Josh__PeckWhat gives the majority the right to set those standards?

a thing called democracy. If the majority of people want Trump to be president. Okay, that's democracy. I won't agree with it, but it's democracy. If a majority of people are pro choice, then the laws should reflect that.

S.J.Wa thing called democracy. If the majority of people want Trump to be president. Okay, that's democracy. I won't agree with it, but it's democracy. If a majority of people are pro choice, then the laws should reflect that.

Democracy cannot set moral standards. By your logic, Jim Crow laws were justified because the majority of people wanted them

Josh__PeckDemocracy cannot set moral standards. By your logic, Jim Crow laws were justified because the majority of people wanted them

Then who sets moral standards? Everyone has different standards and in the case of democratic system, democracy chooses the most popular ones. It does not mean they are "justified", but they are the most widely supported.

.MASSHOLE.Then who sets moral standards? Everyone has different standards and in the case of democratic system, democracy chooses the most popular ones. It does not mean they are "justified", but they are the most widely supported.

And you don't see a problem with that?

NEPTRHillary is the most qualified person to ever run for president, If you want to risk a man that will try and deport millions of people spends millions of dollars on a wall that would literally deter no one from entering the us and has raped woman than your no better than him.

I wouldn't go as far as saying she's the most qualified, but let's get to the root of the issue in this election; Trump is by FAR the LEAST qualified candidate to ever run for POTUS, with literally zero political experience. This fact, in and of itself, should disqualify him as a real candidate.

All this other bullshit, his personality, his "scandals", are irrelevant after the fact that he doesn't belong anywhere near the running for the White House. I think the smart and educated people in our country will realize this and rally behind Hillary before it's too late, no matter how questionable her past (which isn't half as bad as Retardlicans would lead you to believe) since electing Trump will politically and economically destabilize not only our own country, but likely the entire world.

This is all you really need to hear on the choice in this election. Summed up perfectly.

TheHamburglarTrump is by FAR the LEAST qualified candidate to ever run for POTUS, with literally zero political experience. This fact, in and of itself, should disqualify him as a real candidate.

This is what's wrong with our country. We think people need political experience to be in office..so we elect career politicians over, and over, and over again who get nothing done and have no incentive to get anything done except ensure their own job security.

And no. That should not disqualify someone. It's not a democracy if that disqualifies someone.

Josh__PeckAnd you don't see a problem with that?

seriously, you're talking about racial segregation vs tissue matter that isn't even alive or sentiment. That's a pretty big straw man fallacy right there. I'm sick of talking about abortion, with people who know so little about it. So here's the facts.

A fetus can survive outside of the womb earliest of 20-24 weeks. 91% of abortions happen in the first trimester.That's 0 to 12 weeks. At that stage, it's a bunch of fucking cells. It's not a baby, it's not aware of it's own existence, it can't feel pain. 9% are in the second trimester, and about 100 are in the third trimester. Since when was a bunch of cells considered human life? And if so, then the number one biggest killer of babies, is the human body itself.

So, sit the fuck down, and prepare to be schooled on abortion.

If we prescribe to the conservative view that a fertilized egg is indeed human life, and needs to be protected. Then, it will come as a shock that 30-40% of fertilized eggs, will miscarry. This is why women are often late on periods, they were pregnant but the human life aborted itself. So God is actually the biggest aborter of human life, and not woman. Considering only 35% of women will have an abortion.

milk_manThis is what's wrong with our country. We think people need political experience to be in office..so we elect career politicians over, and over, and over again who get nothing done and have no incentive to get anything done except ensure their own job security.

And no. That should not disqualify someone. It's not a democracy if that disqualifies someone.

You wouldn't hire a dentist to do brain surgery, would you? Just because he has experience in a career somewhat related to political leadership doesn't mean he can do the job. Also, for example, Obama tried to do a LOT more than he accomplished, only to be blocked by a Republican congress every time. We need cohesive and forward leadership, not a brand businessman with no emotional self-control.

TheHamburglarbusinessman with no emotional self-control.

and to reiterate, no political experience whatsoever.

Josh__PeckAnd you don't see a problem with that?

You'd never reach a consensus otherwise and frankly there needs to be one whether it is about abortion, gay marriage, or any other civil right.

NEPTRthrowing out your ballot would also achieve the same, pull your head out of your ass and come to your senses. Hillary is the most qualified person to ever run for president, If you want to risk a man that will try and deport millions of people spends millions of dollars on a wall that would literally deter no one from entering the us and has raped woman than your no better than him.

Sorry I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils. Trump may not be qualified at all, and Hillary is certainly qualified, but I don't trust her. She's flip flopped on some major issues. She panders almost as hard as Trump. I'm going to vote, but regardless of where that vote goes it will not go to either of them. I couldn't give two fucks what any body thinks.

Also Hillary supporters are almost as insufferable as Trump supporters.

S.J.Wseriously, you're talking about racial segregation vs tissue matter that isn't even alive or sentiment

First of all you didn't refute my original points from earlier, then you proceed to bitch and moan about my "strawman" argument. Hypocrisy much.

Oh and I'm pretty sure a human zygote is a form of life, and anyone with an 8th grade understanding of human biology would know that.

I actually enjoyed discussing this topic with Onenerdykid because he can debate like an actual adult and not some millenial frat boy who thinks he has everything figured out.

Josh__PeckFirst of all you didn't refute my original points from earlier, then you proceed to bitch and moan about my "strawman" argument. Hypocrisy much.

Oh and I'm pretty sure a human zygote is a form of life, and anyone with an 8th grade understanding of human biology would know that.

I actually enjoyed discussing this topic with Onenerdykid because he can debate like an actual adult and not some millenial frat boy who thinks he has everything figured out.

but it literally is a straw man fallacy. You think a fetus has the same rights as a person. You seem to have ignored the part of my post about how the human body and GOD, is the number one biggest aborter of life. But hey, who needs facts, when you can just ad hominemly attack me?

Secondly, you also ignored my post about when abortions occur. 91% of them occur in the first trimester. Do those tiny bunch of cells, which are still forming into a fully formed fetus look like life to you? And if you say they are. You must also then recognize the part of my post about how the human body is the number one aborter of life.

You don't like abortions. It's simple, don't get one. But stop trying to make the choice for other woman,and what's best for their body. An abortion is no ones choice but the woman's. Not yours, not the governments, no ones! Is that really so hard to get?

S.J.Wbut it literally is a straw man fallacy. You think a fetus has the same rights as a person. You seem to have ignored the part of my post about how the human body and GOD, is the number one biggest aborter of life. But hey, who needs facts, when you can just ad hominemly attack me?

Secondly, you also ignored my post about when abortions occur. 91% of them occur in the first trimester. Do those tiny bunch of cells, which are still forming into a fully formed fetus look like life to you? And if you say they are. You must also then recognize the part of my post about how the human body is the number one aborter of life.

You don't like abortions. It's simple, don't get one. But stop trying to make the choice for other woman,and what's best for their body. An abortion is no ones choice but the woman's. Not yours, not the governments, no ones! Is that really so hard to get?

1. "You think a fetus has the same rights as a person."

You have yet to refute this point

2. "human body and GOD, is the number one biggest aborter of life."

In regards to this statement: Miscarriage is not considered abortion you dense motherfucker.

3. "you also ignored my post about when abortions occur. 91% of them occur in the first trimester. Do those tiny bunch of cells, which are still forming into a fully formed fetus look like life to you?"

Yes it is life. Again, anyone with an 8th grade understanding of biology would know that.

4. "You must also then recognize the part of my post about how the human body is the number one aborter of life."

Refer to number 2

5. "You don't like abortions. It's simple, don't get one. But stop trying to make the choice for other woman,and what's best for their body. An abortion is no ones choice but the woman's. Not yours, not the governments, no ones! Is that really so hard to get?"

I'm not arguing that it's my choice, or the governments choice. I'm arguing that it's no ones choice, not even the woman's. Abortion infringes on an unborn human's right to live. Is that really so hard to get?

And now for my ad hominem attack:

You really have a gross superiority complex Eric. You're an egotistical Aussie douche, and you think you're 100% right every fucking time. I got news for you kiddo. You're not. You're convictions and beliefs aren't the flawless, viable, solutions you think they are. Grow the fuck up

Josh__Peck5. "You don't like abortions. It's simple, don't get one. But stop trying to make the choice for other woman,and what's best for their body. An abortion is no ones choice but the woman's. Not yours, not the governments, no ones! Is that really so hard to get?"

I'm not arguing that it's my choice, or the governments choice. I'm arguing that it's no ones choice, not even the woman's. Abortion infringes on an unborn human's right to live. Is that really so hard to get?

So why is a mothers' life worth less than a baby's life when her life is in danger? Why is genetic life considered more important than actual legal human life?

You argue that it is not the government's choice, yet, who dictates the right to live besides them? God? What if people do not believe in God?

Josh__Peck1. "You think a fetus has the same rights as a person."

You have yet to refute this point

2. "human body and GOD, is the number one biggest aborter of life."

In regards to this statement: Miscarriage is not considered abortion you dense motherfucker.

3. "you also ignored my post about when abortions occur. 91% of them occur in the first trimester. Do those tiny bunch of cells, which are still forming into a fully formed fetus look like life to you?"

Yes it is life. Again, anyone with an 8th grade understanding of biology would know that.

4. "You must also then recognize the part of my post about how the human body is the number one aborter of life."

Refer to number 2

5. "You don't like abortions. It's simple, don't get one. But stop trying to make the choice for other woman,and what's best for their body. An abortion is no ones choice but the woman's. Not yours, not the governments, no ones! Is that really so hard to get?"

I'm not arguing that it's my choice, or the governments choice. I'm arguing that it's no ones choice, not even the woman's. Abortion infringes on an unborn human's right to live. Is that really so hard to get?

And now for my ad hominem attack:

You really have a gross superiority complex Eric. You're an egotistical Aussie douche, and you think you're 100% right every fucking time. I got news for you kiddo. You're not. You're convictions and beliefs aren't the flawless, viable, solutions you think they are. Grow the fuck up

lol again with the attacks.

(1) I never said a miscarriage was an abortion. I was simply showing you that if you consider abortion to be murder, then in fact the human body and the beloved god you hold so deer is the biggest murderer.

Additionally, a miscarriage is the unplanned failure of a fetus before it can survive on it's own. What I'm talking about is a fertilized egg (according to you this is life) failing to make it's way to the womb. An embryo isn't considered a fetus scientifically until around 9 weeks. So for someone who seems to be so profound in the knowledge of pregnancy, you seem to be lacking a basic understanding of terms.

abortion=/=miscarriage

miscarriage=/=failure to attach to uterus.

(2)...So cells are life? Does that mean everyone should stop blowing their load into a condom? You know, sperm swim, and they're a bunch of cells. Is that murder of sperm cells?

(3). Roe V Wade. It happened, it's a thing. 60% of all countries have abortion. Only two first world nations, have abortion as illegal. Why? Because everyone knows woman will have abortions. A baby is a big fucking commitment, and majority of woman and men can't afford to have a baby. You're more fucking worried about a bunch of cells which aren't even sentient vs wanting woman to take their pregnancies to term and give birth. Then what? You are going to have 700k extra children who will rely on the government for assistance, grow up in homes where you have mothers who are incapable to raise a baby. Not know who their dads are, and a host of other reasons why woman get abortions. You are not pro life. You are pro birth. You don't give a fuck about these babies, otherwise you'd care how they would be taken care of after their birth. But instead you vote for a political party who wants to cut social welfare, and anything to help struggling mothers. Don't call yourself pro life, when you don't care how these children are going to be fed.

And lol at your ad hominem attack... Congratulations, you know my name and nationality. Be fucking whoop tee do. Want to follow me on the gram to see what I've been up to? Maybe add me on facebook? You act like knowing my name is a big fucking deal. HEY EVERYONE MY NAME IS ERIC. HOLY SHIT!!!! What a fucking revelation. He has a name! What else do you wanna know about me?

And how is me posting my opinion, any different to you posting yours? You think you're right, I think I'm right. You're literally just like me, except with more logical fallacies. If I have a superiority complex then you must also have one considering you seem to be staunch about your beliefs as well. (please explain how I have a superiority complex, I will love to hear your reasoning for that).

.MASSHOLE.So why is a mothers' life worth less than a baby's life when her life is in danger?

No one is saying this. I am saying that a convenience is worth less than a baby's life. If we limited abortions to rape and when the mother's life is in danger that would be a good step.

milk_manNo one is saying this. I am saying that a convenience is worth less than a baby's life. If we limited abortions to rape and when the mother's life is in danger that would be a good step.

But that's not going to stop abortions. Prior to Roe V Wade. Back room abortions happened, it's not like Roe V Wade happened then all the woman were just like fuck yeah. I can now have abortions. No, Roe V Wade was ruled because women's life were in danger by shotty back room abortions. 5000 woman died each year prior to Roe V Wade. Woman are going to have abortions, a baby is a big fucking deal. And whether you agree with abortion or not is irrelevant. But shouldn't we provide woman a safe space to safety and professionally terminate their pregnancies? You are not stopping abortion by making it illegal, you are just making it more dangerous.

S.J.Wlol again with the attacks.

(2)...So cells are life? Does that mean everyone should stop blowing their load into a condom? You know, sperm swim, and they're a bunch of cells. Is that murder of sperm cells?

(3). Roe V Wade. It happened, it's a thing. 60% of all countries have abortion. Only two first world nations, have abortion as illegal. Why? Because everyone knows woman will have abortions. A baby is a big fucking commitment, and majority of woman and men can't afford to have a baby. You're more fucking worried about a bunch of cells which aren't even sentient vs wanting woman to take their pregnancies to term and give birth. Then what? You are going to have 700k extra children who will rely on the government for assistance, grow up in homes where you have mothers who are incapable to raise a baby. Not know who their dads are, and a host of other reasons why woman get abortions. You are not pro life. You are pro birth. You don't give a fuck about these babies, otherwise you'd care how they would be taken care of after their birth. But instead you vote for a political party who wants to cut social welfare, and anything to help struggling mothers. Don't call yourself pro life, when you don't care how these children are going to be fed.

Cells aren't life until sperm meets egg. Just because sperm swim around doesn't inherently mean it's life. A sperm cell and egg cell can't do anything until they meet so it's not murder just blowing a load, that's a weak argument. The moment they meet is the moment that life has a chance. No one should have the right to take that chance away if we all consider life precious and worth something.

If a baby is a big commitment then shouldn't a couple think their decisions through? Shouldn't the parents take some god damn responsibility if there is a chance they might get pregnant? How about people that can't afford to have a baby don't have a baby. It should be that easy. Or maybe single mothers shouldn't plan on having a baby if they wont be able to comfortably support it. We shouldn't have to rely on people, government, or abortions because people are too god damn stupid and irresponsible when it comes to another humans life. If people start acting responsible then we wouldn't have as much of an issue with the welfare system taking care of them.

S.J.WBut that's not going to stop abortions. Prior to Roe V Wade. Back room abortions happened, it's not like Roe V Wade happened then all the woman were just like fuck yeah. I can now have abortions. No, Roe V Wade was ruled because women's life were in danger by shotty back room abortions. 5000 woman died each year prior to Roe V Wade. Woman are going to have abortions, a baby is a big fucking deal. And whether you agree with abortion or not is irrelevant. But shouldn't we provide woman a safe space to safety and professionally terminate their pregnancies? You are not stopping abortion by making it illegal, you are just making it more dangerous.

I would just like to point out that the 5,000 women dying every year before roe v wade has been proven false. It wasn't that many

S.J.WBut that's not going to stop abortions. Prior to Roe V Wade. Back room abortions happened, it's not like Roe V Wade happened then all the woman were just like fuck yeah. I can now have abortions. No, Roe V Wade was ruled because women's life were in danger by shotty back room abortions. 5000 woman died each year prior to Roe V Wade. Woman are going to have abortions, a baby is a big fucking deal. And whether you agree with abortion or not is irrelevant. But shouldn't we provide woman a safe space to safety and professionally terminate their pregnancies? You are not stopping abortion by making it illegal, you are just making it more dangerous.

Murder isn't illegal because it will completely stop it from happening. It's illegal so less of it will happen. That's the goal for abortion too

.MASSHOLE.=You argue that it is not the government's choice, yet, who dictates the right to live besides them? God? What if people do not believe in God?

Exactly, this is the underlying problem here with abortion, gay marriage, etc is that it is frowned upon by people who are religious, who then impose that into legislation because its the moral thing to do. This is bullshit because 1. god does not exist, all religions are fictional and 2. it causes our politics to be so god damn close minded and accuse people of 'murder' for having an abortion because they are not ready for a child. The separation between church and state is so fucking gone right now, it needs to be fixed and dip shits like milk and josh running around with their bibles in their front pockets telling people what they should or should not do is what makes it worse.

Its almost 2017 boys, you guys would've been better off in the 1800 with your narrow minded conservative bullshit.

Answer this question milk and josh, why do you think you have the right to tell a women that she can't have an abortion? She doesn't want to have a baby, its her choice, not yours, so why do you think you can tell her otherwise? Any response that includes anything religious or anything to do with comparing it to 'murder' its completely invalid in my opinion and to most people who arent brainwashed sheep, so please, dazzle me.

eheathExactly, this is the underlying problem here with abortion, gay marriage, etc is that it is frowned upon by people who are religious, who then impose that into legislation because its the moral thing to do. This is bullshit because 1. god does not exist, all religions are fictional and 2. it causes our politics to be so god damn close minded and accuse people of 'murder' for having an abortion because they are not ready for a child. The separation between church and state is so fucking gone right now, it needs to be fixed and dip shits like milk and josh running around with their bibles in their front pockets telling people what they should or should not do is what makes it worse.

Its almost 2017 boys, you guys would've been better off in the 1800 with your narrow minded conservative bullshit.

Answer this question milk and josh, why do you think you have the right to tell a women that she can't have an abortion? She doesn't want to have a baby, its her choice, not yours, so why do you think you can tell her otherwise? Any response that includes anything religious or anything to do with comparing it to 'murder' its completely invalid in my opinion and to most people who arent brainwashed sheep, so please, dazzle me.

How is that a women's choice. No one should have the choice to decide if a baby is born or not. all life is precious. that's not religious belief, that is and should be a common belief among everyone. No one should have the right to decide anothers life because of convenience to them and their life. Out of all the decisions we make in life we shouldn't be able to make that one. The women, or couple, should take responsibility for themselves and their actions. Either take the precautions to not get pregnant or don't have sex. That's not 1800 conservatism, that's what will.work

Iraq_LobsterHow is that a women's choice. No one should have the choice to decide if a baby is born or not. all life is precious. that's not religious belief, that is and should be a common belief among everyone. No one should have the right to decide anothers life because of convenience to them and their life. Out of all the decisions we make in life we shouldn't be able to make that one. The women, or couple, should take responsibility for themselves and their actions. Either take the precautions to not get pregnant or don't have sex. That's not 1800 conservatism, that's what will.work

Its 2016, people have sex before marriage, hell with complete strangers, and mistakes happen, you want a young woman who made a mistake to be forced into having a baby if she doesnt want to? As it has been stated, in the first trimester its just cells, its not like shes giving birth then killing it. You could take this as far as saying if you have sex and prevent pregnancy with some sort of birth control, then you are preventing a precious life. The women has the choice, she will likely want a child in her life when she is ready and just because she had an abortion doesnt change anything.

Its bullshit that ANYONE thinks they can tell a women otherwise, you also used an incorrect response (comparing to murder) so your argument in my opinion is invalid.

Josh__PeckWhat gives the majority the right to set those standards?

democracy

eheathExactly, this is the underlying problem here with abortion, gay marriage, etc is that it is frowned upon by people who are religious, who then impose that into legislation because its the moral thing to do. This is bullshit because 1. god does not exist, all religions are fictional and 2. it causes our politics to be so god damn close minded and accuse people of 'murder' for having an abortion because they are not ready for a child. The separation between church and state is so fucking gone right now, it needs to be fixed and dip shits like milk and josh running around with their bibles in their front pockets telling people what they should or should not do is what makes it worse.

Its almost 2017 boys, you guys would've been better off in the 1800 with your narrow minded conservative bullshit.

Answer this question milk and josh, why do you think you have the right to tell a women that she can't have an abortion? She doesn't want to have a baby, its her choice, not yours, so why do you think you can tell her otherwise? Any response that includes anything religious or anything to do with comparing it to 'murder' its completely invalid in my opinion and to most people who arent brainwashed sheep, so please, dazzle me.

You're a fucking retard.

1. It's not an issue with religion, it's an issue of subjective vs. Objective morality

2. Why do you think women have the right to choose wether or not a child should live? And if you want to bitch and moan about how my convictions are "archaic" maybe you should take a look at how the ancient Greeks practiced infanticide and abortion at such a high rate that it contributed to their downfall.

ebotdzdemocracy

That doesn't answer my question. Thats like asking "What causes cancer" and you answering me with "cancer"

milk_manNo one is saying this. I am saying that a convenience is worth less than a baby's life. If we limited abortions to rape and when the mother's life is in danger that would be a good step.

But at what point is genetic life legal life? What if there is a good chance the baby comes out with either mental or physical deficiencies? Who gets to dictate why the ease of someone else's life is worth less than a baby's (if you can call it that pre-20 weeks) life?

You are imposing moral standards set by your religion onto society whether or not you reference God/Allah/Whatever your deity is. Your moral code is different than mine, which is different than Joe Blow, Billy Boy, etc.

As it stands however, much of this country supports the belief that a woman should be able to do what she likes with her body because the majority finds it acceptable under their moral codes whether or not they are driven by religion. You are allowed to have your beliefs and live by your codes, but it is not allowed to force it upon others through legislation or any other sort of governmental act.

Pro-Choice gives the mother the ability to say yes or no to an abortion, Pro-Life gives them one option and that is no.

eheathExactly, this is the underlying problem here with abortion, gay marriage, etc is that it is frowned upon by people who are religious, who then impose that into legislation because its the moral thing to do. This is bullshit because 1. god does not exist, all religions are fictional and 2. it causes our politics to be so god damn close minded and accuse people of 'murder' for having an abortion because they are not ready for a child.

Answer this question milk and josh, why do you think you have the right to tell a women that she can't have an abortion? She doesn't want to have a baby, its her choice, not yours, so why do you think you can tell her otherwise? Any response that includes anything religious or anything to do with comparing it to 'murder' its completely invalid in my opinion and to most people who arent brainwashed sheep, so please, dazzle me.

I think that the crux of the pro-life argument is that their moral standards come from religion and everyone should live by those standards. They don't realize that all us "heathens" don't give a flying fuck about whether or not there is a God and have our own moral codes brought about by different things.

S.J.Wlol again with the attacks.

(1) I never said a miscarriage was an abortion. I was simply showing you that if you consider abortion to be murder, then in fact the human body and the beloved god you hold so deer is the biggest murderer.

Additionally, a miscarriage is the unplanned failure of a fetus before it can survive on it's own. What I'm talking about is a fertilized egg (according to you this is life) failing to make it's way to the womb. An embryo isn't considered a fetus scientifically until around 9 weeks. So for someone who seems to be so profound in the knowledge of pregnancy, you seem to be lacking a basic understanding of terms.

abortion=/=miscarriage

miscarriage=/=failure to attach to uterus.

(2)...So cells are life? Does that mean everyone should stop blowing their load into a condom? You know, sperm swim, and they're a bunch of cells. Is that murder of sperm cells?

(3). Roe V Wade. It happened, it's a thing. 60% of all countries have abortion. Only two first world nations, have abortion as illegal. Why? Because everyone knows woman will have abortions. A baby is a big fucking commitment, and majority of woman and men can't afford to have a baby. You're more fucking worried about a bunch of cells which aren't even sentient vs wanting woman to take their pregnancies to term and give birth. Then what? You are going to have 700k extra children who will rely on the government for assistance, grow up in homes where you have mothers who are incapable to raise a baby. Not know who their dads are, and a host of other reasons why woman get abortions. You are not pro life. You are pro birth. You don't give a fuck about these babies, otherwise you'd care how they would be taken care of after their birth. But instead you vote for a political party who wants to cut social welfare, and anything to help struggling mothers. Don't call yourself pro life, when you don't care how these children are going to be fed.

And lol at your ad hominem attack... Congratulations, you know my name and nationality. Be fucking whoop tee do. Want to follow me on the gram to see what I've been up to? Maybe add me on facebook? You act like knowing my name is a big fucking deal. HEY EVERYONE MY NAME IS ERIC. HOLY SHIT!!!! What a fucking revelation. He has a name! What else do you wanna know about me?

And how is me posting my opinion, any different to you posting yours? You think you're right, I think I'm right. You're literally just like me, except with more logical fallacies. If I have a superiority complex then you must also have one considering you seem to be staunch about your beliefs as well. (please explain how I have a superiority complex, I will love to hear your reasoning for that).

1. You directly implied it. In addition to this you are grossly ignorant in regards to how theology works.

2. Sperms is not life, but a human zygote is.

3. So since babies are a big commitment, thending murdering them is justified?

I'm so sick of you autistic liberals acting like you're morally superior and completely infallible with your beliefs. America doesnt have a religious vs. Non-religious problem. It has a morality problem and it's being fed by all these dumbfuck millenials who don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

.MASSHOLE.I think that the crux of the pro-life argument is that their moral standards come from religion and everyone should live by those standards. They don't realize that all us "heathens" don't give a flying fuck about whether or not there is a God and have our own moral codes brought about by different things.

Morality is objective wethe or not you're religious

Iraq_LobsterHow is that a women's choice. No one should have the choice to decide if a baby is born or not. all life is precious. that's not religious belief, that is and should be a common belief among everyone. No one should have the right to decide anothers life because of convenience to them and their life. Out of all the decisions we make in life we shouldn't be able to make that one. The women, or couple, should take responsibility for themselves and their actions. Either take the precautions to not get pregnant or don't have sex. That's not 1800 conservatism, that's what will.work

Are you serious? Is taking or using birth control not responsible? You know no form of birth control is 100% effective right? Short of abstinence that is, but if you believe people are going to stop having sex you are completely unrealistic. It doesn't matter what you think, abortions will always happen. Condoms break. Other forms of birth control still fail. By using these you are being responsible but you still believe that if they fail the woman should still have the baby? Subjugate that child to incredible hardship? That's literally insane. And sorry to burst your bubble but it is a woman's choice, she has the fucking fetus growing inside her. Men should have the absolute last say on this matter. Pull your head out of your ass.

Charlie_KellyAre you serious? Is taking or using birth control not responsible? You know no form of birth control is 100% effective right? Short of abstinence that is, but if you believe people are going to stop having sex you are completely unrealistic. It doesn't matter what you think, abortions will always happen. Condoms break. Other forms of birth control still fail. By using these you are being responsible but you still believe that if they fail the woman should still have the baby? Subjugate that child to incredible hardship? That's literally insane. And sorry to burst your bubble but it is a woman's choice, she has the fucking fetus growing inside her. Men should have the absolute last say on this matter. Pull your head out of your ass.

Pro-choice logic: This child is going to have a hard life so we might as well kill it now

Josh__Peck1. You directly implied it. In addition to this you are grossly ignorant in regards to how theology works.

2. Sperms is not life, but a human zygote is.

3. So since babies are a big commitment, thending murdering them is justified?

I'm so sick of you autistic liberals acting like you're morally superior and completely infallible with your beliefs. America doesnt have a religious vs. Non-religious problem. It has a morality problem and it's being fed by all these dumbfuck millenials who don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

1. Again with the whole I don't know how something works argument. Getting kinda old bud, find something new. Because clearly I know how pregnancy works, I'm providing scientific backed facts. An embryo isn't a fetus until around 9 weeks. And then a fetus can't survive outside the womb until around 20 weeks. Long after majority of abortions happen. Your entire argument is essentially a begging the question fallacy. But I've seen from your posts that you love a good logical fallacy. So I'll just ignore that, like I'll ignore you once i make this post.

2. You literally said, cells are life. If cells are life, then sperm is life. And masturbation is murder. I'm just going by your logic here bud.

3. again, begging the question fallacy that cells are life. There has been no scientific consensus here. But if you believe cells are life, then sperm is also life. You see where your shitty logic goes wrong? Cells are life? Great, I guess stem cell research is killing millions of people each year then. You know, since cells are life.

4. Roe V Wade, happened in 1973, this isn't a millennial shift you moronic cunt. Abortion isn't some new age millennial trend, like hipsters. It's been around for a long fucking time. And no, religion is the dumbest fucking thing.How many fucking athiests do you see murdering people? How many atheists have bombed a fucking building? Or shot up an abortion clinic? Muslims, Christians, Jews. You're all fucking dumb brain washed idiots, into believing into some higher power. What good has religion ever done?Religion is a cancer to society, out of the millions upon billions of possible gods humans have, or ever could create. Yours is the only one that is real. Fuck off, you dumb, small town, basement dweller, no friends, suicidal watch cunt. Grow the fuck up, believing in religion, is the same as believing in Santa Claus. You're the reason I am pro choice. Dumb fucks like you, should have been aborted. If your parents knew they're kid was going to be a retarded cunt, who has no friends then I would want to abort it as well. Or maybe you were just a failed abortion, and that's why you're so fucking slow? Either way, the world will not miss your prehistoric, logical fallacy using, bible thumping lard of a human being when you die. Fuck off, cunt. I'm done, thank fuck your opinion doesn't mean shit, Clinton will win the election, and Roe V Wade won't be over turned. Must suck living a life knowing your precious conservative views are whittling away. This election is the last stand of the white male, and you're still fuckign losing to a fucking crook politician. Shows, how fucking shit the republican party is. Just fuck off already.Can't wait to cunts like you are nothing more than a page in a history book.

Josh__PeckMorality is objective wethe or not you're religious

Wait, are you serious? Morality is not objective in the slightest. Morals (that are not rooted in religion) are based off personal experience, personal beliefs, not some global standard that everyone adheres to. Only religious morals are objective as they are stated in a holy text.

Moral (n.)

a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

Jesus.

eheathIts almost 2017 boys, you guys would've been better off in the 1800 with your narrow minded conservative bullshit.

Answer this question milk and josh, why do you think you have the right to tell a women that she can't have an abortion? She doesn't want to have a baby, its her choice, not yours, so why do you think you can tell her otherwise? Any response that includes anything religious or anything to do with comparing it to 'murder' its completely invalid in my opinion and to most people who arent brainwashed sheep, so please, dazzle me.

As if morality is dependent on the calendar year..

The same reason I feel like I have the right to tell something they can't kill someone else or steal someone's stuff. They are affecting a life other than their own, and that's why they shouldn't have the right to do it. (Except in certain cases)...

Look, I don't just hold these views to be a part of some pack. It's not a whole "us" against "them" thing for me. I actually care about the babies. I have two nephews and and a niece and they are 100% blessings to all of us. I can't comprehend someone throwing away a little life because they aren't ready or are scared to face the consequences of their actions. We don't have a right to not face the consequences of our actions. But we sure as heck run away from those consequences with all our might.

Josh__PeckPro-choice logic: This child is going to have a hard life so we might as well kill it now

Not a child in the first or second trimester. Nice try tho...

milk_manAs if morality is dependent on the calendar year..

The same reason I feel like I have the right to tell something they can't kill someone else or steal someone's stuff. They are affecting a life other than their own, and that's why they shouldn't have the right to do it. (Except in certain cases)...

Look, I don't just hold these views to be a part of some pack. It's not a whole "us" against "them" thing for me. I actually care about the babies. I have two nephews and and a niece and they are 100% blessings to all of us. I can't comprehend someone throwing away a little life because they aren't ready or are scared to face the consequences of their actions. We don't have a right to not face the consequences of our actions. But we sure as heck run away from those consequences with all our might.

Well but you're ignoring the distinction between legal life, genetic life, and cellular life. They are not one in the same thing. Legal life starts at birth (which is usually post week-22 as babies born prior have only a 25% chance of living in expert medical care), genetic life starts after a zygote is formed, and cellular life starts when a cell is formed.

milk_manAs if morality is dependent on the calendar year..

The same reason I feel like I have the right to tell something they can't kill someone else or steal someone's stuff. They are affecting a life other than their own, and that's why they shouldn't have the right to do it. (Except in certain cases)...

Look, I don't just hold these views to be a part of some pack. It's not a whole "us" against "them" thing for me. I actually care about the babies. I have two nephews and and a niece and they are 100% blessings to all of us. I can't comprehend someone throwing away a little life because they aren't ready or are scared to face the consequences of their actions. We don't have a right to not face the consequences of our actions. But we sure as heck run away from those consequences with all our might.

Except with murdering or stealing you are effecting someone with consciousness. A fetus isn't even aware it's alive, you are not causing them hardship, you aren't taking anything away from them. They aren't even aware they exist. Terrible argument.

milk_manAs if morality is dependent on the calendar year..

And you are fitting morals into a quaint little box. Morals are not objective unless you follow a religion and yet even then people still follow them subjectively. By believing everyone should have the same morals as you you are insinuating that your morals are more important/better/purer than others which is an issue.

Charlie_KellyExcept with murdering or stealing you are effecting someone with consciousness. A fetus isn't even aware it's alive, you are not causing them hardship, you aren't taking anything away from them. They aren't even aware they exist. Terrible argument.

That's a pretty big claim. Babies inside the womb can respond to sounds. They hear a certain sound and they move around. After a certain point, but still.

When people are asleep they are not aware they exist. Better change our laws to allow murder as long as the person is sleeping.

milk_manThat's a pretty big claim. Babies inside the womb can respond to sounds. They hear a certain sound and they move around. After a certain point, but still.

When people are asleep they are not aware they exist. Better change our laws to allow murder as long as the person is sleeping.

See you and others like you make these blanket statements for the entire pregnancy. Each term is completely different from the other. Fetuses don't even have the ability to hear sound until 18 weeks. Flawed logic is flawed.

Charlie_KellySee you and others like you make these blanket statements for the entire pregnancy. Each term is completely different from the other. Fetuses don't even have the ability to hear sound until 18 weeks. Flawed logic is flawed.

A baby just outside of the womb isn't much more aware than a baby in the womb

Josh__Peck1. "You think a fetus has the same rights as a person."

You have yet to refute this point

2. "human body and GOD, is the number one biggest aborter of life."

In regards to this statement: Miscarriage is not considered abortion you dense motherfucker.

3. "you also ignored my post about when abortions occur. 91% of them occur in the first trimester. Do those tiny bunch of cells, which are still forming into a fully formed fetus look like life to you?"

Yes it is life. Again, anyone with an 8th grade understanding of biology would know that.

4. "You must also then recognize the part of my post about how the human body is the number one aborter of life."

Refer to number 2

5. "You don't like abortions. It's simple, don't get one. But stop trying to make the choice for other woman,and what's best for their body. An abortion is no ones choice but the woman's. Not yours, not the governments, no ones! Is that really so hard to get?"

I'm not arguing that it's my choice, or the governments choice. I'm arguing that it's no ones choice, not even the woman's. Abortion infringes on an unborn human's right to live. Is that really so hard to get?

And now for my ad hominem attack:

You really have a gross superiority complex Eric. You're an egotistical Aussie douche, and you think you're 100% right every fucking time. I got news for you kiddo. You're not. You're convictions and beliefs aren't the flawless, viable, solutions you think they are. Grow the fuck up

man i hate SJW as much as everyone else here but you are a fucking retard. Not one point you made here makes any sense.

milk_manA baby just outside of the womb isn't much more aware than a baby in the womb

There is no such thing as a baby inside the womb. It is a fetus until birth in which it then becomes a baby...

Josh__PeckSolid rebuttal but you haven't answered my last question; Who has the authority to set standards for humanity?

As with all definitions, there would need to be a consensus reached through dialectic, sharing of arguments, sharing of evidence, etc. As you argue, morality is objective (to which I would agree) and therefore when you have those touch points, you arrive at the consensus. Now, obviously there is disagreement as to what constitutes that consensus but I will agree with you that one (or multiple, non-contradictory answers) would exist..

Josh__PeckMorality is objective wethe or not you're religious

.MASSHOLE.Wait, are you serious? Morality is not objective in the slightest. Morals (that are not rooted in religion) are based off personal experience, personal beliefs, not some global standard that everyone adheres to. Only religious morals are objective as they are stated in a holy text.

Moral (n.)

a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

Jesus.

When morality is argued as objective, it simply means that its grounding is irrespective of our subjective wishes/interests. When it is argued as subjective, it means that its grounding is solely within the individual's wishes/interests.

Just because many people argue for different kinds of morality, many of which are contradictory to each other, it doesn't negate the possibility of objective morality. It just means that one side (or both sides) is wrong about the topic.

Most every major ethical treatise is one concerning objective morality (Aristotelian Virtue Theory, Kantian Deontology, or Mill's Utilitarianism). Only recently (as an over-reaction to western imperialism, many argue) has moral relativism become a popular sentiment. However, if people do agree that there are starting points that humans by and large share, then it is really hard to argue for moral relativism.

FYI- using the dictionary to argue a point commits the fallacy of definition. The dictionary is not the ultimate and infallible source of knowledge.

onenerdykidWhen morality is argued as objective, it simply means that its grounding is irrespective of our subjective wishes/interests. When it is argued as subjective, it means that its grounding is solely within the individual's wishes/interests.

Just because many people argue for different kinds of morality, many of which are contradictory to each other, it doesn't negate the possibility of objective morality. It just means that one side (or both sides) is wrong about the topic.

Most every major ethical treatise is one concerning objective morality (Aristotelian Virtue Theory, Kantian Deontology, or Mill's Utilitarianism). Only recently (as an over-reaction to western imperialism, many argue) has moral relativism become a popular sentiment. However, if people do agree that there are starting points that humans by and large share, then it is really hard to argue for moral relativism.

FYI- using the dictionary to argue a point commits the fallacy of definition. The dictionary is not the ultimate and infallible source of knowledge.

If my my understanding of what you are saying is correct and morality can be objective, that means that there is some inherent "state/system of beliefs" that every human at their core contains and that there are no exceptions to this state. I can't say I agree with that. I think that while there are common linkages (do not kill, do not steal, etc) that connect everyone's morals, I think the interpretation of what exact actions constitute moral or immoral ones differs upon everyone's upbringing, hence why morality is more subjective than objective in my eyes.

Now, I am not too familiar with Aristotle's position on ethics or morality, but I did a quick skim over some of it and it seems to me that he argues that morality comes from upbringing and habit of action which can lead to a life of "virtue". To me, that is not an objective morality but rather moral relativism. A life of virtue for a Greek noble is entirely different than a life of virtue for a Greek slave.

I haven't read a lot of Kante, and I haven't read all of his work on ethics, but his categorical imperative seems (to me) to leave itself open to allow for personal interpretation for what is good versus what is right.

I won't claim to have an extensive knowledge of philosophers or great thinkers like those you listed as I have only come across them a few times in some Political Science classes a long time ago, but to me they seemed they all talked about rationality.

.MASSHOLE.If my my understanding of what you are saying is correct and morality can be objective, that means that there is some inherent "state/system of beliefs" that every human at their core contains and that there are no exceptions to this state. I can't say I agree with that. I think that while there are common linkages (do not kill, do not steal, etc) that connect everyone's morals, I think the interpretation of what exact actions constitute moral or immoral ones differs upon everyone's upbringing, hence why morality is more subjective than objective in my eyes.

Now, I am not too familiar with Aristotle's position on ethics or morality, but I did a quick skim over some of it and it seems to me that he argues that morality comes from upbringing and habit of action which can lead to a life of "virtue". To me, that is not an objective morality but rather moral relativism. A life of virtue for a Greek noble is entirely different than a life of virtue for a Greek slave.

I haven't read a lot of Kante, and I haven't read all of his work on ethics, but his categorical imperative seems (to me) to leave itself open to allow for personal interpretation for what is good versus what is right.

I won't claim to have an extensive knowledge of philosophers or great thinkers like those you listed as I have only come across them a few times in some Political Science classes a long time ago, but to me they seemed they all talked about rationality.

In it's simplest definition, objective morality places the grounding of rightness/wrongness outside of the subject. This means that something is right/wrong or good/bad whether we want it to be or not. The grounding of such can be universal absolutism (as with many monotheistic religions) or based on factual truth, which is true but temporal.

Aristotle would claim that there are definitive good and bad actions, states of character (virtue), and that they all are derived from practical reason. But ethics for Aristotle is a lot like health- it is not an exact science and can change as the world/facts change. What is healthy for me is generally what is healthy for you, but it might be different given certain conditions/circumstances. Courage is virtue for all humans (not just royalty but slaves too) but what constitutes courage for each of us might be slightly different. But ultimately there is a definitive good and bad for each person and right reason will help us figure it out. After a while of doing good deeds, we develop a good character, and this is very crucial to his ethical treaty.

Kant has a mix of universal absolutism and subjective grounding. The moral law is defined by each one of us through practical reason (it is therefore within us) but it applies to all rational beings. I autonomously figure out the moral law as subject, but I also see that it would necessarily hold for all rational beings. It's foundation is subjective but its application is universal. This is where a lot of our modern concepts of human rights, dignity, people as ends in themselves comes from.

Mill, the founder of Utilitarianism, places the grounding of morality on pain/suffering and its avoidance. Something is wrong if it causes suffering and good if it promotes human well being or at least diminishes pain.

All of these are versions of objective morality since there is a touch-point outside of the subject for an action's moral value. All of them would also argue that there would be a right or wrong answer to a given moral dilemma, they just might disagree on what that answer may be.