This Man Asked A Simple Question Online That Shut Down The Whole Anti-Abortion Argument
2.6Mviews
One of the core arguments used by ‘pro-lifers’ in the fierce, contentious abortion debate is one we’ve all heard before – ‘life begins at conception.’ While scientists and lawmakers are still at odds over how exactly the ‘beginning of life‘ is determined, the biggest issue at hand remains that people feel entitled to tell others what to do with their bodies, without having much interest in dealing with the aftermath. Seriously, when we see pro-lifers adopting some of the disadvantaged children they so desperately wanted to be born, then we’ll talk about hearing out their side.
This idea of people claiming to be ‘pro-life,’ but actually only being pro-childbirth and pro-dominance-over-female-bodies, is central to a Twitter argument from The Ark Trilogy author Patrick S. Tomlinson that is currently going viral. In a thread of just 9 tweets, Tomlinson proposes a simple question that will leave any pro-lifer scrambling to assemble a coherent answer.
Scroll down to find out what he wrote, and let us know if you agree with his point of view in the comments.
More info: Twitter
This is Patrick S. Tomlinson, an author (The Ark Trilogy) who just shattered a key anti-abortion argument
In a thread of just 9 genius tweets, Tomlinson asks one simple question:
Of course, he was challenged, resulting in a few intense rebuttals
Others, however, completely supported his message
Do you think his argument was spot-on, or did it miss the mark? Tell us below!
2.6Mviews
Share on Facebook
Using birth control to prevent pregnancies in the first place, is better than abortions. It's cheaper, safer, and no one calls using a condom murder. If she somehow still got pregnant, an abortion is still better than a child dying, because its mother is not willing or not able to care for it.
That's true in the same way that not smoking that cigarette that accidentally burns your house down is better than calling the fire brigade to put out your burning house. No one uses abortions as a casual form of birth control, I think in hindsight everyone who has had to have an abortion would have used protection or not messed up in the using of said protection.
3,700 is a lot, but it figures to be about 2 in 10M women. Now, subtract rape, incest, mothers' endangerment, deformities. No woman in her right mind uses abortion as a form of birth control; that's an inane argument.
Monilip. If they are that stupid, should they really be forced to have babies? Would they be able to take care of a child and make sure it grows up to a well functioning adult?
Dear Anarkzie - Here's a question. The foundational position of the right to life is that human life begins at conception and deserves legal protection. If they are wrong when does a fetus deserve legal protection? (not when does it become human, or get a soul etc.) At what stage in the fetus development should the government step in and say, "No you cannot get an abortion?" If not Conception, Heartbeat, Brainwaves, viability, not until the fetus is out of the woman's body?" There has to be a legal barrier. What should it be! I am sincerely interested in your response. E-mail me johnlouis62@gmail.com.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I am familiar with three women who have had multiple abortions and didn’t much care. It was more so just a hassle for them to take the abortion pill. You can take one up to ten weeks of pregnancy.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
". No one uses abortions as a casual form of birth control" - you would be surprised. Some people are really stupid (with all due respect to them, they just was told that abortion is nothing)
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
No one uses abortions as casual birth control? I'm sorry but the statistics bear to differ. Over 3,700 abortions in this country every day. EVERY DAY. Seems pretty casual to me.
Excuse me Mr Rapist, can you put a condom on.....?
@Gale Lett Considering how there are 323 MILLION people in the US alone, that 3700 is very small, .001% as a matter of fact, not sure that makes an industry. This isn't a stance on what I believe in, just a pointing out of invalidness.
Here's a question. The foundational position of the right to life is that human life begins at conception and deserves legal protection. If they are wrong when does a fetus deserve legal protection? (not when does it become human, or get a soul etc.) At what stage in the fetus development should the government step in and say, "No you cannot get an abortion?" If not Conception, Heartbeat, Brainwaves, viability, not until the fetus is out of the woman's body?" There has to be a legal barrier. What should it be! I am sincerely interested in your response. E-mail me johnlouis62@gmail.com.
Alia Cloud - sadly that has been used in court to discredit rape victims, yes. But I would still try to get him to wear it. Unfortunately, rapists do not tend to be friendly men with your health and safety in mind.
No one is saying that a female has to carry the child of rape. The number of this occurence is so tiny that your comment is ludicrous.
While I have no problem with a woman aborting a rape pregnancy (or in the also rare case in this country of a birth being a death risk to the mother), I do have a problem with extrapolating that tiny percentage of abortions to mean that all abortions should be legal. It's not a valid argument for making abortion available on demand.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I heard by asking your rapist to wear a condom you aren’t being raped because you have agreed to have sex
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Considering that over 3,700 abortions are performed every day in this country very few are a result of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Abortion has become an industry, and a very lucrative one at that. Not only do they charge the mother but they also sell the fetus's parts to laboratories. As I said, very lucrative.
There are a lot of "pro life" people who actually ARE anti-birth control (and amazingly enough, anti-sex ed). Lots of them.
Yes they're pro-guilt
And why automatically ‘mother not willing or able to care for said child? Why is it Mom not willing or able, what about Dad? Is the father excused from responsibility? Maybe if all men owned up to the responsibility of the seeds they sew there would be fewer unwanted or accidental pregnancies.
Yea right, like they were even told about it. We both know they can't care for a dead baby.
Mikleo, they took away Planned Parenthood which dispensed contraceptives, which Trump just took away yesterday. So with no abortions, no contraceptives, no Planned Parenthood, and no Medicare for single moms, the Republicans seem to hate women. Is this what the New “Republicans” are all about?
Please do some homework. Your hyperbole makes you look stupid. Nothing you wrote is true.
Actually the Catholic Church considers contraception and abortion to be equivalent (masturbation, too). It doesn’t explicitly call contraception “murder” but like abortion (and masturbation) it does go “against God’s plan." It’s easier to be noisy about abortion because “Life begins at ejaculation,” is much more difficult to build a political movement around.
Do you have any sources for Catholic Church’s stance on masturbation?
Please show me where the church says "life begins at ejaculation." That is just ridiculous and a tremendous distortion and lie.
At one time some religions considered condoms offensive to "gods plan". And where banned. Condoms and birth control are not new inventions lol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_birth_control
How about offering the baby for adoption instead of abortion so it has a chance to add something to the world, it could be the next Albert Einstein if given the chance.
Nobody calls a condom "murder" because an individual sperm or egg (23 chromosomes each) is not a human being, but only half a human. A fertilized egg (46 chromosomes) is now a human being with a full complement of its own DNA distinct from either parent. <> An abortion IS a "child dying".
@Sergio Bicerra @Bertha Garcia Kids don't get adopted soon (and that is very sad). Babies, only few months old - they get adopted very soon and potential foster parents have to wait for a baby.
You might want to readjust your thinking to include the whole world, not just your corner of it. Half of the world's population is in China and India. Have you seen the state of their orphanages recently? Or the amount of children living in the streets? I was born in South Africa - in the cities, every traffic light has half-a-dozen kids (I've seen TODDLERS there ffs!) begging for food/money. Nobody had any interest in adopting them after they were born.
This comment has been deleted.
"abortion is bedder than a child dying" A child does die during an abortion. That is what an abortion is intended to do.
how many children die a year in America because their mother couldnt care for them? Are you talking starvation? there are less than 3 of those a year....but over 1.5 million abortions....abortion is NEVER better for ANY reason from the aborted babies perspective....
Birth control and human beings are not good partners in an emergency. There will always be unwanted pregnancies despite using birth control.
Have you never heard the word ADOPTION? For every baby aborted there are two people out there who would love to become it's parents.
This comment has been deleted.
People who beat their kids have the option to abort and choose not to. Abortion increases yearly and so does child abuse. Poor argument.
You can't use birth control if you're raped, unless you're like using birth control pills "in case someone rapes me". also accidents happen
Ahum, how do you tell the rapist that he should put a condom on before the act?
Yes but abortions are also for people who were raped or unwillingly got pregnant as well :)
I agree with you but just keep in mind that some women and girls who are not in any sexual relationship and therefore do not use birth control end up getting pregnant by rape.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Birth control, aka as contraceptives are covered in all prescription drug plans, free at most health department health clinics. and abortion can be added to any health care plan in or out of the marketplace. The problem with most of the liberal arguments is they have covered this ground already. It is in the ACA if you want it. Trust me the ACA is never going to be repealed by either party. So drop all the preconceived propaganda by both sides of the argument. You are all moving to a one payer system with a 65% tax on all income. Enjoy it while it lasts. It will be rationed, so will food, fuel, housing and anything that is a necessity.Except no one will have quality health care except the elites of the nation.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
You say an abortion (murder of the unborn) is better than having a life of abuse. But you are not the one who has been aborted. By the way, there are adults who survived abortion attempts who would strongly disagree with you. And you are falling into the trap of picking "A" or "B". Such thinking is faulty. What about option "C" put the baby up for adoption? See, why murder the unborn simply because you think it will have a lousy life? Where do you draw the line? According to your thinking, it would be better for a 2 year old to be smothered in her sleep than to live a life of abuse. Really? Do you not value human life?
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
just wondering does the semen a life?
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Better for who? The child?
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
But putting it up for adoption is even better than abortion because nobody dies.
Until the worldwide adoption rate is real close to 100%, that argument holds no water.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Why "abortion is still better than a child dying"? Because fetus does not feel pain when being aborted? Check scientific sources, fetuses start to feel pain early. And why being dead is better then being if child house ("mother is not willing or not able to care for it.")? I say being alive is always better then being death, no matter if we have loveling parents or not.
I researched a bit, and I found out that the fetus is able to feel pain after about 20 weeks. https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html 89-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation (AGI/CDC). In 2013, 7.1% of all abortions occurred between 14-20 weeks' gestation; 1.3% occurred ≥21 weeks' gestation (CDC). http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I agree. Because dead is dead but where there is life, there is hope.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
The fetus starts to feel pain after the first trimester which is about 12 weeks in.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Have you ever heard of adoption? If mother does not want her child she can give him/her up to adoption. And tell me this - what is difference between killing just born baby and fetus at 20 weeks? Both can feel pain by this point, both are not self aware yet, both need her mother to survive. I think for them it is not diffence if they are killed after or before death. Both are terrible.Or you one from thee pro choice people who believe that abortion should be legal also after birth for few month?
If adoption was an easy way, there wouldn't be foster homes nor orphanats. Kids literally can live there for years.
A big problem with adoption is that the parent still has to live through the pregnancy and birth, which causes undue health complications. It causes the person pain, which I think is more important that a fetus, particularly since most abortions are performed very early on.
Have you seen the orphanages?
Answer the question: the box of embryos or the child?
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
* I think for them it is not diffence if they are killed after or before birth
the woman who said she wouldn't even notice embryos makes most sense, i would grab kid without thinking about my views as well
She was correct in that a petridish full of embryos are not viable unless implanted in a uterus. This is also a naturally occurrence when trying to conceive the embryo fails to implant and the woman never knew she was almost pregnant to begin with. You save the living child. Neurological developments begin at 7 weeks gestation. Technically theses embryos are potential human life. No different than donor sperm or donor eggs.
Potential Human Life and Human Life are 2 different things all together. Just like everyone has potential, but very seldom does that potential get realized. Potential Human Life is the possibility of life, it is not absolute. Human life on the other hand, IS an absolute.
Well said Deborah Denley
So, frantic wheeling and spinning why an embryo in one place somehow 'isn't the same' as other places. Are there places where I can put a child, where it would be ok to kill them?
By the way, Troy is right, thumb him down all you want, but he gave a good and honest answer, and I guess that's not what some of you want.
Everyone read my lengthy rebuttal to that guy above.
Best answer so far !! I agree !! :)
Technically from a Christian perspective and a biological perspective as well, the embryo is a human life from conception. From a Christian perspective life begins at conception. From a biological perspective nothing is added to the embryo genetically to make it more or less human. Our humanity does not begin when we have a neurological development. It is genetic. That embryo will always result in a human baby being born unless something happens to it causing it to die. It is different than donor sperm or donor eggs in the fact that it is 100% genetically human. The eggs by themselves are not 100% genetically human nor are the sperm. It takes them combined to make that human life. If you let the egg be, it will never mature into a human baby without the sperm. Same in reverse. But the Embryo is a human life at conception.
Just avoidance of the issue. The question is a clear choice and indicate that that person being asked to make a choice knows about both options. Deflection... The weak weapon of a person who knows their arguments carries no water.
I KNEW you people wouldn't respond to my question, hypocrites.
I had a few typos, but the question still remains, point not lost.
This is an "A" or "B", question just lie that is, please pick your option to my loaded question. I have 45 in my left hand, and a 357 in the right, which one do you want to be shot to death with, note you can only pick one, only one gun get's to kill you. 45 is "A", and 247 is "B". Remember, you said it: "Just avoidance of the issue. The question is a clear choice and indicate that that person being asked to make a choice knows about both options. Deflection... The weak weapon of a person who knows their arguments carries no water."
Dear Magical Unicorn - Here's a question. The foundational position of the right to life is that human life begins at conception and deserves legal protection. If they are wrong when does a fetus deserve legal protection? (not when does it become human, or get a soul etc.) At what stage in the fetus development should the government step in and say, "No you cannot get an abortion?" If not Conception, Heartbeat, Brainwaves, viability, not until the fetus is out of the woman's body?" There has to be a legal barrier. What should it be! I am sincerely interested in your response. E-mail me johnlouis62@gmail.com.
John Louis, then why does government and pro lifers not want anything to do with the child once it's born? They always seem to say "well you shouldn't have gotten pregnant"? Not to mention, what about the hundreds of thousands of kids that are in foster homes just in the US alone? Why aren't pro lifers as worried about them as they are about one embryo?
This isn't about legal protection, it's about the most logical course of action. Regardless of your belief systems, it is not logical to save 1000 proto-life forms, which have not yet developed to the point of experiencing physical sensation, or even comprehending the danger they are in, while leaving a fully sentient being to die in agony. I do find the whole argument to be specious, not even worthy of debate.
I believe that life starts when the fetus is viable outside of a womans body so around 22 weeks. So if you must abort it should be before this time. But I would add prevention is always better or even the morning after pill which is available.
John Louis, I agree that the foundational position of the right to life is that human life begins at conception. I have several concerns about this. First, it lays all sorts of burden on the woman to protect a life that she doesn't know she is carrying until later in the pregnancy. If something happens to that embryo (say, spontaneous abortions or very early miscarriages that happen all too frequently) does this make the woman a criminal for "allowing" that embryo to die? I imagine you'd say no, that's a ridiculous argument; but the fact is that if it CAN be done (which it can, by stating that a newly-fertilized egg is a human), then it's possible that it WILL be done at some point. Second, is there really any universal legal definition of human life? Is a strand of human DNA classified as human life? The point of your statement is that one point of view is that human life begins at conception; it's not a fact, but an opinion, and not a valid basis for a rational argument.
Saving either from a fire does not mean legal protection. If someone came to fertility clinic and had a chance to stop either mother "a" from killing her unwanted 5 year old child or mother b from killing her 1000 viable fetus' which would you stop? What if it was your 1 viable fetus someone was about to kill or someone else's 5 yo child? What if it was a convicted felon or 1000 viable fetus' which would you save?
NO LEGAL BARRIER - IT IS MY BODY - YOU DO NOT GET TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH IT. CHILD OR NO CHILD. PERIOD.
At what stage should the government be able to strap you down and rip out a kidney, if someone needs it for their 'very life'? If they can't do that, then why should the uterus be up for grabs at a 'certain stage'?
As a man, you have no say in this. If you were a woman, and it were your body, you'd have the right to CHOOSE to keep your child. Until the baby is born it is a part of the mother's body. So the mom can do whatever the mom chooses
Still does not answer the question! He said Viable Embryos! Not sperm donations or egg donations. So you are deflecting & making it about sperm & eggs when he made it about the Viable Embryos you are calling human beings. SO would you save the child or the 1000 Viable Embryos?
Jess Asher, the question is why should we be as worried about it once i's born, you murderers can't legally kill it then. You had the sex and created the baby, why should it be our responsibility to bring it up? If I rob a bank, would you do time with me, no you wouldn't. You made your bed,then you got in it and had sex, now take responsibility for your actions.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Eddie Smith "believes" life begins at about 22 weeks...but what foundation is her belief based? See, I believe I am a millionaire and a unicorn....no matter how sincere I believe these things they simply are not true. Life begins at conception. Genetically nothing is added to that human embryo that would magically change it into a human child. Just because the child cannot survive outside the womb does not mean it is not a human child. By the same means, I could say I believe a child is not human until it can feed itself. Does that make the infant not human simply because I think it should be able to survive on its own? Sorry Eddie Smith, but you are just trying to justify murdering innocent human babies all because they are defenseless. By the way, the morning after pill is a killing pill. It aborts the newly conceived human life. What kind of horrible human being selfishly seeks to destroy human life simply because it is defenseless against the environment?
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Jess Asher, first of all, many children do live in foster care. That is not to say they are not loved. And we don't end their lives simply because they are in foster care. Many are being adopted every year, but until they are adopted they have a care system. They are still alive and that is better than being murdered. Pro lifers are very much concerned about these children, that is why most foster children are cared for by pro lifer's than by pro choice people. But your failure is in thinking we cannot care about both groups. Life is valuable both as the unborn child and the born child. Again, it is not an either or situation.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I think the idea that life begins at conception is pretty much universally accepted. After all, an egg is not a fetus yet. It takes the male sperm to make it such. The egg is simply a template. The traits of both the mother and father are infused into the egg at conception. That's is the beginning of a human being. Not too hard to understand.
That's dancing around the point of the scenario, not answering the question. If a viable human embryo=1 human life, and you choose to save the child over the embryos, you are choosing 1 life over 1000 lives! The point is that it is a ludicrous argument to make a viable human embryo is not a human, in no way. To explain it as not noticing this, and not noticing that is irrelevant. It's deflecting from answering the question at hand, because it ruins the "pro-life" argument of a viable human embryo=1 human life! That's like saying an boxed cake is the same as a made cake. Then claiming I took the made cake, because it was easier than taking the boxed cakes while equal and more compact... Kinda sounds silly to me!
No, it's a stupid question from a stupid Man that thinks he is clever giving a loaded question, well I myself have a loaded question for you. This is an "A" or "B", question just like that is, please pick your option to my loaded question. I have 45 in my left hand, and a 357 in the right, which one do you want to be shot to death with, note you can only pick one, only one gun get's to kill you. 45 is "A", and 357 is "B".
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
It's specifically stated that you do notice the embryos in this scenario.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Yeah this scenario has gaping holes in it.
It's a thought experiment; being nitpicky about the details is pedantic. It doesn't matter how you get there, the point is what would you do.
I'm again abortion, but I also think that everyone should have a choice of what they want to do, we are all different, nobody should force they're beliefs on others, they should live they're own life and not somebody's else.
we write laws all the time preventing one from infringing upon the right of others. we just have a problem determining to what extent an "other" deserves rights. you argument completely ignores the debate of, in this case, "how do we define the unborn. is it an other or something pre other. if its a human it has rights. if its just a mass of cells it doesnt.
Really? Let's try that differently, shall we? "'m again [murder], but I also think that everyone should have a choice of what they want to do, we are all different, nobody should force they're beliefs on others, they should live they're own life and not somebody's else." Except for, you know, the baby murdered. Let's try that yet another way: "I'm again [wife beating], but I also think that everyone should have a choice of what they want to do, we are all different, nobody should force they're beliefs on others, they should live they're own life and not somebody's else." So, if you passed a couple on the street, and the man was beating the woman, you'd just shrug and say "I should just live my own life, not somebody else's?" Your argument presupposes that the right of self determination is so great that it eliminates the higher right: the right to life.
Some people want to beat on their kids. Some people want to have kids to increase their welfare check. Some people want to steal rather than work. I don't believe people should beat their kids and will always step out of my own life and interfere. BTW I'm an atheist, so spare me the Christian BS.
So you are, in fact, pro choice. nice one! It doesnt matter whether I am for or against abortion, what matters is that I dont deny someone else the right to decide what is right for them and their circumstance
Then I should have a choice NOT to fund someone’s else’s abortion or their birth control with MY tax money against my conscious !!
As you have the choice to not pay road-building with your taxes, if you don't drive a car or leave your house? As you have the choice to not pay for education with your taxes if you don't have children (and won't ever get them)? As you have the choice to not pay for war and weapons with your taxes? As you have the choice to not pay for police with taxes if nothing ever happens to you or your property? Religion and Government are two separate things, you should probably spend a bit more time on the education of yourself if you weren't aware of that.
Thats fine - Live your life without anyone else's interference.. but that also should mean, Pay for Your Life - Yourself?
Anne, No One should have a RIGHT to kill a child.....If you dont want to get pregnat then keep your damn legs closed....God sees everything you do! Murduring another Human Being is WRONG in God's eyes.. It's MURDER!..God's wrath will surely come down on you 10 times greater. That is the problem in today's society...People feel that they can do what ever they please with their bodies and completly turning there back on God.....For every choice you make there is a Consequence...God judges us all for the choices we make ....Your choices define your character.....Your either going to follow the narrow road in Life that leads to the light of Christ or the Dark Broad road that leads to Destruction and Death...Again I say that NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING....It is WRONG and EVIL.
God disagrees Deuteronomy 21:18–21 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones."
Also God thinks life begins with the first breath: Genesis And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Pregnancy is either a blessing or a punishment for women who have sex life. It can't be both. Pick one.
At The Cube Cat...I respectfully disagree. If they were for freedom, then the topic of abortion would be a dead issue. The law says women have the right to choose yet pro lifers insist on meddling it something that is absolutely NONE of their business.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Don't your FEAR God? Murdering another Human Being, a Human being who has NO VOICE...Is Wrong....A child is a GIFT from God and No woman has a Right to MURDER what God has created. It is an enormous SIN...God's Wrath will come down on you 10-Fold.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I will not contribute to mommy killing baby.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Choice? What choice does the fetus have? Women claim it's their body, their right. But you do not have the right to takes rights away from an entirely separate, unique individual who cannot speak for themselves. Not just your body, but the body of another human being. How about making the choice to not become pregnant in the first place? How about exercised self control and not having sex until you're ready to care for a child? There was some wisdom in the proposal of not having sex until marriage. But since the sexual revolution that was thrown out the window. Now it's do what you want with whomever you want and go your merry way. People have lost their ability to govern themselves.
Most abortions happen beofre the foetus has developed a brain or nervous system. Its not a person, its a mass of cells that has the potential to become a baby. If a woman doesnt want to endanger herself by going through with the pregnancy (and pregnancy is very taxing on a woman's body), that's her choice. You don't get to take away a woman's right to her own body autonomy, a foetus doesn't have more rights to her body and she does. As for not having sex until marriage, that's a very outdated concept. What about people who never want to become parents or never want to marry? Pregnancy can't be both a blessing and a punishment for women who have a sex life. Pick one.
Unfortunately, it's not always that the girl or woman can make the choice to not become pregnant in the first place. Have you thought about rape victims who got pregnant, especially those who got raped by their own grandfather, father, uncle or any male relative? Yes sure, it is not the baby's fault but what happens then in the future if the baby asks who his/her father is, how will he/she understand or accept it? How about the mother who is reminded about what happened to her by looking at the child? Give the child away? Will pro-lifers volunteer to raise that child as their own or at least consistently fund the orphanage that the child will live?
Your comment assumes that all women want children at some point. Many of us never want an ankle biter or to get married. You are entitled to live your life as you please but you do not get to force your personal morals on others. Perhaps you can explain why the majority of you pro forced birthers are also anti birth control? Abortion rates are currently the lowest they have ever been, yet the Orange Goblins administration is actively sabotaging women's access to birth control in every way possible, thus ensuring that the need and demand for abortion will go back up. So, methinks this is not really about abortion at all. It's about controlling women, and those of you with internalized misogyny are happy to help the patriarchy oppress your sisters .
"It's not a person, its a mass of cells that has the potential to become a baby." This is called Begging The Question.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Nobody should force their beliefs on others? Really? You are against abortion, why? IS it because you think abortion is taking a human life? Is that not murder? If you are against murder but don't think you should force your beliefs on others, then if I murder your child you should be okay with it...after all, maybe I don't see taking your child's life as murder. Sorry, but either we stand for what is right or we give in to the world's evil and wrong ways.
I'm pro abortion because it really doesn't matter if it illegal. If a woman doesn't want to have a baby they will usually go to great lengths to see that they don't. So might as well give them a safe secure environment to do it rather than kill 2 people.
I remember seeing a pretty powerful illustration of the US Republican party's elephant logo made with the wire of a coat hanger. I had to explain it to an Icelandic friend because she didn't understand the significance.
I understand pro choice. I don't understand pro abortion.
yes, pro choice is the better statement. one can be against abortion and FOR choice. in fact, that really is the definition of choice, isn't it?
@Nora H did you read my answer and explanation? I am NOT comparing rape and abortion. I'm compare just an evil situation we can all agree is evil (so there won't be any argument about rape itself) AND I use the same explanation that is used for ustify abortion. This is about this ARGUMENT, not comparing rape and abortion.
Key words, "2 people"
I used that phrase for people who consider the fetus a person.
I disagree, if you die committing murder, justice was served. At least now someone who claims to believe in abortion gets to put their own life where their mouth is.
I noticed you used the word "Kill". I use that word vs abortion - I think the word abortion is not strong enough. You used the right word - women are killing their unborn children. So sad. My only consolation is the little one is in Heaven and safe from murderers.
it doesn't really matter what anyone calls it, even though "killing" and murder" are words that refer to living human beings...and until that fetus is able to survive outside the womb, the term child does not apply either.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
@Cat Meow - you completly missed my point. I choose something we can all agree on ("rape is evil" and used argument from above to show you why it is flawed (from logical perspective)
There's helluva difference between a rapist violating an innocent woman and a pregnant woman terminating her pregnancy, whatever the reason. The latter is literally not hurting anyone, she's choosing the leaser of two tragic options. No one has an abortion for fun. The rapist hurts others for his own pleasure. What a sick comparison, you are a messed up individual.
Nope. From a logical perspective, there is nothing wrong with the argument. You could only argue whether it is sound. But it is logically valid.
And you miss the point of compassion. But I guess, in one point you're right, and that point is people forcing their opinions that don't even affect them and themselves on women.
@WubiDubi - so you believe that man should be given woman to rape (RAPE, not prostitute) in "a safe secure environment " so he won't rape random woman on street? because that's excaly same argument: we can't prevent something bad from happening so let's organized it
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
From logical point of view, your argument is wrong. Same argument can be used to make rapes legal, you know? Example: It really doesn't matter if rape illegal. If a man does want tohave sex he will usually go to great lengths to see that they do. So might as well give them a safe secure environment to do it rather than rape two random people. Maybe raping one woman in "a safe secure environment" make him stop raping two random woman on the street. PS. I'm not saying rape is good. I'm saying is very evil .I'm only using this situation to prove your argument is invalid.
You just made the argument for legal prostitution, my friend. So your argument really just helped hers...
How DARE you compare rape to abortion!! That said, back on the actual subject: I'm not pro nor against it. I am pro choice. Abortions would be needed less if birth control was made available for everyone
What people can do morally varies from person to person so I stick with the argument that even if it's illegal it'll still happen.
No...the 2 things are very different. And honestly the fact that you see abortion and rape as being the same thing is very strange to me. First of all, rape is illegal and still happens so your argument doesn't even make sense. Abortion is illegal but also a choice, if you wanna to argue that drugs are a choice good luck I have the same opinion on both. Abortion to me is about what you're morally willing to do.
Like many of the headlines here, this one is nonsense. He hasn't "shut down" anything. He's just wasted your time with a false dilemma fallacy.
I totally agree. He didn't shut down anything and the whole scenario is stupid.
An embryo isn't a child but a fetus is. . . The question is not an accurate comparison to their beliefs. They don't answer because it is illogical. Duh!
This isn't a false dilemma. It's a hypothetical question that reveals someone's values. If an anti-abortionist wants to argue that an embryo is of equal moral worth as a child, then their obvious answer is B. I don't know that it 'shuts down' the anti-abortion position, but your own inability to answer it is damning.
So, Thomas, have you stopped beating your wife? Answer "Yes" or "No"
Paul, I would choose my mom as she is likely easier to carry out. I would choose my child only because it is family(comparable question would be on stranger or three strangers). I would probably send the missile to Mexico City as it is more spread out and likely to result in less deaths. I would ust make a random choice in regards to the antidote. Ok now you answer the first question honestly if you can.
Your mom and dad are in a burning building and there is only time to save one. Who do you pick? You only have time to save your own child or three strangers, who do you save? A missile is 10 seconds from auto launch and you can send it to Mexico City or to Toronto--which do you choose. You have the antidote for poison a Muslim and a Jewish guy drank--there is only enough for one person, so who do you give it to?
Refusal to answer a question regarding an improbable scenario designed to corner people with false logic does NOT damn you.
Agreed. For many pro-life people, IVF is immoral and shuts the whole scenario down before it begins, because 1000 embryos on ice is already its own giant moral mess. I do suspect that many of us would put the 5yo on our backs and grab the container in front, but he disallows that option by fiat, which is dumb.
He did mentioned you only have time to save one of them, either grab one of them and run out or grab two and all of you die in the fire. Like what he said, you just refused to answer his question.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I agree as well. This scenario is unlikely to happen
Nice attempt at not answering the question. If this was a test in school, you'd fail
Sorry, not a false dilemma.
States the man....
I was wondering what his point was. What can this be applied to: If a pregnant mother is in danger of dying and you have a choice to either save the mother or the child inside her? Even that is not the same thing, but that is as close as I can get.
It's the principle. If you place more value on one 5 year old than 1000 human embryos then the argument for life begins at conception is invalid in theory.
The question is for pro-lifer who argue that life starts at conception so it should be illegal to ALL abortions and if that is the case, each embryos should be consider a human life... The point is which one will they choose? 1000 lives (embryos) or 1 life (kids).
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Perhaps a better one is choosing to save a bus full of kids versus your own specific child. Equally tough choice but without the attempt at political implications.
Agree totally. Purposely choosing the death of an embryo or a child (abortion) is different than CHOOSING WHICH TO SAVE. In his scenario, you aren't willfully destroying one or the other UNLESS YOU STARTED THE FIRE.
He's just asking which you think is more important.
You haven't answered the question. Who do you save and who do you leave behind to die? It doesn't matter if you choose to let one die or you actively kill it, the result is just the same - death. So answer the question: who do you leave behind to die?
The problem here is that the pro-lifer actually pushing for a carpet ban on ALL abortions under the argument that "all embryos are lives". In other words, if there is a dying mother and the only way to improve her condition is to remove the embryo, you can't do it because of the ban. I hope this clear up why is this question asked.
You're comment shows an utter lack of empathy for women. I'm glad you've had a great life where you haven't had to make such difficult decisions, now if you're a disciple of Jesus, show some empathy for those who have been less fortunate or STFU
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Thanks, exactly!
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
HALLELUJAH!
First of all, the claim that Pro-Lifers only care about pro-child birth and pro-dominance over female bodies is not only insulting but devastatingly uninformed. I am insanely for the life of an unborn child being protected while at the same time implanting policies and procedures for medical care, education assistance, housing and food allowances for those who qualify. I believe very strongly that abortion is wrong but I'm smart enough to do the research and see why it was made legal in the first place. Single mothers need protection and if the $500 million dollars that PP was given every year was put into a program that actually helped their whole beings, through the most difficult time in their lives, and their children, that would be something I could champion. Also, I am leading an organization in my town that mentors teen parents. So please don't think that all pro-lifers are heartless. That is a blatant lie. I care deeply about the mom, the dad & the child.
How many unwanted children have you adopted? I believe all forced births should have to be raised by people that voted prolife.
my family adopted one, how about yours?
To add to my reply, right now my main focus is equipping, encouraging and championing teen parents in my community. Parenthood is not easy, and doing it as a teen while trying to go to school and support a family seems more than daunting. That is my niche. That is my heart. Jen, I encourage you to pursue where your heart is. As a Christian, I get so annoyed at the way teen parents have been treated (in general) over the years. The notion of telling girls to not get abortions and then shunning them from communities is appalling. If my life is spent trying to correct that and change people's hearts to love teen moms and dads, then I feel like I've done something worthwhile. Jen, don't stick to the status quo. If you don't like something fight to change it. But try to do it in love. I hope that maybe you too, even though you might not be pro-life, would desire to love on those who are marginalized in our society.... which unfortunately is a vast and extensive list.
It's a myth that babies are "unwanted" just because their birth mother does not want or feel able to care for them: in first-world countries there are far more prospective parents waiting to adopt than babies available for them. Shannon is doing a great job. Anyone who would deny parents the support they need is neither pro-life nor pro-choice in any meaningful sense.
Thanks for your question! I love that your head is in the right direction and I completely agree. Those who claim to love the unborn should step in when that weight is too much for the momma. I have adopted zero but that's not for lack of trying and desire. Most pregnant women who want to give their kiddo up for adoption go to private adoption agencies. Unfortunately, there isn't a great need versus needs met in these situations. Most adoptive parents wait 12-24 to even be matched with a birth mom. 100% of all kids put up for adoption through private adoption agencies, at least the ones that my husband and I have considered (and with having SEVERAL sweet friends go through the process I have seen how long a wait time it is), so for us we don't feel that private adoption is the right fit. I are super interested, and will probably pursue, foster to adopt after I pop this baby out and get her a little past the no sleep stage.
I'm glad you believe in personal responsibility Jen..
YOu make it sound like the $500 million PP is given is only for abortions. It's for the whole health of women (and men) so clearly you still have some more research to do. I hope you never find yourself having to choose your life or the continuation of your pregnancy, but until you do, maybe you could also research empathy while you're at it
do you know that almost all people who call themself "pro-life" believe there is nothing wrong (morally speaing) about woman choosse her life over her child's life? Where there is dangerous of mother's life there is usually no argument. We're PRO-LIFE, we believfe that unborn child's life is equeal to mother's life. If both are in danger and both can't be saved that we believe it is mother's decision which one try to save and which dont (her of her child's). We're talking hete about situation when child is disabled or mother simly doesn't want it because of reasons. A very diffferent situation
You need to learn exactly what it is that Planned Parenthood does. They do not provide abortions. They do take care of the whole woman by doing female exams, Pap smears and STD testing. Also breast exams and anything else a woman needs to stay healthy. And yes, they do provide condoms and prescribe birth control pills.
Third, you said this "Seriously, when we see pro-lifers adopting some of the disadvantaged children they so desperately wanted to be born, then we’ll talk about hearing out their side." Well be prepared to listen up! Do you know that the waiting list for private adoption is anywhere from 12-24 months??? I know because my husband and I have extensively researched and visited adoption agencies. I have SEVERAL friends who have adopted or are waiting to adopt. Pregnant moms can get all their medical (pre and post natal) care taken care of and well as housing and food allowances from many of these agencies. Hundreds if not thousands of families are waiting to welcome a child into their homes. Here are some links to great agencies: http://christianhomes.com https://www.bethany.org/adoption https://allgodschildren.org http://www.holtinternational.org/adoption/ https://www.adoptuskids.org/?r=l
I don't see many people, pro-life or other stepping up to adopt children that are otherwise considered unadoptable. Children with extreme physical and/or mental disabilities, children that will cost the adoptive parents tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to just keep alive, let alone raise with a decent standard of living. "Crack" or otherwise narcotic dependent babies, alcohol impaired babies, babies with any number of awful genetic birth defects. These cannot all be prevented. There is no way all those children, if born, would ever be wanted and raised by loving adoptive parents. You see, if all life begins at conception, their lives also begin at conception, so they must be carried to term, no matter how much suffering is caused. If a woman cannot or will not raise a child, how much more harm is caused, to the woman, the child and to society as a whole to force her to give birth? She doesn't want a child, she will not take proper care of it.
Just for the sake of argument let's make the"choice" of the child for the adoptive parents a little more equal for the child's sake. Each prospective mom and dad are given a lottery number. A number is drawn and the corresponding child is adopted by the family. It may be a child of a different race. It may may be a child resulting from rape with unknown parentage. It may be a severely disabled child. In effect if we take away the" choice" from the pregnant mother,remove the choice from the effective adoptive parents. No"culling" of children for desirable traits and abilities. No less desirable children left rejected in the overwhelmed foster care system costing taxpayers money.
I'll make the same point to you as I made before - you are looking at this from a very Westcentric point of view. Millions of children in the developing world are not being adopted because no-body in their own country wants them and it's too difficult for parents in other countries to adopt them (or said parents specifically want a blond, blue-eyed baby and are willing to wait for one). Has anyone asked those millions of children if they would have preferred to be born in suffering? I know what my choice would have been has anyone bothered to consult me.
My mother did that, carried her baby for nine months and then gave him up for adoption. He's the brother I didn't know I had until I was 23 and he was 18. I'm glad he's alive and so is he. But it cost a lot. It was extremely difficult for my mother to go through a full pregnancy knowing she would have to give away her child once it was born. My brother never felt really "at home" with his adoptive parents even though they are wonderful people who have always treated him with love and care. But in some ways he felt he didn't fit in. When he finally met his birth mothe he found it extremely difficult to cope with the fact that she had kept me, her first born, and my younger brother, but not him. To this day, more than 25 years later, he and our mother does not have a good relationship. A couple of years ago she nearly died after a big operation, but even if he was in the same hospital to visit somebody else, he refused to go and visit her. How do you think she felt about that? And he?
Shannon, I wanted to reply specifically to your comment from the bottom of the thread where you say: "I think that the most bi-partisan option would be that IF abortion were made illegal, policy must be passed to aid the mom and baby during and after birth." You fundamentally misunderstood that to make abortion illegal would not be a bi-partisan solution. While at the moment the government is absolutely not forcing anyone to undergo abortion, under your solution people would be legally forced to go through pregnancy and birth. This is the most intimate private area of life for every woman. You cannot mandate what we women have to do in that situation, not by government. Many of women do not even want to birth a child, let alone raise it. Some would sooner get a dangerous backdoor abortion and risk their own lives. You need to understand that not everyone thinks like you or will ever think like you no matter how much you´d want them to. Legal abortion is the only way.
Well then, you and your husband are clearly only looking for healthy, white infants
*had
why is it that when you want to adopt a baby , it becomes a matter of choice (based on race, gender, lack of disabilities), but not when it comes to the baby being born ? Isn't all life equal then ?the whole argument of a person having to wait 12-24 months before it's even possible , though true , is not only because of the process, but also because of the demands that the adoptive parents make of the certain traits they'd prefer in that child .If the choice for the baby to be born should be removed , then so should the choice to adopt a certain kind of child ..because ,, hey .. "all life is equal " right ?
Think hard before you adopt, as you will be getting a child with pstd and life long issues. Any child removed from his or her birth mother is traumatized beyond repair, no matter how much you love them or how much therapy you or they get. It's called the Primal wound and it's very real. Look it up and make sure you get therapy BEFORE even considering adopting. Or better yet, don't adopt but encourage birth parents to raise their own children.
You have to admit you are a rarity among the anti-choicers tough, the majority is not like you. You are not representative of the group. Also, who would you leave behind to die in the original question? The child or the embryos?
And it doesn't matter who you choose in the argument (which is inherently baseless and severely illogical). Both choices leaves remorse behind. But if you don't believe that embryos are children, your choice would be easy. That is why it is a hard (ridiculous, not plausible and radical too) decision for someone who believes that embryos are humans to make. Both are good choices and yet tragic at the same time. Please read http://www.dailywire.com/news/22360/pro-abortion-fanatic-presented-thought-experiment-ben-shapiro He does a better job than I at logical reasoning against this argument.
So Shannon. Like he said you avoided answering the question because you know in your heart that a born child is not the same as an embryo, but you don't want to admit it. YOU really honestly think you would hesitate and ponder which to save??
Sofia, thank you for that compliment because honestly, I don't want to be just another pro-lifer. No one would care about what I said if I just keep hounding "life begins at conception". I am not alone is my thoughts. Look into what the organization Young Life is doing throughout the country in their programs called Young Lives. It's awesome! However, based on an argument of sentience (which is where I think the main debate stems), it's hard to argue that an embryo has no intrinsic value. But that's my personal opinion and why I love America... we all got em and we can express em! I think that the most bi-partisan option would be that IF abortion were made illegal, policy must be passed to aid the mom and baby during and after birth. But since our government is too concerned with pleasing their financial supporters, I doubt either will come pass. Can't we all just try to get along.
I am pro-choice but I agree with you. I was pro-life when I was younger and everyone I know still is. It absolutely has nothing to do with "the patriarchy" and having control over women's bodies. That argument drives me crazy.
Forcing women to have a pregnancy, give birth and abandon the babies in orphanages IS controlling women's bodies and lives. It may not be the motive, but it definitely is the result, hence it must be taken into account.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Since my other points got buried, here they are: Second, his argument is not sound at all. The choice in a lose-lose situation does not make one choice more moral. it is simply a choice that you have to make. This insane notion that he outlined in his argument is hoping the trip people up by convincing everyone that only a born child is valued. To choose the born child over the unborn children doesn't mean the unborn have no intrinsic value. But since since I am not nearly as smart as Ben Shapiro whom you DEFINITELY need to read before claiming that it shut down the anti-abortion argument, here is the link to his rebuttal. http://www.dailywire.com/news/22360/pro-abortion-fanatic-presented-thought-experiment-ben-shapiro also more here http://www.dailywire.com/news/22368/abortion-activist-blocks-ben-shapiro-twitter-after-james-barrett
All these arguments against abortion - never really think to ask the unwanted children what they would have preferred. The assumption is that they would be grateful for any life they got. That, once the mother ignores all her very valid reasons and goes ahead with the pregnancy, everything will turn out alright. This at best naive, at worse disingenuous. My mother had 3 children under 6, an alcoholic husband and cervical cancer when she accidentally fell pregnant with me. The doctors strongly advised an abortion. She refused and carried me to term - she gave birth to me in the intensive care ward as she was terminal by the time I was born. Before you get a tear in your eye at the Lifetime Movie strength-of-a-mother's-love sweetness of it, you might want to hear what happened next. She didn't die. But she never let me forget that I nearly 'killed her', or how much more difficult I made their lives. She should have aborted me as a childhood of abuse and neglect wasn't an improvement.
I can understand you feeling like you would have been better off, because your mother is a hateful woman who hasn't appreciated the beautiful person you are. But please don't believe her lie!! "You did not nearly kill her!" The truth is that your Father God made sure you were born and you are a walking miracle! So she almost died, she did not die though. did she. She had a child to love a blessing in her home and she has been too blind to see it. You don't deserve her lies. Please know that you are here for a purpose and your father in heaven can lead you toward a life that gives you joy and blesses others. I wish i was your mom !!! Because You are a treasure and deserve all your dreams to come true. I am praying for you right now- " God, you say in your word that what so ever I ask yoy will give it to me- So Lord Jesus I ask to bring unconditional loving people into your childs life. Give them the desires of their heart and a fulfilling life.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I'm sorry for your story. But, and I know it maybe be hard to hear right now, things get better. Maybe in few years you will be in lovely relationship, maybe you will even has your own children (if you will want ones). When you will be happy (whatever that means for you) - will you still believe that you would be better dead? Childhood of abuse and neglect is terrrible. If she killed you AFTER you were born (let's say - age 2) you wouldn't be abused, because you would be dead (as you would be is she killed you before birth). Do you think it would be better? I'm sorry if I sound harsh, English is not my native language and I do have problem with writing delicate stuff.
CelSlade survived. How many other children had to suffer through neglect and then died as a result? Would you really be happy to have a dozen children be born to abusive parents and die early just for the one child who will also be abused, but will survive and MIGHT get to go past the trauma? That's not pro-life.
This is exactly the type of woolly thinking naivete I'm talking about 'I'm sure it will turn out alright!' If a child is not wanted, that is not going to magically change the moment they are born. Generation after generation of abuse perpetuated in a never ending cycle because people just do not want to hear the reality of the situation. You are not doing those children a kindness. Starvation, abuse, neglect, death. That is what the majority of unwanted children face. Remove those rose-tinted glasses and wake up to reality.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
@Laury M. -- and what is prolife if not saving people and giving them chance for better life? Killing them so they will definitly won't have good life (because they are dead)?
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
@CelSlade first of all - don't take China into this discusion. They make woman abort they child even days before birth because of child policy limit. So China is not argument for any discusion about abortion. Second _ I'm sorry, i though we were talking about America/Europe, not other countries (who mostly believe abortion is wrong anyway, check for example most of countries in Africa). PS. My brother was adopted by my familty. He was abonded by this birth parents, then he was adopted by woman who become mentally ill after few years. I would love to see you telling him into face that he would be better killed before birth because his life was miserable when he was young. This exmaple only (and there are many many more) is enough to prove my point. Better give someone a chance for good life (not 100%, obviously) than kill him and give him no chacne at all.
My policy on any ethical subject has always been if it doesn't affect me in any way, shape, or form i have no right to judge. Everyone is quick to support pro-life, but I rarely see any of them saying pro-government aid to hell those children and their parents. In my opinion, and i know this may get a bit of backlash, but abortion (during first few weeks) and condoms are the same thing. They are both potential energy. In both scenarios potential energy is prevented from becoming kinetic energy. The only difference between the two is the way certain people in society have manipulated their agenda to reflect their insane ideology.
Abortion should be safe and legal until viability. It is, however inaccurate and disingenuous to claim that it is no different morally than condom use. Abortion is sometimes justified, but it is a difficult thing. In a perfect world no woman would need an abortion.
Help*
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
The only difference between a fully developed fetus and a newborn baby is the side of the womb.
I definitely would grab the 5 year old child for one reason only....... He / she is the one I hear crying out to me to be saved.
Exactly. This proves that you are human and compassionate. Nothing else.
And what if the 5 year old were a deaf-mute? Do you live him to burn because you 'can't hear him crying'?
I think most people would choose the child. Selecting the embryos to save 1000 vs 1 lives is the greater good if you are a person who equates an embryo to a developed child's life. The sad thing is this is a weak argument because we see this sort of behavior in the world all the time. Starving children in the millions but we choose to stabilize a region first for the sake of a greater good. Don't call people amoral for choosing their answer whether you think it's honest or not is irrelevant in this case. As a modal fallacy, that's an almost impossible question to answer in an improbable situation. What's worse, we see this exact thing play out in everyday life all the time.
I would choose the kid and kick the embryos into the fire on the way out. The world doesn't need another thousand people.
Maybe you should've been aborted because who said they needed you?
Jen Nichol can I vote you up a million times? :D
Hahahahahahaha
Haha fuck yes, this planet needs to go back to the animals.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
You should be kicked into a fire. Someone better than you could use the free oxygen.
Completely agree Mar Ad, if we were computers that looked at this situation devoid of empathy and emption we would undoubtedly choose the greater number and sacrifice the one. But we do have emotion and empathy and will respond as others have said to the obvious distress of a child rather than the silent majority - it’s neither right nor wrong, true nor false, just a human choice....thank God.
And what if the child were a deaf mute and didn't cry, but someone put a tape recorder of a baby crying on the container of embryos?
I have never had an abortion and I dont believe I ever would even if I could still have children. But at the same time it is really none of my business what other women decide to do with their bodies. So many people take in orphaned children just to get an additional income and that child is sometimes left without the love and care they deserve, as soon as they turn 18 they are thrown out to deal with the world on their own and no family to turn to. Then you have women who use it as a form of birth control thinking it is easier to abort the unwanted pregnancy instead of taking preventative measures to get pregnant. But at the end of the day it is still none of my damn business what some one else does with their body.
I was given the option to abort my first child in 1976. I did not choose abortion. I am very against abortion, but I am not on the judgment committee. What someone choose’s to do is their business and if there are consequences of that action then they must deal with them. Not me. We all need to understand that everyone’s business is not our own. If there is judgment to be reckoned with that person will have to deal with it. In the meantime I will pay attention to my own business and keep my nose out of others
I don't think I could ever personally choose to have an abortion, but BY GOD don't tell me it's not my choice to make! Anyone who goes through the difficulty of that decision has to live with it and I doubt it's a decision that comes without thought or consideration. If so, they probably wouldn't have been great parent material. Mr. Tomlinson's question hits the nail right on the head and I WILL use it the next time a pro-birther tries to argue that "it's a child, not a choice". We all have choices to make in our lives and we make them and then live with the outcome. It's our life.
This is one of the WORST pro-abrotion speeches/posts I have ever seen. Shame on you.
Maria Tag. Why do you say that? Because it doesn’t support your personal stance on the issue, or because you can’t answer the question without compromising your personal stance?
No, because it's disingenuous. It states very specifically "No one, anywhere, actually believes an embryo is equivalent to a child. They are lying to you" and "those who claim to are trying to manipulate you so they can control women". It's a terrible argument. "You're lying" is such an intellectually lazy argument. Why can't people understand that other people may genuinely believe things that they don't? This guy is a dick to assume that every one of the jillion people who believe it are all lying because of conspiracy (which oddly enough involves women too). His initial point was a good one, but then he took it off the rails into tinfoil hat territory.
The WORST one you have ever seen... You can't form a rebuttal to the WORST one you have ever seen... Wow.
Who the fuck is this guy? And what the fuck is he talking about? Such a dumb disillusioned self entitled fuck. I want my time back and an apoligy from boredpanda cheering on such a dumb idiot. The replies says it all. Omg, and this person was wondering around with this dumb question for 10 YEARS? And somebody even answering the question is stupid af. It's that childish frat boy one or the other question like "would you fuck a halfrobot chick or a hot chick with down syndrome? And you have to choose a or b and no c pls". From his fame by writing a book (apparently??) he could've used it better and promoted an alternative making everyone happy or should've just shut the fuck up. And big fail from this guy and boredpanda altogether.
Gawd thank you! This put me over the Bored Panda love affair I used to have. This is garbage. This tool bag is even more so
Spot on
Sounds like he hit a nerve, though, huh??
So did you intentionally leave Ben Shapiro's response out:?
Guy seems to just block people that don't agree with him. Seems like an asshole. "Answer the question or shut the fuck up". Really? That's how you debate? So when someone does answer a or b you shame them for answering b. Block them and keep on ranting. And then you assert no one has ever answered the question. Like a scientist doing an experiment that deletes evidence contrary to his opinion. Well sir.
No he doesn't, this comes from the old Trolley Car question. If a Trolley car is going down the tracks comes to a fork and on one side is a single person and the other fork five people, you only have time to turn the lever to send the car down the track with the one person. What do you do? Most people would save the 5 and kill the one. The question goes on, you're on a bridge, tracks below. Their are 5 people tied to the track, car is coming. Their is a fat guy with a briefcase on the bridge with you , if you push him off his weight and the briefcases combined will stop the trolley, what do you do? Most people wouldn't murder the man. This is a bullshit hypothetical question and if a you had to pick between saving a few kids or you're own embryos I would save my own embryos. This is a stupid fucking question.
Thank you! The question is about the person's gut reactions, not what is morally correct. Regardless of your views this does not support pro choice.
So... you would literally let speaking, thinking kids, who will burn alive or suffocate, in order to save bunches of cells that are not conscious of even existing? Cause that sounds pretty damn different from the trolley dilemma to me, and clearly we don't have the same idea of what "protecting life" means.
@Tyler Duffy, "don't get pregnant if you don't want a kid". Easy for you to say! What if the woman was raped, and got pregnant? The woman can't exactly stop the rapist and ask if they have a condom. The last thing that the woman wants is for the assault to go any further.
No, the idea is they are both philosophic exercises not moral absolutes. It's misdirection. Regardless of your view on abortion, the question is not "which is more important, a child or a fetus".
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
The moment the sperm enters the egg it in now a living person. That is the definition of life. The bundle of cells is a stupid argument because you as a adult are literally a bundle of cells. Don't get pregnant if you don't want a kid. They sell condoms in every single gas station in the country.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
New borns are not "speaking, thinking kids" who are "conscious of even existing", can we kill them? If "speaking, thinking" is you definition for human... how about people who are mute? Can we kill them because they are not human? Or when you are sleeping - can I kill you? You don't "think" the same as when you are not sleeping... Oh, and BTW - "bunches of cells" are only in first few days. Embrion, by definition, is after zygote stage so it already have much more than "bunches of cells"?
The first comparison is somewhat comparable as it involves making a choice tot save a life without an intentional killing to do so. The comparison involving intentionally killing one to save another is false equivalency.
Also, for anyone intrigued by this. Radio Lab recently put out a podcast episode called "Driverless Dilemma" which a really interesting look at human morality and choices.
As excuses for dodging the question go "I'm except because I know about the trolley car question" is pretty lame.
This man also keeps on insulting and blocking all people who point out his stupid logical fallacies.
Name a logical fallacy that he used.
Personally I find it offensive that people think it is OK to spend my money to take care of someone for 20 years instead of allowing the mother to have the abortion she wanted. I would prefer, just from an economic standpoint, my tax dollars go to a one time payment for the abortion than a series of lifetime payment in the from of welfare. Just because I claim to be "Pro-Choice" does not mean I am "Pro-Abortion", Everyone on either side of this argument is Pro-Choice, just the so called Pro-Life people want to force their choice on everyone else.
Your position looks very similar to this one: https://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/archive/poster-neues-volk/
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Indeed, if you're "pro-choice" you want to give women the ability to force a fatal choice on at least ONE person.
This just highlights that human judgement in panic situations is subjective and unscientific. Some alternative scenarios: 1) You're in a fire. In a room are a child and a tramp. You can only save one. You save the child, because tramps are worth nothing in our society. In reality both are human, have value and dignity as individuals, but you choose depending on your biased estimation of their worth. 2) Same q with a child and her gran. You save the child because the child has more potential of life - tho you wouldn't save the embryos in the first question although they have more life potential. 3) In the room are your two children. The decision is agonising but due to the ridiculous parameters of the hypothetical situation you have to make that decision. You save the nearest,but your decision doesn't mean you thought any less of the one further away who you couldn't reach. Your heart breaks. Until Patrick can answer me these, I will not consider the anti-abortion argument blown away.
You and the tramp could team up and save the child. Help is always useful.
Although I am pro abort, this argument is falasic. Now imagine THIS, the same situation, BUT the boy is your son and the container with all the embryos is instead the only cure for a terminal disease 1000 children have. Now, what would you do? Lie all you want, you would save your son, and that doesn't make the other children lives less important... That you have a more powerful empathic connection with one being, doesn't talk about the value of the others...
First of all, it is poor philosophy to try and force an either or situation on a person's morality. To suggest you can either do "A" or "B" but not make a better choice "C" is setting the parameters so the person has to make a choice that they will regret. In life we would go for the life of the older child over those embryo's. That does not mean we do not value the life of the unborn child. It means we see a more apparent life in the crying child. But I could shut the man up by asking him the same question in another way. If his 4 year old daughter is in danger of dying in one room and in another room there are 20 other children also in danger of dying and he has to pick saving his daughter, whom he loves and knows or 20 children he has never met before...which choice does he make? See, if he picks his daughter he devalues those other lives. But if he picks them, then he has stated he does not love or recognize his own daughter as a valuable life. Either way, he is a horrible man.
"First of all, it is poor philosophy to try and force an either or situation on a person's morality." Says who?
Hii.... I want to ask him, if he could save only one... Then he would... A. Pregnant Lady B. A normal woman... If it's A then you must understand that, there is something more to the lady that is not exactly a life but a developing one and so even destroying it is not very great.... I want to know his answer.... Because surely a life that is developing can never be greater than the one already developed, rest remaining constant... But the developing life is not to be taken for granted... This is what I feel..
Oh shut up. Thats an ancient greek philosophy technique. And I would save the 5 year old.
The 2 real take aways here are: 1) if you give him an answer he dislikes or disagrees with he resorts to name calling and insults. He doesn't want honest answers he wants either an echoing of his views or capitulation that his views are correct. 2) Anyone can build an untenable position, the classic 'inescapable box' as it were. As soon as you start limiting answers or building a scenario that can only go to A or B you've not only admitted that your point won't stand up to free discussion you've moved from adult discussion in to writing a teenage 'choose your adventure' story.
Totally agree with you Patrick. The argument is all about controlling women's bodies because that is how women can be kept in poverty, as a general rule.
Sometimes, also, there are decisions that are not clean or clear cut, but they have to be made, yet they involve both virtuous (or at least permissible) and immoral outcomes. For G*d’s sake, let’s take a thorough look at the Second World War, and the secondary killing of millions of civilians. Even the Mahatma had a troubled heart in parsing “just war theory” on that unparalleled tragedy. We need to have a lengthy and well-formed soul search, not a clever paradox about abortion.
Yes, it's a giant conspiracy, which involves tons of women by the way. I hope you buy your tinfoil in bulk.
If i would run out and save only myself because of survival instinct and fear kicing in. Would that mean i am pro murder?
Unless you started the fire with the intention of killing the baby then it would not be murder just a selfish act.
No, rather he blocks people on Twitter who perfectly answer his absurd question. Nobody was "shut down" except for his blocking them when he was proven wrong. http://www.dailywire.com/news/22368/abortion-activist-blocks-ben-shapiro-twitter-after-james-barrett
So you think that it's all right, that he should have to put up with death threats? Wow. That's your idea of "pro-life" is it, gestation slaver?
did you even read this link? Guy in it answers question, not sending "death threats".
No one has answered honestly? Or he does not like the answer? The question is an impossible situation. The longest an "embryo" can survive in a petri dish is 13 days. So, a container of thousands of embryo's in the same building, much less the same room as a 5 year old is about as probable as winning the same lottery 3 times in a row. The fallacy is not with the answer it is with the question. Its not a viable situation, its not a viable question. It reality it is simply impossible.
Also, I looked up how many embryos could actually fit in a real-life freezer container. The most-portable one I found was 12 lbs and held 100 straws. Would it be actually possible for me to pick up 120 pounds, and if the units are like the ones I saw, 12 handles at once? If the freezer or freezers is more stationary or heavier ... even worse! Even if I wanted to, could I move it? The child, providing the youngster is not kicking, screaming and flailing and is willing to come with me, would be physically easier for me to save. Furthermore, the average 5 -year-old is around 40 pounds ... far lighter than 120! What could I PHYSICALLY handle, given my strength, height and weight? This is one example of how this situation could not even exist as he posed it.
Trying to rationalize away how to not answer the question posed is exactly what one does that can't answer it honestly.
His question is a false dichotomy and an example of leading the witness; it doesn't destroy the pro-life stance that life begins at conception, or rather that human life has value from conception. This question deals with psychology, with the number of connections that a living thing has to our to stir our instinctual response. Of course most (hopefully all) of us would save the 5 year old child, it does not however mean that the embryos do not have value as human life.
Do sperm have value? If they don't have value, could I put a drug in the water of the entire planet that destroyed all sperm as soon as they formed?
The sperm and egg both have value. We live in an age of stupidity times 10 to the infinite power since the sexual revolution.
You could look at his question like this: The embryos could very well be replaced by a person in a coma. Although it would be horrific to leave the person in the coma to die, I would bet that most people would choose the child who is standing there staring at you. If those are your ONLY choices, instinctively you would choose the one who is consciously aware of what's about to happen to him. That doesn't mean one is more valuable than the other. It's just an awful predicament. Another thought about when life begins: If I drink and drive and hit a pregnant woman with my car and it results in the loss of her unborn baby, I could get vehicular homicide. The reason for the homicide charge is because the fetus is considered a life taken, not because it took away the woman's right to have the baby. If the argument is that it's not a life until birth, then that sentencing wouldn't be valid either.
Actually it's that simple. It really does mean the person in a coma is less valuable. Or at least, it means that the person making the decision to save the non-coma victim places more value on the non-coma victim than they do on the coma victim. A lot of people aren't comfortable with admitting that kind of thing, though. And there's not even a battle in a culture war over the relative values of lives of people who are or are not in comas. No one has the lives of coma victims being equal to the lives of non-coma victims as an explicit part of their cultural identity.
You forget, there are warriors who see things for what they are, and will die for even the most heinous individuals in this country or in any other, no matter how many ninnies they may be (apparently the U.S. is split down the middle of ninnies and decent human beings)
You don't know what the culture battle is or isn't saying, you presume because of the loudest voices AT THE MOMENT. Who is President? No, there are many a courageous men and women on the ACTUAL battle field who would put there lives in harms way to save any comatose brothers and sisters, even against lawful orders. Or men and women on the BATTLEFIELD who would do it for someone without legs when their own legs make them "more valuable" in your head.
From studying human biology, I cannot help but think of the amazing potential of the embryo/zygote. The human body is amazing. I feel like destroying an embryo would be a waste. BUT I also know that I have never pregnant. Therefore I know that I can never truly understand or judge a person for choosing to abort a pregnancy. I'm not in their situation. I don't know what they are experiencing. I have no right to judge them. I may feel sad if they choose to abort BUT the only right thing to do I suppose would be to support them in every way I can. They would be in a stressful situation. Judging them would not help them. Aborting your pregnancy doesn't make you a bad person (sorry for any typos).
There will always be pro-lifers and pro-abortioners. We may as well accept that fact and move on. I, for one, would be happy just being able to conceive...it's been a struggle.
We are all pro-life. Some of us believe having an abortion is a woman's choice, other people don't.
Yes, but the problem is pro-lifers want to control what women do with their bodies. Laws have been made and continue being made that limit women's access to birth control and abortions, because of other people's personal and religious beliefs. This is not a 'live and let live' situation.
Just a question as I do not know the answer, but just how are woman limited access to birth control? Do doctors not prescribe it, or pharmacies have restrictions on who to sell it to, or just how are they limited access?
I've asked it too and they never answer it, they try to deflect and change the s