyone who is not conscious, but has the capacity to be conscious, then your logic would entail that we have the right to kill people who are asleep, in a comma, or people who have received REPAIRABLE brain damage. I don't think you want that, but who knows. Let us proceed to the second criterion. Dependency. You're confused. If I deceive you to come to my home, and then I get you into the same room with my brother, who is suffering from cancer, and request your bone marrow for him, while you have the right to decline and leave the building in which my brother is located, you don't have the right to bash my brother's head with a baseball bat. During an abortion, the second act is committed. Even though dependency would entail that you have the right to stop helping the embryo, it does not entail that you have the right to murder the embryo (abortion). More specifically, addressing your point that the embryo is not a person, a baby isn't a person either. Do you support infanticide too? If we are allowed to kill anyone who isn't a person, then infanticide would be morally permissable, but infanticide is _not_ morally permissable, and we know that through intuition. "consent to sex is not consent to repriduction.." That's ridiculous. Let me form an analogy for you: I'm playing baseball with my kid. I manage to hit a food stand, and I go towards the owner to retrieve my ball. When he, being angry, asks me give my information so as to file a report, and pay for the damage, I respond by informing him that I did not conscent to the repercussions of playing baseball, and therefore I won't be paying to restore any damages. This is absurd. Pregnancy is a direct consequence of having intercourse. But if you don't conscent to sex, in the case of rape, the situation is slightly different. In the case of rape, while this argument does not stand, we have to examine whether or not killing the fetus would help the mother who has been raped. It's not the baby's fault. The baby is not a devil. It has done nothing. You have no reason to want to get rid of it. If you deserve to live, then so does the fetus. You might not be as developed as the fetus, but are you claim that since kids are not fully developed, that therefore we have the right to kill them? Tell that to your teenage son or daughter. If ANY response is poorly thought out, it's yours, for heaven's sake.

***** You accuse me of not thinking my opinions through and yet you don't seem to understand half of what you're saying, yourself. 1, "First you say that you wouldn't sacrifice a woman for the sake of a blob of cells, and then you go on to say that it's not about size." That's correct. The point is completely coherent. I fail to see how you misunderstand it. The blob of cells, regardless of their size, do not get to hijack a woman's body. I think the argument you were trying to make is with regards to when I said that I would be opposed to the freedom of abortion when the fetus has developed far enough that it's viable. Roe vs Wade already established that abortions are fine and legal until 28 weeks of gestation. This is because it's a reasonable amount of time for a woman to figure out if she wants to sustain the pregnancy, because an abortion after about 30 weeks is really just preterm birth. 2, "Regardless, you go on to propose your case in support of abortion." See the above. I do support abortion. I also support common sense. Once the fetus is legitimately an infant, the abortion should lead to a live birth, not the death of the infant. 3, "You say that it's all about dependency...[excised for simplicity] ...If we were to justify abortion in this manner, we would also have to justify the murder of anyone who is dependent on the state, or his family due to a health condition or something of that sort. Incorrect. A fetus is dependant on the bodily function and fluid of another human being and is therefore parasitic to that person. A person dependent on the state is not attached to someone else's body. Your point would be correct if you had suggested that if you go into kidney failure, you would, by law, be entitled to take a kidney from whoever matches your tissue type by proximity to yourself. But you have no right to demand a kidney from someone. In that vein, a fetus also has no right to demand a space of residence within a woman's body, and drain her of nutrients and other vital fluids. 4, "For something that is more familiar to us, you should note that children too, are dependent on their families." Yes, children are dependent on their families, but they are not entitled to their family's organs, tissues or bodily fluids. Money isn't the same as a heart or liver or kidney or womb. 5, "Does that mean that every family should be entitled to murder their kids?" Of course not. Don't be retarded. Abortion is not the same as murder. Abortion is the conscious decision to stop a pregnancy. If it's at 1 day to 28 weeks, the unfortunate result of the abortion is that the fetus is likely to die or cease development. However, a fetus is not considered a person, in law or in religious doctrine. A fetus only attains personhood when it takes its first breath. I simply give it the credit it deserves by giving it a chance once it's developed far enough that it COULD take a breath were it to be taken out of the body. Up until that moment, it has no right to exist against the woman's will. 6, "The argument from dependency is certainly not a good argument, that is unless you're willing to defend the murder of children that are dependent on their families, as well as anyone else who cannot take care of him/herself." My argument has nothing do with financial or emotional dependence. As I said above, it's parasitic dependence. A child that has been born has attained the rights of a living individual person. A fetus is considered a part of the woman's body until it's born. You cannot override the rights of a woman's bodily autonomy because you have an emotional attachment to an unborn fetus. The state of Texas recently did this with Mrs Munoz, keeping her body on artificial 'body function maintenance' after she was brain-dead, solely because she was pregnant. Mrs Munoz had an advanced directive stating she never wanted to be put on machines. Her autonomy was violated because, people like you, who are perfectly fine with favoring the unborn over the already-born, decided Mrs Munoz's choices didn't matter anymore because she had a barely-developed embryo inside her. At 14 weeks, the developing fetus can't even be gender-typed yet. It's not even the size of a banana and could legally be aborted for another 12 weeks. That fetus had no right to demand its dead mother's body should be used as an incubator when NO ONE wanted to do it to her. Not her, not her husband, and not her family, all of whom fought to get her taken off the ventilators. In the end, the fetus grew to about 20 weeks, and was deemed nonviable due to non-development of the fetus' lower body, heart deformities and water on the brain. It was only after the state of Texas deemed the pregnancy worthless that they let Mrs Munoz die like she should have when she originally dropped from that pulmonary embolism. Perfect strangers decided for her that she didn't have the right to die. It's a violation of her personal liberty and a disgusting usurping of a natural process, even if unfortunate. You lose.

ryddelwearsahat I criticized you in that manner because you're a racist who made an attack on my education and place of origin, thinking I was from a third world country. That in your mind makes my arguments invalid. That's not how logic works. I won't bother addressing you any longer. By reading your response I was stunned by the way in which you managed to misinterpet my arguments. Furthermore you don't seem to know what analogy is, and how it's supposed to be used. I'm a nice guy, and so I'm going to assume that you're a young lad who has no manners as of yet, and does not know how the flow of argumentation functions. Since argument from analogy is taken away from us, and since it's the only tool we could use in a debate about abortion, there is nothing to talk about.

I'm sorry to say but I don't see how this was a "gotcha" moment. He "proved" that an embryo and a born human are not the same - he did NOT prove that an embryo is not a human. Every human is different - but still human. She didn't deny that, and she pointed out in fact that children are different than adults, but no one considers these differences to be a justification for "terminating" one and not the other. So then why is a fetus ok to terminate?

@@RoyFlush716 Because it demonstrates a clear flaw and fallacy in her argument. If an embryo is considered human, and a human is considered human, she's okay with freezing an embryo "human" provided its "used". Could we not do the same for humans? She disagreed with this, demonstrating a case of special pleading for an embryo under the guise of "they're younger", which one can say the same exact distinction exists between an humam adult and a human child. Both are considered human. Definitely a "gotcha" moment.

@@lyndonbauer1703 But you can freeze an embryo without killing it. You cannot (yet) freeze an adult with the same result.

+Kevin Morgan Well... I kind of get where he's coming from. She misrepresents the science. She's either lying or unknowingly misinform the audience, to score points. It makes me pissed as well. Could he have behaved a bit more civil? Probably. Did it have to be said what he said? Yes.

+X- Com Asserting that one misrepresents science in no way shows evidence or can lead one to a logical conclusion that there was a misrepresentation of science. Feel free to elaborate if you want anyone to take your assertions seriously.

Good point, giving birth also terminates pregnancy. My view is focus should be on contraception since that is what helps avoid billions of abortions.

I agree, we should prevent conception wherever people are ill-prepared or don't want pregnancy/childbirth/parenting. Education on this front is important, but without a strong legal stance against abortion I'm afraid it's too naive to think we will greatly reduce abortions in this country.

John Ferrer "...without a strong legal stance against abortion I'm afraid it's too naive to think we will greatly reduce abortions in this country." - I disagree on this. 99% would avoid abortions if they could go back in time and do whatever it takes to avoid one. We cannot go back in time, but if birth control methods to reduce chance of unwanted conception were more convenient and far more accessible than they are now, then it would reduce abortions significantly because in reality nobody really wants abortions except maybe some very greedy doctors (although I give abortion doctors benefit of the doubt that most are just doing their jobs). To make abortions more convenient is maybe grant the right of all birth control methods to all at no cost, even 'permanent' birth control such as vasectomy. The truth is, many are against promoting easy access to birth control because they are afraid population numbers will decline and for religious reasons, but I really think with the right brains we can find something sustainable for the long run. Again, even research for improving birth control methods is hindered due to religion and fear of population decline/manipulation, this is unfortunate as the research needs to be done to improve birth control methods, convenience, safety, reliability, access, education.

Are you really denying the biological fact that women, by virtue of their anatomy are baby-makers? Why is this controversial? Am I a "pre-determined" food-eater? Yes. I was given a stomach. Women were given uterus'. They are there for specific biological functions.

Quite apart from the fact that food is essential for the individual's survival, while procreation is not, I am more concerned with the implication that ability equals duty.

@@anonymouscoward2491 Why do you think so? I figure uterine replicators would work wonderfully, without any negative influence on the fetus' development, or its relationships to its parents. If anything, some mothers will have a better time of connecting to their baby if they have not given birth to it, as there would be no postpartum psychosis or depression. Now, all of that could work only if we view the decision to have a baby from a replicator as an entirely trivial decision. In other words, if we do not, like you did, jump to catastrophic thinking that even trying this sort of technology out will literally be the end of mankind because it is trying to "override nature". I cannot accept this argument, given that both of us are communicating across time and space, which is unnatural; given that I have survived at least two diseases that should have killed me thanks to modern medicine; given that I have broken the cardinal rule of land animals, and flown in an airplane; etc. "Natural" is a concept which we contrast to "man-made", and thus I am surrounded by unnatural things.

@@saveusmilkboy While procreation is not essential for a woman’s survival, it is essential for the survival of the human species in the same way that the need to eat is essential for the survival of the species (or in other words the need to eat is essential to the survival of every individual of our species.) Women must give birth for us to survive, this does not mean that each individual woman must have a child but there certainly must be women that do it.

@@williamwalters211 What you said is correct, but how should it inform our current policy towards abortion? How does it address the comments I made about prederemined baby-makers? When the human species begins to die out due to the unwillingness of women to carry pregnancies to term, I will revisit my opinion on abortion. For now, I strongly support the idea that safe, available abortion is accessible to any person who comes to ask for it before the final trimester, and under special circumstances after that.

absolutely! pro-lifers are against IVF. It is the killing of human beings.

equalityforall So your against people having babies who couldn’t otherwise have them without in-vitro fertilization? So you want there to be less children born...

equalityforall What is your stance on getting children vaccinated?

@@stuarttothemax less children born? There are about 4 million births per year. About 1-2% are IVF that is about 80k per year. In 2017 there were more than 800k abortions in the United States alone. How does this mean that a pro-lifer is for less births?

@@weatherfordbran2041 um. You answered your own question. “80k a year”. So, greater than 0 are due to IVF. But some prolifers would rather that be zero. Thereby wanting less children to be born. This isn’t complicated.

I reproduce after my own kind. I'm a single celled organism!

+Christa Stempel So we should make murder legal then? Because people are always gonna keep murdering each other. The fact that horrific things happen regardless of legislation is not a valid reason to make them legal. I think the bald guy had already lost the argument when he conceded that a fetus is a person; because the "boat analogy" that Kristie puts forward is impossible to refute if you concede that a fetus is a person. If someone abandons a newborn let's say in your cabin, just because you didn't consent to have the child there and take care of it doesn't give you the right to slit its throat, or chop it into pieces , or bathe it in chemicals.

+David Espinoza hi David, thank you for your reply. I already wrote a lengthy reply to Kristine, so I really do not want to repeat the same things over. All I can say to you is, if we make abortions illegal again, we are not preventing abortions, we will just push them underground again. We really need to think as a society about what is going to happen to unwanted children. Or, what do you want to do? Perhaps tell people that should not fuck unless they are prepared to not only bring a pregnancy to term _ which of course only applies to women_ but to be parents to the child for as long as they live? I am just saying because we all know that contraceptives do not always work, and not all people in this world have access to contraception. But here is another solution, everybody from the age of being able to produce children, could be sterilised. I suggest we start with boys, not girls, since a vasectomy is so much easier than a sterilisation of girls.

+Christa Stempel you haven't answered the question. If someone abandons a newborn in your cabin, do you think you have the right to kill it just because you didn't consent to having it there? I don't know if you think that a fetus is a person or not, but the bald guy didn't fight that point, if you concede that a fetus is a person you have already lost the debate. 2) Sex should be an adult activity which all the risks that it entails. If you believe that a fetus is a person then not killing it is the only moral choice; beyond that, women have been giving children for adoption for a long time now. 3) Not even vasectomies are 100%, so that wouldn't be an option either, what is an option is educating people as much as you can.

+Christa Stempel I just read your answer to Kristine, you say : "a fetus has no conscious thought of a life, and it does not know if it is a life worth living. " So, this leads me to believe that killing a newborn is also OK, since a newborn also doesn't have a conscious thought of a life. Am I correct in assuming that?

+David Espinoza, hi David. I'm sorry I haven't answered your question, but I shall try and answer it now, plus respond to point 2 and 3. If I found a child abandoned in my 'cabin', I would take care of it immediately. I would then inform the police and would hope that they would do everything to find out why there is a newborn left in my 'cabin'. I would not just give the newborn over to social services, which I would be legally bound to do, but I would find out what is actually happening to the child. No, I don't think a fetus is a person. A fetus is what is evolving from a female egg and a male sperm, within the uterus of a female. Yes David, life is in every cell of the human body, and when sperm and egg meets, life begins in a more complex form. You got the wrong person to attack here, because I don't want any woman to have an abortion, but I have no right to tell another woman not to abort as long as it is within the legal period. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Abortions will occur wether we like it or not. The problem is that if we make abortions again illegal, we are forcing them underground, and that is not a solution. What has occurred in the past when abortions were illegal, was that not only the fetus was killed, but the mother often died because of complications. It is just not that easy to say, let's protect potential life. If it was that easy, I would say by all means, let's protect potential life. As to your number 2. Sex SHOULD be an adult activity, with all the risks it entails? Now you give me an answer to this question, WHY SHOULD sex be an adult activity? Is there a rule that says 'all adults SHOULD have sex'? This is more ridiculous than saying to women, if you are not willing to bring a pregnancy to full term, than don't have sex. And to your number 3. As far as I know Vasectomies work 100%. But that is not the issue. I was obviously being facetious when I talked about sterilisation. Of course that can not be a solution, although I really wish that some people would consider this very seriously.

I think bodily autonomy is enough of a reason to keep abortion legal... Also, just saying- tapeworms and cancer by nature absorb nutrients from a woman's body and grow. If that is why you oppose abortion, I don't think that is a good argument to make.

If the woman doesn't want to be pregnant, that's natal slavery. You're okay with slavery?

@@anonymouscoward2491 Yes it is. My rights do not end so a fetus can get special privilege. Morality has nothing to do with my right to my own fucking body. And morality IS subjective, a glance at history proves that to be true.

@Kick With Nick People talk about the fetus getting special privileges to use a woman's body without her consent like it was the will of the fetus to enter the womb and use it as an usurper. The fetus is in there as a direct result of the couple's actions. Yes, not all sexual relationships are meant to end in pregnancy, but it is a potential result, one the couple is responsible for, and I'm talking about both man and woman to make it very clear. In which other situation they grant rights to someone to use someone else's body against their will they ask. I wonder in which other situation do we grant the right to someone to terminate the life of an innocent?

@@alejandrovillalba3143 It IS a special privilege to force someone to harbor it for 9 months when it doesn't even HAVE a will. Getting an abortion IS taking responsibility. Just one people are uppity about because it's all about controlling women. I've yet to hear of a decent argument that doesn't end in taking women's rights away. Also, consent to sex IS NOT consent to carrying a pregnancy to term

@@anonymouscoward2491 i derive my morality on the well being of others. Basically, I care

@@anonymouscoward2491 You fail to understand how morality being subjective works and it's painful to see you try SO HARD to pretend like you need someone to tell you something you should have a natural ability to determine. Honestly, that's sad and I almost want to pity you. Your lack of humanity doesn't get to dictated the choices of others. Her rights aren't stripped because of your lack of humanism.

So special rights to use someone's body without their consent then...

Actually, the PRO-CHOICE argument presented here is philosophy and opinion with no interest in science whatsoever (Matt said he didn't care about the science). The PRO-LIFE argument here was based on logic and science with no interest in religion/philosophy whatsoever. *PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY vs HARD SCIENCE* Almost 100% of the so-called _free-thinkers_ here say personal philosophy trumps science and wins. But I certainly don't. I guess my mind isn't free enough to think the exact same things y'all are thinking freely together in _lockstep_ (aka _groupthink_)

If that happened, there'd be no YOU to know it. Just another cheap appeal to horror.

Nope. Bodily autonomy vs. personhood. Personhood DOESN'T trump bodily autonomy. McFall v. Shimp

John DinDompa Perhaps Matt was referring to the fact that every method of contraception has a failure rate. Heck....even abstinence....just ask the [former] Virgin Mary.

Sharon Diehl Do you think it's fair for someone to be forced to drop out of school, get a job, and raise a child they created, but don't want, Sharon?

***** As a citizen of the United States of America, I have the same basic civil rights and liberties as a male in this country, which includes medical privacy and the right to make all medical decisions concerning my body. It is none of anyone's business. but the woman herself, whether she wishes to gestate or not. PERIOD. Females are not obligatory brood mares.

John DinDompa Matt cleared this up in a facebook post. By involuntary, he meant that women cannot necessarily choose to become pregnant, as some women will not get pregnant even if they try while other women will get pregnant even with using the safest contraceptive methods out there (not including abstinence of course...)

taledarkside can't imagine what your opinion is worth then.

Sounded like she was trying to convince herself rather than anyone else.

Bryan Lightningrod Perhaps I should have been aborted. ;)

a human being is a person. you were once a fetus and all a fetus is a stage of development a human being goes through. No matter how much you deny science the facts are a human being is a human being = person. we do not slowly become a human being their is no science to prove such a thing . Science proves that all we do is become MORE develop human beings. This is what science proves zygote,embryo,fetus,baby,toddler,teen ext are all stages that a human being meets unless they die or are killed but the whole time your a living human being. brain, nervous system does not play into this at all. All that means is who feels pain, who is consciousness and who is not. it does not define who if the unborn are human beings or not. Lets look at facts. abortion kills a unborn child who is for a fact a living human being. Lets get real! its not about causing less harm its about the FACT what abortion is and does and it is killing another innocent human being. ill say this the pro choice stance follows no logic and prove to have non stop contradiction meaning their whole stance is wrong and immoral. lets have a mature debate using logic, facts, science, evidence, the whole works to prove a very clear point . so if your willing to have a mature debate lets . ;) Here is a example of how your logic fails . you are using the excuse of killing another human being (unborn) based off wealth, pain, aware, health, ext and can you tell me how these points follow no logic?

***** _"a human being is a person. you were once a fetus"_ You were once a sperm and an ovum before one was in the other as well. Is a sperm and ovum a person before one injects itself into the other? Are you arbitrarily creating a line here? (answer: yes). Human "being" is not the same thing as "personhood" nor does "science" say it is (as such is a philosophical question). Nor is "human-ness" relevant to anyone but a specie-ist (similar to a racist). _Lets look at facts. abortion kills a unborn child who is for a fact a living human being."_ I never said such wasn't genetically human. In fact I said just the opposite, that such doesn't matter (it's an arbitary distinction). But a child and fetus are (by definition) NOT the same thing. One is separate from the mother, another is not. One is more consciously aware, the other is not. _lets have a mature debate using logic, facts, science, evidence, the whole works to prove a very clear point"_ The logic, facts, evidence, and the whole works is that: A) human-ness is irrelevant. A fetus isn't anywhere near as conscious and intelligent as a chicken (which I don't eat meat) B) Even if human-ness was relevant, the fact that such is attached to another human is equally as relevant. _"you are using the excuse of killing another human being (unborn) based off wealth, pain, aware, health, ext and can you tell me how these points follow no logic?"_ These are actually extremely relevant. To point such out... ...It's thought experiment time: Experiment #1: Imagine, if you will, a world where 50% of pregnancies ended with a baby never being born, but rather a fetus (at month two stage) that stays that same size and development, in it's same state, and feeds off of the mother in the womb for the entirety of the mother's life...causing a permanent pregnant state in the mother, preventing any births of another child while there, causing hormone changes in the mother, the inability to work at times, labor pains, and so on for the rest of the mothers life. Would it be an obligation of the mother to carry that fetus their entire life so that it can live? How about if the mother wants a child but cannot while that particular fetus is there? Is that a sacrifice she will just have to live with? Will she just have to sacrifice living in a perpetual pregnant state for the rest of her life, reducing the quality of her life and health dramatically? Experiment #2: Imagine we live in a word where their are pods that sometimes produce a substance in the air. It's known that walking outside their is a 1% chance that some of the pod substance will attach to your head and start producing an "being" that is based off your genetics on your head. Once it's attached and starts to form, if you remove it the being is sure to die (as it needs to be attached to you to live). The being will eventually form to a 10 pound baby that is permanently attached to your head. Any attempts to remove it will instantaneously kill the baby. The baby attached to your head starts forming as an unconscious pile of cells that after a few years eventually has the mental capacity of a really dumb 1 year old child. It constantly drools, poos and pees on you, is constantly yelling, crying, or making noise, and pretty much makes your life a living hell. It never gets more intelligent than this. We know this will happen if you are unlucky enough to get some pod substance on you. Are you obligated to let this being grow on your head, and live there the rest of your life? Is it okay for you to remove it when it's just a bunch of unconscious cells or embryo and hasn't formed a consciousness yet? * If you think that people ought to live with these "genetically human" structures (not have the right to remove them) simply because such removal would be killing a "being that is genetically human", you are a sick person who is willing to let one person suffer greatly for the sake of something that isn't even consciously aware when they want to remove it. If you don't agree that they should be required to live (these structures), then your "human being" argument fails....because these are both genetically human as well as "beings". And if you are making the case for "potential external human beings that are no longer attached" then you simply need to extend that potential to the sperm/egg, and even to the problem with sex abstinence as such equally stops the potential. Logically, you are drawing arbitrary lines.

Bryan Lightningrod _"Dude you are so ignorant a sperm is not a person it is part of the dads DNA. An egg is not a person either it is part of the moms DNA until they combine there."_ This "combination" is an arbitrary circle. One could simply draw the circle around the sperm and the egg while the sperm is swimming toward it and such circle would contain both dna strands. You just choose to draw the circle around both when one is inside of the other. The logical fact of the matter is that the process of such happens even before they come together. It's entirely part of the causal process, and both the sperm and ovum are living. Yet most people don't think contraception that prevents such coming together is killing (when it is just as much as abortion). In fact one could theoretically draw a larger circle around the man and woman who hold these cells (stands of dna that will combine). Regardless, you miss the point that this distinction is only relevant if we are looking at "potential" X as an argument. If such "potential X" isn't the argument, then perhaps you should answer the two thought experiments I gave.

trick0171 I think this scenario is perhaps more plausable in future regarding potentiality; If it is sort of banality in term of resource consumption to create (and sustain) life out of eggs that women produce during her fertile years, do we have obligation towards fulfilment of every single egg that hold that potential?

It is actually a complete human. It's a full human early in human development.

@@steliosconstantinides3459 how early in development?

@@steven6986 the second an egg is fertilized it becomes a complete human unit. Because that is exactly what it is, albeit at the earliest possible stage.

@@steliosconstantinides3459 not scientifically its not, its just a fertilized egg, and after that it will be nothing more than a cluster of cells for quite some time. It will be literal months after conception before it is actually a viable human. Also, most fertilized eggs don't attach to the cell wall of the womb and are flushed out during a womens period, so is that considered a miscarriage, an abortion, or just a natural body function?

@@steven6986 A fertilized egg actually is a complete human at the earliest possible point. It is a complete fertilized human egg. This is undeniable and scientifically rigid. Are you saying it is not a complete human fertilized egg? That would be a natural human death as part of the natural human development process. Its kind of like how people die at old age because thier body decays, only in these cases the death is caused by a different natural factor in human development. So why is your position on abortion that women should be able to get them? Is it that nobody has the right to end a human life, but a fertalized human egg is not a human nor is an embryo or a fetus up until a point, so abortion should be legal up until a certain point in a pregnancy. Or is it that nobody has the right to use someone's body against their own will, so abortion should be allowed up until pregnancy?

pregnancy is hardly similar to "putting a baby on my front porch". you do not have the right to harm anyone that is not infringing your bodily autonomy. but once someone does that, you have the right to do what you can to get yourself out of that situation.

Because a baby (which implies BIRTH) isn't a fucking fetus. I'm not required to care about a parasitic clump of cells using my body.

Well stated good man!

I mean think about it. The analogy is about a baby, obviously born and no longer using the mothers body so in the eyes of the law it has rights guaranteed to it. The situation has changed entirely. It doesn't undermine anything matt says earlier on.

The baby on ones front porch is not using somebodies body, overriding their personal autonomy.

@@CountSnackula7 Imagine you are connected to other person's body against your will to provide life support with several risks to your health and potentially your life. Do you have the right to refuse to remain in such a condition even if the other person would die if you disconnect? If you can do whatever you want with your body you should have such a right, abortion is essentially the same, just that fetus is not a conscious being yet.

That reasoning is stupid, and doesn’t address the fundamental core principle of this debate, does the fetus have value and should it be OK to abort it.

@@pleaseenteraname1103 Once again, we had this debate now 45 years ago and the result was a law regulating abortion. That ship has sailed a long time ago, it isn't an issue anymore.