When Does Life (Personhood) Begin? | Criminalizing Abortion

[@DrBSully]

Abortion Rights Overturned: How Dobbs v. Jackson Was Decided kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5a9epRre9FlkNU

[@denniswakabayashi9000]

​@bastiat Simple biology destroys the belief that the conception/zygote is a human being since 2 or more human beings can come from the same zygote/conception.

[@denniswakabayashi9000]

​@bastiat ONLY in the delusional minds of the control freaks is abortion murder SINCE there are no anti-abortion laws which would trigger murder charges.

[@unidahl5821]

You know it's bad when George Carlin brings the "good" arguments

[@henryharden]

I draw my line at viability. The definition of a living human is an independent animal that has complex functions and has free will and can feel. When the baby can survive on it’s own it is an independent animal that feels things and has complex functions such as brain waves

[@henryharden]

@Gi Gi yes but by that time the brain is functioning. It is viable to be born. If it can live independently then it deserves the moral weight of the mother UNLESS the mother is at risk of death or severe injury.

[@p4our587]

@@henryharden no… if it is conscious… it has the ability to know what "consciousness" means. What are your earliest memories? Before that… you didn't even know that you existed. … but the dilemma is… WE DO NOT ABORT BABIES! We DO NOT ABORT 6 MONTH OLD FETUS'! The time that it has been legal to abort… as far as I've ever known (… and I didn't keep a record book… so?), is when the fetus still looks like a mound of snot. There is activity in the goo… but not one organ, limb or cavity (why, "cavity"? the answer is, I HAVE NO IDEA?) is discernible. I have never seen so many people lose it over something that never happens! Ok… maybe it happened once? Maybe 10 times? MAYBE 100? Is that your big fight? That for the last 500 years… the 100 times that people aborted a fetubaby (fetus reaches the event horizon… half fetus/baby) in our country? I bet it hasn't even happened 100 times. … and… why is that mother going to face YOUR decision on the matter? Oh… wait… someone is calling me! May I answer it? Please, please… please… pretty please? Or… Can I go ahead & get that… and from now on? Mostly because you have nothing to do with my life?

[@henryharden]

@@p4our587 First of all, my “big fight” is to make sure that women can get an abortion if they need or want one without pain or fear, second of all, you shouldn’t worry about “mothers worrying about my decision/choice” because the entire basis of my choice is to allow people to CHOOSE whether or not to get an abortion. You clearly don’t understand so let me spell it out for you. If we go pro life, nobody can get an abortion. But if we go pro choice, you can still get an abortion if you need it, but you don’t have to, and you get the choice not to. There’s still options, and everyone can be happy, if we just allow people to do what they need. To and stay out of other peoples business.

[@smallfry7304]

That’s not the definition of human tho it’s more of a misconception of what the definition is or a sort of connotation

[@chrisarmon1002]

No matter where you draw the line. Should we be able to kill other humans based off a subjective view ? Example if I said I draw the line right until birth. You would agree we should not allow the killing of these humans right ?

[@michellepalmateer9208]

Love this one, looking forward to Part 2. Bloopers were a good add on. Also love the new background & microphone.

[@gopher7691]

Why does it matter whether the fetus can survive outside the womb? The premise is, if it can’t survive outside the womb it is ok to kill it. But why? The fetus is just as human before it can survive outside the womb? So what if it can’t survive outside the womb? This major premise must be examined for truth, not just asserted

[@chrisarmon1002]

A few things. So here would be my question to you. Do we allow the killing of other human beings based off a subjective view on what humans a person or not ? Example pro choice philosophy is all over the place on when a person exist some say after birth. Months after birth. Sentience ect Ect. Also we would have to get into the metaphysics of what are rights. Example do we have a right fully to our bodies ? Or some.

[@LifeTAX]

When does human life begin? human life begins at fertilization . If it is based on the environment in which he lives and depends on it, then all of us cannot live outside the earth, so does the environment affect the definition of something? If you say it is still a mass of cells, then we are all a mass of cells If you say he has no consciousness, every human being has his own degree of awareness, from the child to the old, and from the stupid to the smart If the fertilized eggs are released with the menstrual cycle, this is not an intentional abortion If you say in the case of the mother in danger, this is not an intentional abortion We are talking about deliberately ending a human life with the ability to carry it

[@ginzo666]

Gametes aren't human or alive?

[@someman7]

An embryo is unlike "skin cells, blood cells, all the sorts of cells in human body". All those are specialized cells, and the embryo is a complete human organism in the earliest stage of development. Embryonic stem cells divide into all other cells in the body. They do not belong to a body, they are the human body. Your presentation of the "pro-choice side" begs the question. You assume that being "independent" or "capable of surviving outside of the womb" are required for something to be called human. You give no reason why we should accept this criteria. Science tells us life begins at conception. Princeton's pro life "embryo quotes 2" page list numerous textbook sources that will tell you the same. As you admit in the beginning, this life is also human. As I explained above it's a complete organism. Putting all that together: It is a live human organism. In other words: A human being. Biologically speaking. Just like an infant is, even though it is not independent itself. Even though it's not completely developed (eg. soft spot). I should also correct your claim that brainwaves start to appear at the age of viability, they develop way sooner. Not that we can dehumanize some unborn based on not having produced their first brainwaves either. I would also beg to differ that pregnancy begins at implantation. A woman is pregnant as soon as there is an offspring* that gestates inside her womb. Gestation begins immediately, before the embryo is implanted. And since you mention the Bible, I have to say that it of course does not take the patently-incorrect stance that life begins at birth! I'm happy to discuss the quotes (or rather the pro-choice interpretation thereof) that you might have in mind / on a website. I understand you are not a biologist, neither am I. But as you see, biology tells us the unborn are human beings. I hope you reconsider your stance, and take the only scientific and the only really consistent position (it goes without saying that personhood is not a matter of opinion or polls thereof) * offspring in latin is fetus, although as you mentioned - human beings in the earliest stages of development are referred to zygotes (single cell) or embryos, before they are called fetuses (and later infants, toddlers, preadolescents, adolescents...)

[@andredunbar3773]

Should someone lose the right to make decisions about their own body just because someone else needs it to keep themselves alive?

[@someman7]

@@andredunbar3773 One has the legal right to not get pregnant. Once a person is pregnant, there is the right of the child to consider as well. Children have rights in relation to their parents, and they certainly have the most fundamental and basic right to life. Nor are they comparable to someone who is abusing someone else or compromising their bodily autonomy, they are the most innocent party in all this. The child is simply minding its own business, living and growing in the place where it was conceived by the parents, which is designed to host it, as is perfectly natural. The "choice" people are "pro" then is really killing the innocent child. No one has that right, and no one should be allowed to decide to commit murder.

[@andredunbar3773]

@@someman7 So, you're saying your answer is yes

[@someman7]

​@@andredunbar3773 Assuming there are no other means of feeding an infant, does its mother have a right not to breastfeed them? EDIT: Not that this is equivalent, if the mother had to kill the infant to stop breastfeeding it, that would more closely correspond to abortion.

[@andredunbar3773]

@@someman7 I don't see any equivalence here. With abortion, a zygote, embryo, or fetus is being removed from a uterus before birth, hence the term abortion (just look into the definition of the word "abort"). How is this equivalent to being in such dire straits that a mother can't breastfeed her child? And even then, there is the _option_ to give the already born child up for adoption.* Which kind of gets to the main point of my position: people should be free to choose to become a parent when they're ready to. Not when they wind up pregnant after having sex any number of times, which at least a few people that share your position seem to think (ya know the whole "pReGnAnCy AnD cHiLdBiRtH aRe CoNsEqUeNcEs Of HaViNg SeX, tHeReFoRe If SoMeOnE gEtS pReGnAnT tHeY sHoUlD bE fOrCeD tO cArRy It To TeRm" argument). *No, this isn't an endorsement of the nonsensically simplistic "aDoPtIoN iS a BeTtEr AltErNaTiVe To AbOrTiOn" position. I actually recognize that not everyone is just willing to give up the child they gave birth to on a whim, which is contrary to the some of the motives that your ideological allies assign to anyone that seeks out abortions (the whole "convenience" argument used to shame and/or demonize people that seek out abortion).