Starting position: abortion is bad

Consider: women who support abortion will have children who also support abortion

An increase in this demographic will result in less people around to have abortions to begin with (they've been aborted)

Therefore abortion is good

If I don't take a vaccine, that affects you absolutely zero. Ziltch. Nada. In your opinion (I'm projecting here as I don't know your stance on this), masks work and vaccines work, correct? So please don't worry about whether I have the vaccine or not because in your mind, you are protected.

However if you get an abortion, you are killing another human being. Or I'll play the liberal game: a potential human being. If you just let nature take its course, a human being comes out of your body. It's murder whether you like it or not.

So long story short, abortion kills and not take a vaccine does not. You shouldn't argue one against the other because they're nowhere near the same thing.

Also, please stop watching the media because it is brainwashing you. Not everyone who loves freedom is a "right wing extremist".

Sorry to break it to you troll. But your FOS. People like you have clogged up hospitals in states where your fellow idiots managed to get into power.

You're anti-life.

And this, kids, is why you should stay in school.

A guy with over 14K posts calling me a troll. Isn't that lovely.

Also yes, we are clogging up hospitals. Guess what? The vaccinated are spreading the virus more than the unvaccinated.

But sure, I'll play your game. Me not getting vaccinated isn't a 100% death sentence. Abortion is. Those that support abortion are anti-life.

Yes, kids. Stay in the public school system and get indoctrinated by the left. Perhaps you'll abort all of your babies and there will be no crazy lefties in the future. Who knows?

That's exactly what I think every time I've been in the deep south and across the midwest--too much freedom. LOL

Have you perchance ever appeared on an episode of "American Pickers" or "Storage Wars"?

Have you ever made an argument without lodging insults?

nick and d2 get 24 to cool off.

A woman having an abortion -> that affects you absolutely zero. Ziltch.
your point ?

The second point is false and obv. you totally miss the point about why restrictions were needed to prevent people to get to hospitals due to Covid19...
It takes the place of someone that might need emergency care outside of covid illness , a disease that was easily avoidable preventing someone to have medical care that was not avoidable.

It is not a game, cells are not a human being regardless what you believe or not.
the first 3 month, it do not even have a sex...hence gl giving it a name
Eating a egg is not eating a chicken.
You would probably not even distinguish if it would be a chicken egg or a duck egg cooked in your plate.

btw the argument is not about which of the 2 are better or not, it is about CHOICES that are not equally given to each situation.
MY BODY , MY CHOICE !
not government choice, not religion choice, not you, no one but the person that actually own his/her body !
i know it is a hard concept to grasp...

i do not have to watch media to think in a balance matter but maybe you should stop watching it since you think you know what they talk about ?

That is the whole point of beliefs being impose on others....
Your beliefs do not make more right than my beliefs bud....
abortion is murder for you ?
fine, it is not for me whether you like it or not.

That is an interesting take .
In your opinion , at what % death rate it is ok for the state to take control over the body of every citizen by removing freedom of choices and letting the government decide for you about what to do with your body ?

As a rule, the government should pretty much never be able to tell someone what they can do with their own body.

In the case of an abortion, a third-party (the unborn baby) is killed. Abortion is never a "victimless crime."

Lagtight, you never answered this question from awhile back. Since your self-ban is over, how about addressing it now.

Do you actually believe that though?

The US has had 11 cases of Ebola hit the USA mainland.

If one or more of those person was a true nihilist wanting to go out in a blaze of glory and wanted to head into the busiest areas of NYC to mingle and spread it, do you think his right to his 'freedums' should trump the right of society to protect others?

I think a scenario like the above would be an exception; so is drunk driving.

In your scenario above and in drunk driving, innocent third-parties could be mortality affected.

When I claim that, as a rule, people should be able to do what they want with their own bodies, it excludes actions that could severely affect other people.

Where is the sanctity of life when Jesus/God kills every baby and fetus on earth in the flood for something someone else did thousands of years before with a talking serpent?? GTFOOH.

Sounds good. I'd like for my body to start collecting the contents of as many banks as possible. I'll probably think up some more stuff on the way

https://acpeds.org/assets/imported/3...ife-Begins.pdf


When Human Life Begins
American College of Pediatricians – March 2017

ABSTRACT:

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species **** sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.

An opinion piece doesn't really need an abstract like that.

"American College of Pediatricians" is an advocacy group, as a a surprise to no-one, advocates religious and conservative takes on issues like abortion, sexuality and gender. Yet another one in the proud American tradition of hiding advocacy groups behind neutral sounding names. A tradition which has sadly has become something of an export.

You know lagtight , it is a bit funny that to try to convince us for,
a cell to be considered a human in its entire being ,
you use science .
While your camp Republican/libertarian ( I presume ?) despise and do not believe in science on a majority of subject .
But now because science has the narrative you want , science as full legitimacy….

And no one sees a problem with this ?
Science is kinda like : you accept it or you don’t .
It isn’t a poll …..

The scientific method is not a political program !

[QUOTE=lagtight;57295153]https://acpeds.org/assets/imported/3...ife-Begins.pdf

Lag tight:

The article you attached states:

As physicians dedicated both to scientific truth and to the Hippocratic tradition, the College values all human lives equally from the moment of conception (fertilization) until natural death. Consistent with its mission to “enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being,” the College, therefore, opposes active measures that would prematurely end the life of any child at any stage of development from conception to natural death.

While I think this absolute position is incorrect, I have no problem with pedestrians adopting it as a justification for their mission statement. My question to you is: if you believe this explanation is correct, which I assume you do given your cite to it, how do you justify any exceptions to protecting human life from the point of conception forward for rape, incest or health of the mother?

**** texas

Yes and that was my point in using the 'extreme example'.

Many people here (ecriture d'adulte amongst them who is a great debater) seem to not understand why one of the first tactics used to challenge a statement that presents itself as an absolute is to present the 'extreme' example and see if it holds up.

You did caveat your statement slightly with "pretty much never" but still your answer does what an absolute statement does.

You were asked a direct question by Montrealcorp.

You did not address it directly and instead presented you have a blanket rule that is the answer.

But when I challenged you acknowledge that blanket rule does not exist. Therefore with my 'extreme example' we need not spend a second wasted debating your blanket rule and instead that then takes us back to Montrealcorp's question which does then need a more direct answer.

it would be like me reply "killing someone is never justified" in response to a scenario. You can jump in and debate that or test whether I in fact believe that. If I expose that I don't in fact believe that then you go back to the SPECIFICS of the issue and make me present my case 'IN THIS SCENARIO' as to whether it was justified or not and not all me to duck under a broad blanket assertion.

And while someone like e_d might agree to disagree I would happily bet you would lose a lot of marks in any debate class if you did not, as a first measure, challenge the validity of the 'absolute statement' with an extreme example to see if indeed the presenter even believes it to be true.

well, lagtight not answering in a clear matter is not new
he does it like 99% of the time when it goes against his views.

Lagtight as a Bible literalist what informs your view on abortion as the bible has no direct reference to it, let alone it being bad or wrong to do.

I know why most organized religion people are against abortion as Churches want loyal stable growing membership and thus wanted church goers to have the biggest families possible. Every sperm was sacred and every egg should be birthed. Membership baby. But it was nothing more than that, that they then rationalized around.

But I think you do not follow organized religions but do the bible???