OK, Planned Parenthood defenders. Check out this ex-clinic director's testimony. The preborn baby is: 1. Fully human, or 2. A clump of cells that somehow miraculously manages to fight for its life during a 13-week abortion.
Bodily autonomy trumps right to life, just as it does when someone needs a blood donor. Even if your blood would save someone's life, you're not obligated to give it to them.
It's a clump of cells, but they're live human cells
Yes, it is human. But it is a fetus, and has not experienced conciousness. It is simply a parasite to it's mother that will eventually become a baby. But, a mother should be allowed to remove a parasite from their body.
I personally believe that abortion is a personal choice and that I don't have a say of what someone does with their body. But I think we should help provide basic necessities to children and mothers like day cares, diapers, formula, better and longer
Stays in hospitals. We should also increase and find adoption services. But I still don't think I have a say with what some random person does with their body. best we should do is promote alternatives to abortion. Even natural family planning help
It's a child.
Based on my own polls I've come to realize that most pro choice advocates do not claim that an unborn human is not human. They just deem those lives worthless and without rights so they are ok killing those unborn humans.
The rights of the mother (bodily autonomy) ALWAYS trump the rights of the fetus.
Both 1 and 2 are highly inaccurate.
It's a human being no matter what stage it's at, from it's conception until it's birth. And killing it is one of the most inhumane things to do to a creature that is defenseless and is fully dependent on others to survive
And people should take responsibility for their actions not make the fetus pay with it's life for their mistakes
Democrats...really, a clump of cells???
After seeing the word "baby" in this poll question, I stopped reading. Don't use inaccurate labels.
Brandon ... typical ... stick your fingers in your ears and scream "la la la" and maybe you won't have to deal with the depravity of the pro-baby death truth.
You literally proved his point... Classic
Lol and we see 1995 is the birth year.
Ollie & JLong ... take it easy! He's still in diapers and hasn't figured out that his teachers have all lied to him about the leftist utopia.
Of course they're human. Organisms don't change species based on their location, humans included.
It's not that liberals don't know science. It's that they choose not to care about killing an innocent human life.
It's not like conservatives don't know science it's just they choose not care about global warming and the environment.
They know what they're doing. Those doctors can't tear babies up every single day without realizing it at some point.
I wonder how many of them have to numb themselves in some way to get through the day.
Yea, they're not babies before they're born are they.
This is a false dichotomy.
When you get down to it. Pro-abortion people understand basic biology & accept that a fetus (& even a zygote) is a human being. They just want to be able to kill it if it's an inconvenience. They would like to kill lots more of inconvenient people...
Good point, iPol.
"They'd kill lots more of inconvenient people if they could"
That's such bull. Just another way for people to demonize each other for not having the same beliefs.
Well, abortionists ARE demons, so...
Sb looking at your other comments, you're a radical with no sense of understanding. Chill.
demon6410 - your complete misunderstanding of human biology and your unwillingness to accept the selfish taking of another innocent human life as murder is what is radical. Get a grip.
Alrighty then! You seem like the kind of person who'd like to see me and other pro choice people completely eradicated from the earth ❤
But anyway a fetus is human, it had the DNA of a human. But it doesn't have personhood and therefore not the rights of a person.
Chim, I'm talking about some people's complete lack of ability to even try to somehow understand the other side. I know what the pro life argument it and I understand it. I just don't agree with it. And I certainly don't think pro lifers are
"Women hating misogynist" like the radical pro choicers think of you guys.
You're good at twisting words. Kind of like the democrats do with the wage gap lol.
I will state once again: they have the DNA of a homosapien. But they are not people. People have people rights. Non people don't have people rights.
d...this isn't about killing abortionists or wishing you were eradicated from the earth. Your life is valuable. We wish you'd give the same consideration to the unborn and stop choosing death, dismemberment & distribution. And for a profit, no less.
Not everything with our DNA is a person.
D, we've got a semantic problem here. You say the unborn is human yet doesn't have "personhood." Slavery ended in the US when people realized ALL humans are persons. Not 3/5, not only outside the womb.
Sb, I believe in a woman's right to not have her life completely shattered by one broken condom, by one missed pill, by one stupid one night stand, etc. By something that's not a person.
Most women who get abortions are married btw.
And how about you stop judging people because they don't have the same morals as you?
Being pregnant can completely dissemble a woman's life. That's what people don't get.
Being pregnant comes with all the social stigma (from people like you), especially if you're still in HS or college. It can ruin your chances of a promotion if you're up for one. It can suck you're money dry. Just being pregnant can seriously damage
I'm not talking about a 16 year old employee. I'm talking about the 35 year old lawyer who's condom broke while using sex with her husband. Those kind of people.
Your solution is "for women to stop having sex"
I hope you know how ridiculous that sounds.
As much as you'd like teens to be celibate until marriage, that's not going to happen. It goes against every human instinct. It's just not going to happen. Kids to stupid things, doesn't mean they should loose their live to it.
d64 ... at least you are consistent. You demand that others understand your position while completely dismissing theirs. That makes you a full fledged leftist. Congrats!
And it doesn't mean their child should lose their life to it either. Not having sex until you're able to care for the child is called self control. A very noble character trait. Kids without clear parental guidance and training don't have it.
Think I understand the pro life argument. I've listened to pro lifers who can respectfully state their positions. I have nothing against the pro life people. I just don't agree with them. But nice try 😉
Chim, having the pleasure that comes from sex is human instinct.
Sb, not all unwanted pregnancies are from unprotected sex. Birth control does in fact fail.
Think, you call everyone a leftist, find a new insult.
And how would you know that? None of us were alive when the first humans existed. And no one wrote down when the early homosapiens had sex. Sex is about pleasure, (that's why people masturbate). Sex is pleasurable so people will keep doing it, babies
are a positive (or negative) product of that.
If people only had sex to reproduce then birth control wouldn't exist. Women who can't get pregnant wouldn't have the urge either.
Women who've menstrauted have bodies that make it so they can't reproduce. Yet they still have sex.
True, thanks for the correction. I'm trying to do this fast. So now you know what I mean
Speaking of it though women on their periods can't get pregnant and still want to have sex.
Anyways this has gotten completely off track and I'm going to go spend time with my family. Comment whatever last witty remark makes you think you'll "win" this argument (though no one can win). See ya.
People have sex into their 80s. I've read studies on this and the most common reason women stop having sex is because their spouse has died
Abortion is a gray area, I'm not sure we'll ever come to an agreement as a society. I'm pro-life personally but I support pro-choice politically. The lines are blurry, but the service does provide value to society. There are no easy answers here.
May I seriously ask, "What value?"
Murder has no value to society.
All of these women can go get a freakin patch on their a** for free at PP. There is no excuse in this country for millions of abortions. It is a complete degradation of society and the value of life.
Decreasing unwanted pregnancies has been shown to have numerous societal benefits from crime reduction to decreased resource consumption, plus it provides an important research opportunity. I would encourage women to
live with the consequences of their decisions, but I also see the benefits otherwise. Science can't even answer what life is, let alone when it begins. I am not convinced it begins at conception, but clearly it begins before labor starts.
Thousands of couples would do anything to adopt an infant in this country instead of spending thousands to adopt a baby from Russia, South Korea etc. Abortion is never the solution.
Chicken, just being pregnant can destroy a woman's life.
Justin, if you believe population control to be so very necessary to the survival of our species, then by all means, lead the way and be the first into the death chamber. Lead by example! What, not going in? Then STFU!
Is this level of rhetoric really necessary? Does telling me to walk in to a death chamber make your argument more valid? I'm just not going to discuss it with you further, you clearly wouldn't want to debate seriously.
Crime has decreased ever since abortion was legalized in the 70s. Most abortions happen in crime-ridden poor communities. Just sayin....
d64 ... "Just being pregnant can destroy a woman's life" ... what a ridiculous statement. If it were true, why would a single woman get pregnant?
If you don't want a baby, then don't have sex.
Sorry, Justin your comment about decreased consumption smacked of population control as a legitimate reason for killing the unborn. If that is indeed a case in point of your argument, then please demonstrate its importance by leading by example.
If not, then please don't use it as a reason for accepting abortion.
I was using that example to illustrate the spectrum of benefits, not to say I advocated it. Why don't you offer to adopt every single fetus instead? Lead by example! (Do you see how stupid that argument is?)
I was pregnant. It didn't destroy my life. In fact my life get pretty darn good after that.
If it meant putting an end to abortion, I and many others would step up & a) encourage and support the MOTHERS in caring for their child & b) arrange for every child to be matched with willing adoptive parents. Why are these lives so unwanted by you?
Notice how your first option wasn't to take the burden yourself and lead by example? Instead it was tell mothers they're wrong and they should change. Look, I said I was pro-life personally, but there are arguments to be made in allowing abortions.
There is no consensus on when life begins; if a fertilized egg fails to implant is that truly a loss of life? I would argue no. I'm not going impose on others without just cause and I do not see enough cause here to justify that imposition.
Justin ... sure we can argue about semantics all day, but to suggest that a full term unborn child is not human, and does not deserve to live because the mother's fingernail polish smudged is inhumane!
Justin ... partial birth abortions, as supported by MrO, mean that they birth the baby, except for its head, then the reach up and crush its skull.
That is murder!
I never said that. Clearly a full-term, unborn baby should not be aborted. Where along the spectrum between fertilized egg and full-term does life begin? It's surely somewhere in between rather than at either extreme.
There is no scientific consensus on that point. We cannot even define what life is accurately, and you expect me to believe there's consensus on when it begins?
Brandon ... The absurdity of your ridiculous assertion is that there'll never be consensus on any scientific fact.
As long as one selfish prodeath scientist exists, there'll by definition be no consensus. However, scientific fact isn't democratic.
What you're missing Think is that there doesn't need to be unanimity. There are holdouts in every scientific area, including those that think the Earth is flat. A consensus is a general agreement, something that does not exist in this field yet.
Justin ... you're barking up the wrong tree. It was Brandon who stated that the answer must be unanimous, or its not science.
I agree that there are still megalomaniacal leftists who still think mankind is responsible for the ever-changing climate.
Justin ... as for the beginning of life, the science is clear. The baby's heart starts beating within 18 days of conception.
Barbaric leftists say that the baby isn't alive, & can be killed until it leaves the hospital, but scientists know better.
Simply having a heartbeat is not considered being alive. We pull the plug on brain-dead individuals all the time, many have perfectly fine hearts. The questions of what life is and when it begins have not been answered.
Justin ... thank you for making my point! You can't "pull the plug" without consent because the law is even smart enough to know that the brain dead person is alive.
Ops, bad example for the murder living left!
That's because it's obvious that they were at one point living, and you can make that decision without the brain dead's consent. We are likely to never agree on this topic.
Justin ... it's clear that you can't see the hypocrisy of your position.
That's ok, at least you admitted that you can't "pull the plug" without consent, even when you were trying and failed to create a parallel to murdering innocent babies.
I did not admit anything of the sort, and in fact said you can pull the plug without their consent. Recall Terri Schiavo?
Justin ... keep flapping in the leftist wind, there big guy!
You'll remember that Ms Schiavo couldn't be unplug until legal guardianship was established. There were two groups claiming guardianship, and the court decided!
Babies deserve the same!
Except the point remains: she was terminated by someone else without her own consent, just as hundreds of others are annually. You should also take note that I'm not from the left, I've tried to emphasize that point many times and in many places.
Thank God she helped that doctor with the ultrasound abortion. While she may have directly killed that little baby, it was that baby fighting for its life that will ultimately save countless other babies lives through her testimony.
Not only that, but it somehow manages to cleverly disguise itself as a human being SO WELL that the "fetal tissue harvesters" mistake parts of that"lifeless clump" for salable human organs, including brain, heart, and spinal column.