Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://fusion.net/video/203727/bill-nye-abortion-video/

The Science Guy speaks out.

Bill nye is a retarded libbo.

Don't act like you didn't love his intro song.

Also, do you have any cogent comments on his scientific claims, or are you just going to dismiss him because he disagrees with you?

What do "Women's Reproductive Rights" have to do with "When Life Begins" ?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Also, do you have any cogent comments on his scientific claims, or are you just going to dismiss him because he disagrees with you?
He's wrong.
He's the most biased idiot on earth. "We're just monkeys! Heck, we share 98& of our DNA with them!"

We also share 80% of DNA with a banana. **** off, bill nye.

Originally posted by long pig
We also share 80% of DNA with a banana. How does that make him wrong? It's a widely accepted truism in paleontology that gorillas, chimps and human all evolved from a common ancestor.

Are you an idiot?

Yes. I do believe that Tze is indeed a Monkey's Uncle.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
How does that make him wrong? It's a widely accepted truism in paleontology that gorillas, chimps and human all evolved from a common ancestor.

Are you an idiot?
Derp.
I'll soft ball it to you. He's spouting number like they mean something more than they do. That 2% means a LOT.
Just like him saying there's a bigger diff between brother and sister than between races.
There is...because they're different genders. He got called on that bullshit.
Its called intellectual honesty. Nye doesn't have it.

Originally posted by long pig
Derp.
I'll soft ball it to you. He's spouting number like they mean something more than they do. That 2% means a LOT.
Just like him saying there's a bigger diff between brother and sister than between races.
There is...because they're different genders. He got called on that bullshit.
Its called intellectual honesty. Nye doesn't have it.
Also, calling a guy stupid AFTER you ask him to tell you what words mean is really funny.

Originally posted by long pig
Bill nye is a retarded libbo. agreed.

His argument would be like me saying, "well children are exploring their bodies so who cares if I did an autopsy on a living child. Children die everyday all over the world, are you gonna arrest every person who ever had a child..."

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
agreed.

His argument would be like me saying, "well children are exploring their bodies so who cares if I did an autopsy on a living child. Children die everyday all over the world, are you gonna arrest every person who ever had a child..."

And the he would have gone on to repeat that same bit of info 50 times in 30 minutes.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
agreed.

His argument would be like me saying, "well children are exploring their bodies so who cares if I did an autopsy on a living child. Children die everyday all over the world, are you gonna arrest every person who ever had a child..."
He makes a horrible argument for abortion.

Is Bill Nye even a "Science Guy"?

He has a BSME.

Fucc that poser, nerd, *****.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://fusion.net/video/203727/bill-nye-abortion-video/

The Science Guy speaks out.


Good stuff.

I'd have more respect for anti-abortion people if they factored in practical ways of reducing abortion, education and such, rather than trying to legislate based on their half-understood ideas of how it works and heavy-handedly trying to punish people for not doing it their way.





Problem: People really are trying to pass laws on that kind of logic, prevent women from having access to morning-after pills, and so on.

That's what he's pointing out, and he's right. People really are trying to pass laws on the idea that "If this doesn't happen, we need to punish the woman responsible!".

And that once a conception happened, the person must be in it for the long haul, like it or not.

Pretty nasty stuff that really has no root in biology, in other words.

Heck it doesn't even really have a root in religion, 'life begins at conception' sure isn't in any bible I ever had.

Not that religious objection should override someone else's health and safety.




Look up 'cladistics'.

I.e. by one of the common ways of charting evolution, species are considered part of their ancestor's group, or clade.


So we're part of the ape clade, which is part of the monkey clade, which is part of the primate clade, which is part of the mammal clade, which is part of the vertebrate clade, which is part of the animal clade, which is part of the earth life clade.


We are thus all of these things. New groups, like humans, are added on top of old ones, but don't make us not part of our prior clades.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
How does that make him wrong? It's a widely accepted truism in paleontology that gorillas, chimps and human all evolved from a common ancestor.

Are you an idiot?

Did you really have to ask.

I have as much respect for anti abortion people as I do for the pro choice crowd. Both groups are idiotic without any clue as to how to meet in the middle.

And here I liked his shows when I was a kid. Now I don't know who he is anymore.

Isnt Bill Nye a Atheist?

Originally posted by Q99
Problem: People really are trying to pass laws on that kind of logic, prevent women from having access to morning-after pills, and so on.

That's what he's pointing out, and he's right. People really are trying to pass laws on the idea that "If this doesn't happen, we need to punish the woman responsible!".

And that once a conception happened, the person must be in it for the long haul, like it or not.

Pretty nasty stuff that really has no root in biology, in other words.

Heck it doesn't even really have a root in religion, 'life begins at conception' sure isn't in any bible I ever had. please don't play the pro-fem card with me, Men have never had a legal right to ending a connection with their children.

It's just more of the infantilized women not wanting to take responsibility for their actions. I will agree that women should be able to get birth control but honestly I find the whole "stay out of my bedroom" argument hilarious when contrasted with "buy me contraception."

Ps not all women are infantilized.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I have as much respect for anti abortion people as I do for the pro choice crowd. Both groups are idiotic without any clue as to how to meet in the middle.


Well, what would the middle be?


A lot of pro-choice people are like, "Ok, doing programs to reduce and prevent abortions is a good thing and we fund and support them, but at the end of the day, it's the mother's body and her health at risk, she gets to chose." The only time it shouldn't be done is late-term, when you have a developed actual baby-thing, and there's not a serious health risk going forward (and if there is a serious health risk, again, there gets to be a decision, not baby-always-wins).

That's my stance. Like Bill Nye there said, no-one wants abortions, it's pro-choice, not pro-abortion.


And... a lot of anti-abortion stuff seems more interested in banning abortion than lowering it, if you catch my meaning. Roe v Wade was about how abortions were happening anyway, it's just poorer women were dying as a result of dangerous circumstances.


What's your opinion of a good compromise between the two sides?

Originally posted by Q99
Well, what would the middle be?


A lot of pro-choice people are like, "Ok, doing programs to reduce and prevent abortions is a good thing and we fund and support them, but at the end of the day, it's the mother's body and her health at risk, she gets to chose." The only time it shouldn't be done is late-term, when you have a developed actual baby-thing, and there's not a serious health risk going forward (and if there is a serious health risk, again, there gets to be a decision, not baby-always-wins).

That's my stance. Like Bill Nye there said, no-one wants abortions, it's pro-choice, not pro-abortion.


And... a lot of anti-abortion stuff seems more interested in banning abortion than lowering it, if you catch my meaning. Roe v Wade was about how abortions were happening anyway, it's just poorer women were dying as a result of dangerous circumstances.


What's your opinion of a good compromise between the two sides?

Actually, that would be the moderate position of the pro-choice movement.

While the moderate pro-lifers aren't for the banning of abortion, but for the regulation of it. My take is to educate potential parents on its impact (psychological and physical) as well as risks and the understanding that this is indeed the ending of a life (I am against the dehumanization of the infant). If said parent decide to push thru, then they need to meet a solid criteria of what is justifiable abortion (via age of fetus,l as well as risk factors).

Kind of like how many moderate liberals are for the regulation of guns and not the actual banning of it.

The extremes would be what PP is lobbying for (deregulation of Abortion) or the more extreme feminist groups that asks for "abortion on demand with no apology" (http://www.stoppatriarchy.org/abortionondemandstatement.html).

I believe that for as long as there are 2 sides that pull on the opposite direction of the issue, a fair middle ground can be maintained and with continuing discussions on both sides, eventual social change can occur that can address both sides' concerns. So I am FOR both sides having an opinion on the matter.

What I don't agree with is each side calling the other idiots just for believing in the contrary.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
please don't play the pro-fem card with me, Men have never had a legal right to ending a connection with their children.

They also don't have to put their health on the line for it.

It's an unequal comparison because it's biologically unequal. A father is not at any point, required to sacrifice his health- and if someone was proposing that a father *had* to donate an organ or something, that'd be bad too.

To the best of my knowledge, there's no other situation where it's required of someone else to sacrifice their health for someone else. Encouraged, sure, but not required.

Now, if you think that men should be able to sever support obligations, that's another topic, which I won't get into, but if you're saying "men should be able to sever support, but women shouldn't be able to get abortions," then that's a very significant double standard.




An abortion is taking responsibility. Preventing abortion is preventing women from making one of the several available decisions (and some of the more extreme anti-choice stuff, like stopping morning after pills, even more-so). Especially early term, when there's no fetus even.

Not taking responsibility would be not-doing-anything, not doing-something-to-prevent-the-situation.

The 'infantilization' card does not work when you're actively trying to stop someone from taking a responsible action, then chiding them for not taking responsibility. It's just trying to weasel-word responsibility around while trying to deprive the people actually in the position of available options.



Originally posted by Nibedicus

While the moderate pro-lifers aren't for the banning of abortion, but for the regulation of it. My take is to educate potential parents on its impact (psychological and physical) as well as risks and the understanding that this is indeed the ending of a life (I am against the dehumanization of the infant). If said parent decide to push thru, then they need to meet a solid criteria of what is justifiable abortion (via age of fetus,l as well as risk factors).

For a 'solid criteria,' there is the matter it has a 100% chance of health effects on the parent (yes, even without complications, it takes someone out of action for months, puts strain on the body, and has a long recovery period), and a not-inconsiderable chance of death? There is no such thing as a health consequence free/ health risk pregnancy, and indeed, in some cases even a significant delay ups the health risk considerably.

Back to Henry Pym's 'responsibility' line, this is often a case of the groups pushing for it trying to sell the idea that women can't be trusted to take responsibility for themselves. It's one thing to offer services- which in fact planned parenthood and such does- but it's another to actively place barriers to prevent people because you don't think they can make the call, or trying to guilt them into stopping- which is what a lot of people are trying to do.

And on the dehumanization of an infant, an infant is a being with a brain- and only exists late-term, and almost zero abortions happen at that point, and those only because of health issues. A fetus is something that's infant-ish, but depending on when you're talking about does not actually have all the functioning organs than make a person. An embryo is not even that, it's a bundle of cells- largely stem cells- often not even possessing the shape of a fetus. I do object to this presentation of everything-after-fertilization as an infant. Like Bill Nye points out, there are many steps required between one or another, and it is biologically incorrect to call most abortions as involving a baby in the slightest- and those that are, are usually when there is the mother's life on the line, and it's not all that rare when both die in said circumstances when that's not granted.




So.... women would be able to have an abortion, control over their own body, which significantly impacts their health, without having to get someone else's ok or apologize for being in a situation where they've had to make that decision? Offered counciling if they want it, mind you, and informed of the direct risks, is what PP does, as long as it's in the legal terms, but allowing them to make the call if they've already made of their mind, consulting with whoever they chose first.

That doesn't seem extreme in the slightest, that seems normal. There's nothing actually dangerous about this, and indeed, that's the norm in much of the world, and we've seen the results of it, and it works fine.


Indeed, that is, really, leaving it up to the patient's choice just like almost every other medical procedure.


It says a lot that the 'extreme' side in your point of view is 'how pretty much everything else works ever.' People aren't required to donate organs, and they also aren't required to undergo counseling on why they shouldn't- they're just informed of the risks and allowed to decide.


The inclusion of 'apology' in your statement is also an interesting one. Women should be required to apologize if they have an abortion after, say, being raped? Or discovering their finances caught fire and they couldn't actually afford to get off their job now to raise a child and they'd rather do so in a few years when they can do so without starving and so they can give a child a good life? Or whatever else their situation that they want to handle responsibly?


Consider Henry Pym's take on responsibility for a minute, and consider how many want to force that view. A lot of people tend to include this counseling and so on, not to properly inform, but just to add hurdles to make it harder for someone to make a responsible decision they don't agree with.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
How does that make him wrong? It's a widely accepted truism in paleontology that gorillas, chimps and human all evolved from a common ancestor.

Are you an idiot?



These paleontologists you refer to are the ones who are "idiots" if they they think all humans evolved from an ape(s). I assure you, no one from my family bloodline came from a ****ing ape. Perhaps you and yours did though.

Originally posted by BeyonderGod
Isnt Bill Nye a Atheist?

So an Atheist claims abortion does't matter and its about a womans body. lol

Cop out, PP was founded to exterminate blacks, people always forgot.

They also forget blacks are the #1 demographic that has abortions due to PP's convenient locations to their neighborhoods.

Originally posted by Q99
For a 'solid criteria,' there is the matter it has a 100% chance of health effects on the parent (yes, even without complications, it takes someone out of action for months, puts strain on the body, and has a long recovery period), and a not-inconsiderable chance of death? There is no such thing as a health consequence free/ health risk pregnancy, and indeed, in some cases even a significant delay ups the health risk considerably.

The condition of pregnancy and the decision whether to abort or not due to risks involved is not a perfect situation. It is a situation where you weigh pluses and minuses of it and decide from there. In abortion, the risk to the mother is small in comparison to the fetus w/c is most likely close to 100%. No matter the choice there will be no perfect answer where everyone wins.

It's like you want to have your cake and eat it, too. And the best way to rationalize the whole tragedy is to dehumanize the fetus using arbitrary criteria.

I reject your criteria, your rationalization. A fetus is a life. And abortion is choosing to end it.

Originally posted by Q99
Back to Henry Pym's 'responsibility' line, this is often a case of the groups pushing for it trying to sell the idea that women can't be trusted to take responsibility for themselves. It's one thing to offer services- which in fact planned parenthood and such does- but it's another to actively place barriers to prevent people because you don't think they can make the call, or trying to guilt them into stopping- which is what a lot of people are trying to do.

Originally posted by Q99
And on the dehumanization of an infant, an infant is a being with a brain- and only exists late-term,

And who decides this? You? The Supreme Court? The same SC that at one point deemed that blacks were not really real citizens at one point of time? Really? What right do they have what constitutes life? Scientists? They haven't agreed to what really makes "life", yet you seem so confident in your own little rationalizations.

Arbitrary criteria fueled by liberal bullshit.

Bear in mind the more accepted legal position is not the "brain development" of a child but a child's ability to survive outside the womb.

Originally posted by Q99
and almost zero abortions happen at that point, and those only because of health issues.

You understand not everyone subscribes to your "fetuses aren't people" rationalization right?

It's funny that the belief system/party that strives so hard to remove bigotry in the world are total bigots towards the weakest, more helpless, most innocent human beings in the planet.

Originally posted by Q99
A fetus is something that's infant-ish,

And an American is something that is mostly American-ish. You know, white skin and all that. I think I heard someone said that at one point....

Originally posted by Q99
but depending on when you're talking about does not actually have all the functioning organs than make a person. An embryo is not even that, it's a bundle of cells- largely stem cells- often not even possessing the shape of a fetus. I do object to this presentation of everything-after-fertilization as an infant.

I've already made this debate with many other ppl here. Life isn't only about it's current state, but also it's potential.

Originally posted by Q99
Like Bill Nye points out, there are many steps required between one or another, and it is biologically incorrect to call most abortions as involving a baby in the slightest- and those that are, are usually when there is the mother's life on the line, and it's not all that rare when both die in said circumstances when that's not granted.

Unless you're some sort of wanabee-intellectual sheep, I don't know many who really care about what Bill Nye has to say.

Almost everyone will agree that a mother's life takes priority (unless she herself decides it does not) and no one will condemn a mother for ending a pregnancy if her life is at a reasonable risk.

Technology will lower risks to the mother by detecting risky pregnancies. The advancement of technology (by your criteria of risk to mothers) is on the side of pro-life. Even by today's standards, risky pregnancies are very easily detected and can be decided upon long before the mother's life becomes at-risk.

Originally posted by Q99
So.... women would be able to have an abortion, control over their own body, which significantly impacts their health, without having to get someone else's ok or apologize for being in a situation where they've had to make that decision? Offered counciling if they want it, mind you, and informed of the direct risks, is what PP does, as long as it's in the legal terms, but allowing them to make the call if they've already made of their mind, consulting with whoever they chose first.

Do you know what on demand means? It means easy and immediate access (with no regulatory controls, no seminars/briefing with the doctor) where they are no longer restricted by the age of a fetus. That they could abort the second they percieve that their "health is at risk" and then use the same crappy justification that you're spouting that "a pregnant woman's health is ALWAYS at risk" to simply remove age limits altogether. They want the change the perception of the ending of a life to just be another day at the doctor kinda like a nose job or a vaccine shot.

If you don't see anything wrong with that, then I can't really help you.

Originally posted by Q99
That doesn't seem extreme in the slightest, that seems normal. There's nothing actually dangerous about this, and indeed, that's the norm in much of the world, and we've seen the results of it, and it works fine.

This is the problem I have with many liberals. They flaunt the air of "reasonability", they claim that their beliefs are moderate and a fair middle ground but this is only for as long as the middle ground is exactly what they want it to be. They don't try to listen to both sides and come up with a compromise acceptable to both. Instead they insist that their view is the only valid one and condemn those that disagree with them as "idiots", "bigots" or "crazy".

Some conservatives are like this, too. Do you know what I call these kinds of people? Fools.

Originally posted by Q99
Indeed, that is, really, leaving it up to the patient's choice just like almost every other medical procedure.

Except this medical procedure has a second life attached to it. I'm not saying the choice isn't yours but this kind of responsibility needs to be considered thoroughly.

Originally posted by Q99
It says a lot that the 'extreme' side in your point of view is 'how pretty much everything else works ever.' People aren't required to donate organs, and they also aren't required to undergo counseling on why they shouldn't- they're just informed of the risks and allowed to decide.

Apples to Oranges. One is forcing you to save a life the other is you forcing another to sacrifice its life for your convenience. Poor comparison.

Originally posted by Q99
The inclusion of 'apology' in your statement is also an interesting one. Women should be required to apologize if they have an abortion after, say, being raped? Or discovering their finances caught fire and they couldn't actually afford to get off their job now to raise a child and they'd rather do so in a few years when they can do so without starving and so they can give a child a good life? Or whatever else their situation that they want to handle responsibly?

I didn't include that, it's actually part of the feminist movement's slogan.

No, the inclusion of "apology" isn't literal. It is a metaphor for any kind of responsibility/weight that the decision of ending a life will entail.

There are many extenuating circumstances out there that make an abortion at least justifiable. Rape being one of them. It is the use of abortion as a means of contraception that most people are really against.

And if a a couple can't raise kids due to finances, they really should try and get some sort of contraception. Culling children so that you don't have a hard time paying your bills just seems a bit savage to me.

Originally posted by Q99
Consider Henry Pym's take on responsibility for a minute, and consider how many want to force that view.

I never read his take. I have my own opinion, however, and will just focus on that.

Originally posted by Q99
A lot of people tend to include this counseling and so on, not to properly inform, but just to add hurdles to make it harder for someone to make a responsible decision they don't agree with.

Then that is the failure of the system (and not the fact that counseling exists, it's like saying that many police are brutal asshats so we shouldn't have the police) and can only be improved thru time once both sides managed to come up with a middle ground that both sides can at least not hate too much.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
How does that make him wrong? It's a widely accepted truism in paleontology that gorillas, chimps and human all evolved from a common ancestor.

Are you an idiot?

I love how people widely accept they came from apes.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I love how people widely accept they came from apes.

Our ancestors did. You probably came from your mom and your dad.

Originally posted by Bentley
Our ancestors did. You probably came from your mom and your dad.



Nope... Sorry, but perhaps your ancestors did. Mine didn't and I'm sure TI's didn't either. Mine came from Adam and Eve.

Originally posted by Star428
Nope... Sorry, but perhaps your ancestors did. Mine didn't and I'm sure TI's didn't either. Mine came from Adam and Eve.

Are you a lizard person Star?

Originally posted by Bentley
Our ancestors did. You probably came from your mom and your dad.

Nope, there has been no missing link and no evidence to prove that wild claim, we we were created by God.

Zero evidence btw linking us to apes.

God ftw

Originally posted by Bentley
Are you a lizard person Star?




Don't know what you're getting at unless you think Adam and Eve were lizard people. LOL.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Nope, there has been no missing link and no evidence to prove that wild claim, we we were created by God.

Zero evidence btw linking us to apes.

God ftw

Missing link? Holy primitive fossil studies!

Anyways, there is no inherent value in arguing about things that happened centuries ago, everything is put into a context on how to apply our knowledge for future decisions. As long as you don't devolve this discussion into an anti animal rant because humans aren't animals, then you can hold alternate origins dear to you, even if they were infactual or inaccurate (not saying they are).

Take into consideration that people who are entirely convinced that they are animals still threat other beasts like sh_t.

That said, evolution is very off topic in this thread

Originally posted by Star428
Don't know what you're getting at unless you think Adam and Eve were lizard people. LOL.

I posted my reply before reading your editing, you got me

The short answer is pro choice anti abortion. I'm certainly not a pro-life but I despise those who treat abortion like a normal occurrence because they like having unprotected sex but don't want to deal with the consequences. Again, this is really just a short answer.

Originally posted by BeyonderGod
Isnt Bill Nye a Atheist?

Yes, and also a scientist vastly more intelligent then anyone on this board.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, and also a scientist vastly more intelligent then anyone on this board.

How vastly exactly? Would you say twice as much as Astner? Three times more than OV? I want to see a chart.

At least 37 times as smart. I like seeing Bill Nye troll and destroy people. Like when he utterly destroys astrology in under 60 seconds.

So, as expected, no one who has even a slight understanding of science is arguing against this. Good looks

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Nope, there has been no missing link and no evidence to prove that wild claim, we we were created by God.

Zero evidence btw linking us to apes.

God ftw
Can't tell if you're being serious or not.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So, as expected, no one who has even a slight understanding of science is arguing against this. Good looks Would that including yourself?

I didn't come from no retarded monkeys butthole!

Originally posted by psmith81992
Would that including yourself?
I have a slight understanding of science, yes. For instance I know that creationism is not a scientific theory.

When it comes to judging who is right between all of these so-called "smart" atheistic paleontologists and God's Word I'll take the latter every single time and no amount of "scientific evidence" will EVER change my mind.

The Bible didn't help us get to the moon, science did. Nor did the Bible help us reduce infant mortality rates through antibiotics.

That would indicate a basic understanding of science as well as common sense.


You're right but it was never supposed to.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So, as expected, no one who has even a slight understanding of science is arguing against this. Good looks I'm not sure what part of his rambling you need a science background to understand but please explain.

His argument was effectively "fertilized eggs" die every day, thus who cares?

To which I rebutted.

Children die everyday, why is murder illegal?

Originally posted by psmith81992
That would indicate a basic understanding of science as well as common sense.


You're right but it was never supposed to.
So you're going to quibble on the semantics of "basic" vs "slight?"

Yeah, no thank you.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So you're going to quibble on the semantics of "basic" vs "slight?"

Yeah, no thank you.

Yea sure, whatever helps you rationalize backing away from the argument

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
I'm not sure what part of his rambling you need a science background to understand but please explain.

His argument was effectively "fertilized eggs" die every day, thus who cares?

To which I rebutted.

Children die everyday, why is murder illegal?

Nonsensical comparison. Child murder is constantly protested and deplored. Fertilised eggs that don't attach happen constantly and plentifully, are well known about, but are completely ignored in a moral sense. No-one has ever or will ever do anything about them because they are not given the 'alive' status that some people- arbitrarily by Nye's logic- give to the one that attaches. This is not an oversight of any sort by the pro-life crowd- this is intentional thinking.

Regardless of your ultimate opinion on abortion, Nye has raised a reasonable logical issue here and straight dismissal is a poor response.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nonsensical comparison. Child murder is constantly protested and deplored. Fertilised eggs that don't attach happen constantly, are well known about, but are completely ignored in a moral sense. No-one has ever or will ever do anything about them because they are not given the 'alive' status that some people- arbitrarily by Nye's logic- give to the one that attaches.

Regardless of your ultimate opinion on abortion, Nye has raised a reasonable logical issue here and straight dismissal is a poor response. so because you care, it validates my point.

If we care about fetal killings, it is a solid comparison.

I'm not even sure what point you are making there; it seems meaningless. The point is pro-life people don't care about fertilised but un-attached eggs. There's no campaign to save them on the idea that they are living things that it would be murder to kill- and as I say, nor will there ever be.

He is making a reasonable logical point about the criteria being used to define a fetus as alive being completely arbitrary.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm not even sure what point you are making there; it seems meaningless. The point is pro-life people don't care about fertilised but un-attached eggs. There's no campaign to save them on the idea that they are living things that it would be murder to kill- and as I say, nor will there ever be.

He is making a reasonable logical point about the criteria being used to define a fetus as alive being completely arbitrary. ok I'll make a more apt analogy.

Because there is incurable diseases, those cure-able should also not be treated.

Or more concise, "bad things happen, so why try?"

Originally posted by psmith81992
Yea sure, whatever helps you rationalize backing away from the argument
I'd hardly call quibbling over semantics an argument.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
ok I'll make a more apt analogy.

Because there is incurable diseases, those cure-able should also not be treated.

Or more concise, "bad things happen, so why try?"

I can see where you are going, but we constantly try to treat all diseases, even the ones we cannot currently cure. We work towards a world where w can treat everything. We see that as a moral drive.

There's no equivalent for fertilised but unattached eggs. No-one will ever care about them.

Nye's argument is not 'it happens a lot so why care?'. It is in fact rather the opposite of that, although done as parody- "It happens all the time so why aren't you caring?"- aimed at the pro-life crowd. It's purely a point aimed at the argument that fertilisation is the point where life begins- if people really believed that, so his argument goes, they would be trying to save all the fertilised eggs, not just those that attach.

Lacking that logic, the implication is that certain pro-lifers fixate on fertilised-and-attached eggs in a completely arbitrary manner. As Nye is arguing for a scientific basis for abortion- not a surprise considering his background- then arbitrary, uninformed decisions are as bad as it gets for him.

There is also a Bill Nye debate on youtube about evolution people should check out. It's nearly 3 hours long.

This is just a new way to say Abortion is ok.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This is just a new way to say Abortion is ok.

Well abortion is okay.

In this infancy, possibly, this does not include/ make the 3, 6 month old babies in the womb that people still kill, okay.

Well, that's a different part of the argument, more suited to the general abortion thread. Nye is attacking the 'fertilisation = point of no abortion' argument only.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, that's a different part of the argument, more suited to the general abortion thread. Nye is attacking the 'fertilisation = point of no abortion' argument only.

People in that thread still think 3/6 month old abortions are ok last time I checked.

Again- we try to minimise miscarriages and we fight against death by natural causes.

No-one gives a damn about unattached eggs- nor will they ever. No-one has the psychological attitude that these are lives that need protecting. Hence his logic is good; the position of some pro-lifers that life begins at fertilisation is arbitrary, not rational, based more on an emotional attachment. If it really was held that fertilisation creates a moral life form, these people would be wanting those eggs saved too. But they don't; the feel is not there.

His point cannot simply be dismissed in that way.

I don't get the logic. Either life begins in conception or it does not. How people react to a loss of life at whatever stage of development has no bearings on the above assertion. If one wanted to prove that a fertilized egg isn't life shouldn't the direction be to enumerate scientifically-accepted criteria for what defines life?

Or is what you are saying is that the standard pro-life stance of life at conception is a hypocritical notion that uses arbitrary criteria?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I don't get the logic. Either life begins in conception or it does not.

well there's your problem right there: false dilemma.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
well there's your problem right there: false dilemma.

Explain. Are you talking some sort of median form state of semi-life here? I don't get it.

A False Dilemma is basically a "this or that" argument, when there could be more than the two.

The counter to what you said could be: What if life begins after conception? What if life begins before conception? What if life begins after birth? What if life begins at age 4? etc.

you insist on having a line drawn when none is appropriate, unless you wish to pretend that a single embryonic cell is just as significant as a fully formed and conscious fetus. part of finding a solution is to let go of such a ridiculous grounds for even opening up the discussion.

Originally posted by Nibedicus

Or is what you are saying is that the standard pro-life stance of life at conception is a hypocritical notion that uses arbitrary criteria?
Yes, exactly this.

Originally posted by Robtard
A False Dilemma is basically a "this or that" argument, when there could be more than the two.

Edit. "Answer" and not "counter" is actually a more appropriate presentation of my response:

The answers to what you asked would be:

What if life begins after conception?

Then it doesn't begin at conception.

What if life begins before conception?

Doesn't make sense. How can life begin before conception? But yes, it also means it doesn't begin at conception.

What if life begins after birth?

Then it doesn't begin at conception.

What if life begins at age 4?

Then it doesn't begin at conception.

This is not a false dilemma as much as saying "either it is alive or it isn't."

Again, explain your point.

i think i explained well enough, and i also suspect that you are intelligent enough to grasp it.

if you need to keep trying to turn your personal arbitrary line into universal truth, good luck.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i think i explained well enough, and i also suspect that you are intelligent enough to grasp it.

if you need to keep trying to turn your personal arbitrary line into universal truth, good luck.

I realize you're not very bright and therefore, aren't able to explain anything intelligibly, but there's no need to get emotional and defensive. Nib's request is quite reasonable.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The counter to what you said could be:

What if life begins after conception?

Then it doesn't begin at conception.

What if life begins before conception?

Doesn't make sense. How can life begin before conception? But yes, it also means it doesn't begin at conception.

What if life begins after birth?

Then it doesn't begin at conception.

What if life begins at age 4?

Then it doesn't begin at conception.

This is not a false dilemma as much as saying "either it is alive or it isn't."

Again, explain your point. I think life begins at 24 weeks. See?

Originally posted by Robtard
I think life begins at 24 weeks. See?

Then (to you) it doesn't begin at conception.

What's your point?

Originally posted by psmith81992
I realize you're not very bright and therefore, aren't able to explain anything intelligibly, but there's no need to get emotional and defensive. Nib's request is quite reasonable.


you're just a one trick pony, aint you?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Then (to you) it doesn't begin at conception.

What's your point?

That this argument is rendered pointless by the fact that you have differing opinions at what "conception" is.


Still crying? It was amusing the first few days but now it's just sad. Move on.

you need to get over your obsessive fixation with me.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Then (to you) it doesn't begin at conception.

What's your point?
I see the problem, I took your statement as "life begins at conception or life simply does not begin at all".

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you need to get over your obsessive fixation with me. You continue responding to me. Quit while you're behind and move on

Originally posted by Robtard
I see the problem, I took your statement as "life begins at conception or life simply does not begin at all".

Ah. Well, it's not.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You continue responding to me. Quit while you're behind and move on

that's nice dear.

Originally posted by Robtard
I see the problem, I took your statement as "life begins at conception or life simply does not begin at all".

well that's supposed to be our conclusion

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Ah. Well, it's not.

So you're open to the idea that life could begin after conception?

Originally posted by Robtard
So you're open to the idea that life could begin after conception?

I'm open to scientific literature that defines what life is and going from there.

And sentience does not determine life. Otherwise, the SCIENTISTS from NASA would look pretty silly being elated at "possible life on Mars" when such life would possibly have been single celled organisms,

Originally posted by Nibedicus

And sentience does not determine life. Otherwise, the SCIENTISTS from NASA would look pretty silly being elated at "possible life on Mars" when such life would possibly have been single celled organisms,

what if "life" does not have a single simple definition for that very reason?

It's the reason I specifically denoted "human sentient life", as to not start arguing over the rights of sperm and such.

But it seems we're there. So then, why aren't you angry over all those "lives" you've murdered into your sheets at night?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
what if "life" does not have a single simple definition for that very reason?

From what I know, life ISN'T a simple single definition, but a complex list of criteria that needs to be met in order to classify something as "life". From what I know, it is not even COMPLETELY agreed upon yet in the scientific community (correct me if I am wrong, of course, I'm not an expert).

Here's what I got from NASA, tho: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life%27s_working_definition.html

Living things tend to be complex and highly organized. They have the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it for growth and reproduction. Organisms tend toward homeostasis: an equilibrium of parameters that define their internal environment. Living creatures respond, and their stimulation fosters a reaction-like motion, recoil, and in advanced forms, learning. Life is reproductive, as some kind of copying is needed for evolution to take hold through a population's mutation and natural selection. To grow and develop, living creatures need foremost to be consumers, since growth includes changing biomass, creating new individuals, and the shedding of waste.

To qualify as a living thing, a creature must meet some variation for all these criteria.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's the reason I specifically denoted "human sentient life", as to not start arguing over the rights of sperm and such.

But it seems we're there. So then, why aren't you angry over all those "lives" you've murdered into your sheets at night?

If life begins at conception, were those conceived?

It's pretty clear that your definition of human life is a "fertilized egg", which comes full circle back to the topic. Why no outcry for the detached fertilized eggs?

Originally posted by Robtard
It's pretty clear that your definition of human life is a "fertilized egg", which comes full circle back to the topic. Why no outcry for the detached fertilized eggs?
Since there's no outcry for one bad thing, there should be no outcry for any bad things!

Originally posted by Nibedicus
From what I know, life ISN'T a simple single definition, but a complex list of criteria that needs to be met in order to classify something as "life". From what I know, it is not even COMPLETELY agreed upon yet in the scientific community (correct me if I am wrong, of course, I'm not an expert).

Here's what I got from NASA, tho: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life%27s_working_definition.html

Living things tend to be complex and highly organized. They have the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it for growth and reproduction. Organisms tend toward homeostasis: an equilibrium of parameters that define their internal environment. Living creatures respond, and their stimulation fosters a reaction-like motion, recoil, and in advanced forms, learning. Life is reproductive, as some kind of copying is needed for evolution to take hold through a population's mutation and natural selection. To grow and develop, living creatures need foremost to be consumers, since growth includes changing biomass, creating new individuals, and the shedding of waste.

To qualify as a living thing, a creature must meet some variation for all these criteria.

i think it's safe to assume that your definition of 'life' as it applies to this topic is not so generalized as nasa's, just as i'm sure that bacteria and viruses also deserve a place within one of those definitions for 'life'. it's just best for everyone that we keep it that way, lest we equate a human being to an apple tree to chicken pox, or worse yet: a single embryonic cell to a baby.

Originally posted by long pig
Since there's no outcry for one bad thing, there should be no outcry for any bad things!

They're the same thing, "fertilized eggs". Try and follow along. kthxbai

Originally posted by Robtard
It's pretty clear that your definition of human life is a "fertilized egg", which comes full circle back to the topic. Why no outcry for the detached fertilized eggs?

Why no real outcry for the kids dying in Africa from atrocities and starvation as we speak?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i think it's safe to assume that your definition of 'life' as it applies to this topic is not so generalized as nasa's, just as i'm sure that bacteria and viruses also deserve a place within one of those definitions for 'life'. it's just best for everyone that we keep it that way, lest we equate a human being to an apple tree to chicken pox, or worse yet: a single embryonic cell to a baby.

Except that a tree or virus or apple does not have human DNA.

A fetus has human DNA and is alive by definition. Humsn sperm or an unfertilized egg is not.

Human. Life. Human life.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Why no real outcry for the kids dying in Africa from atrocities and starvation as we speak?

So you agree with Nye, the outcry over abortion is arbitrary. "Save this fertilized egg, but not that one!"

Originally posted by Nibedicus
alive by definition.


you did it again. it's already a topic with inherently tangled semantics. no need to make it worse by asserting singular definitions.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you did it again. it's already a topic with inherently tangled semantics. no need to make it worse by asserting singular definitions.

You asked, I answered. You don't like my answer, quit asking.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You asked, I answered. You don't like my answer, quit asking.

if you take constructive criticism as an offense, perhaps you should be the one to disengage. *shrug*

Originally posted by Robtard
So you agree with Nye, the outcry over abortion is arbitrary. "Save this fertilized egg, but not that one!"

I think his logic is misplaced in this "outcry" he/you are talking about. At least for me and many moderate pro-lifers that I know.

Our outcry is not to save every fertilized egg (as we know how nature works, that is impossible). Our outcry is in the actual act of -killing- a potentially VALID fetus that CAN grow to become a full human. There's nothing one can do about natural causes, why go nuts over it?

Bear in mind that I have never been for the banning of abortion. It is a medical procedure and it should be available to those that need it. I am for the regulation of abortion and the maintenance of these regulation in the midst of campaign to deregulate it.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
if you take constructive criticism as an offense, perhaps you should be the one to disengage. *shrug*

Didn't get offended. I just honestly think you didn't like my answer.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I think his logic is misplaced in this "outcry" he/you are talking about. At least for me and many moderate pro-lifers that I know.

Our outcry is not to save every fertilized egg (as we know how nature works, that is impossible). Our outcry is in the actual act of -killing- a potentially VALID fetus that CAN grow to become a full human. There's nothing one can do about natural causes, why go nuts over it?

Bear in mind that I have never been for the banning of abortion. It is a medical procedure and it should be available to those that need it. I am for the regulation of abortion and the maintenance of these regulation in the midst of campaign to deregulate it.

Fair enough. You're one of the more sensible anti-abortion/not anti-abortion people on her.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I think his logic is misplaced in this "outcry" he/you are talking about. At least for me and many moderate pro-lifers that I know.

Our outcry is not to save every fertilized egg (as we know how nature works, that is impossible). Our outcry is in the actual act of -killing- a potentially VALID fetus that CAN grow to become a full human. There's nothing one can do about natural causes, why go nuts over it?

Bear in mind that I have never been for the banning of abortion. It is a medical procedure and it should be available to those that need it. I am for the regulation of abortion and the maintenance of these regulation in the midst of campaign to deregulate it.

Fair enough. You're one of the more sensible anti-abortion/not anti-abortion people on here.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Didn't get offended. I just honestly think you didn't like my answer.

don't worry, i'm not offended. just confused as to whether or not you truly resolve this semantics impasse or utilize it as so many others are inclined to.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
don't worry, i'm not offended. just confused as to whether or not you truly resolve this semantics impasse or utilize it as so many others are inclined to.

Never said you were offended. Just that you didn't like my answer.

Stop putting words in other ppl's mouths.

Originally posted by Robtard
They're the same thing, "fertilized eggs". Try and follow along. kthxbai
I'll try another route...ahem....

Lissin Holmes, jus coz one juan thing don have no vatos to protess eet, eet no make eet OK. Es no good, mayne.

Ahem. Better?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Never said you were offended. Just that you didn't like my answer.

Stop putting words in other ppl's mouths.

Lol, ignore him, most people often do.

to suggest that someone doesn't like an answer is to imply offense, but never mind that.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Lol, ignore him, most people often do.

that's nice dear. good luck working on your fixation problem.

i support abortion for pragmatic reasons... but tbh i think that saying killing a 6 month old fetus is fine but killing a newborn baby is wrong is no less arbitrary a moral distinction than to say that killing an implanted zygote is wrong but preventing a fertilized egg from being implanted via birth control is not wrong

imo both sides of the debate have a tendency to espouse dogmatic and emotionally charged rhetoric... neither side seems clearly and definitively 'right' to me from a moral p.o.v.

nonetheless i support abortion cause i think it's better to prevent people from having unwanted babies in general

Oh that's cute, still responding, still emotional, and now calling me dear. How amusing


The problem is on this forum, you only have idiots on both sides of the extremes.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
to suggest that someone doesn't like an answer is to imply offense, but never mind that.

Nah. It can also mean confusion on the answer. Unwillingness to accept it. Disagree with it, etc. There can be many reasons.

Offense implies something of a personal thing. I didn't see my answer as being personal (for you or for me) in any way.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Nah. It can also mean confusion on the answer. Unwillingness to accept it. Disagree with it, etc. There can be many reasons.

Offense implies something of a personal thing. I didn't see my answer as being personal (for you or for me) in any way.

i don't believe that part about 'offense' is accurate, but i take your meaning.




Originally posted by psmith81992
Oh that's cute, still responding, still emotional, and now calling me dear. How amusing


Originally posted by Bashar Teg

that's nice dear.

honestly though i would consider maybe that a woman who has repeated abortions is being pretty irresponsible... sort of like someone who keeps getting caught driving with no license is considered a "habitual," and there's laws something like if you get caught 3 times within 5 years then you lose your license for a given period of time. or if you get caught with a dui a certain number of times you have your license revoked permanently.

if you have lets say 3 abortions within a 5 year period, you should be forced to have your tubes tied imo.

Originally posted by red g jacks

if you have lets say 3 abortions within a 5 year period, you should be forced to have your tubes tied imo.


what if those 3 pregnancies were each life threatening? what if she was raped three times?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
In this infancy, possibly, this does not include/ make the 3, 6 month old babies in the womb that people still kill, okay.

I think 6 months is indeed going too far. For me I would say limit it to 2-3 months max. 6 months is too far along. If you're going to get an abortion it shouldn't take 6 months to decide. I realize it is a big decision, but sometimes adults have to make these decisions.

If you don't want a child..don't wait 6 months. Or better yet people should use friggin protection. The pill, condoms, whatever. Hell..even pulling out has like a 90% chance of the girl not getting pregnant.

Well it's a no-brainer if you'll pardon the pun, a woman has, or should have, a right to terminate any pregnancy up to 24 weeks, before there's any brain function. I'm sick of compromise with religious fanatics and their insane beliefs. No, a soul does not enter a fertilized egg immediately after ejaculation.

that's a tricky situation... i suppose you could make an exception for life threatening pregnancies

the rape thing is trickier because then she could just lie about rape to be able to have the abortions.. so in that case i guess there would have to at least be charges pressed for rape in each case

but i think in general those are less likely scenarios than her just being irresponsible and not using the proper birth control methods to prevent pregnancies

i also think birth control should be state subsidized and encouraged for anyone who isn't trying to have kids on purpose

I also realize this is harsh but..I don't care much about aborted babies. We have enough people on the planet already. I am not saying we are over populated or anything like that..but we aren't in a "Children of Men" situation either.

So for me it's unfortunate if an abortion happens but..it is not the end of the world. There are more important things to worry about. We need to focus on the people that are here.

Originally posted by red g jacks

the rape thing is trickier because then she could just lie about rape to be able to have the abortions.. so in that case i guess there would have to at least be charges pressed for rape in each case

many times that's not possible, though.

Originally posted by red g jacks
but i think in general those are less likely scenarios than her just being irresponsible and not using the proper birth control methods to prevent pregnancies


still need to be considered in the interest of avoiding one extremely gross injustice after another. same logic as keeping an appeals process for death row inmates to avoid killing wrongfully convicted people.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
How does that make him wrong? It's a widely accepted truism in paleontology that gorillas, chimps and human all evolved from a common ancestor.

Are you an idiot?

What if we didn't, and are simply made up of very similar DNA strands shared by many other species of animals and even flora? Why should we believe what one group says when they have decided to ignore critical facts that would throw many a wrench into their design? Not really the point of this topic lest we go astray.

I would like to know exactly how soon it is before an embryo is considered human by Mr. Nye? Then I would like to know how he knows this? We still have yet to understand what animals are saying when they speak. so we know that there could come a time that even his research on the subject could be proven faulty.

I'm not completely on any particular side when it comes to abortion, but I do believe that no one should consider it a practical means of birth control. There are simply too many variables involved to lean too far to any side. Some of these people that get abortions have mental illnesses and should be placed under the same amount of scrutiny as people that apply for the right to carry a gun are. If these people have not been raped, they should have been proactive about their sexual relationships. If you can't be responsible for your own actions, don't pull your pants down.

@ bashar

i understand the concern... i guess my counter concern is that i believe in abortion but only as a last measure. i do think it is a morally tricky situation that we are essentially allowing human beings to be killed as a measure to prevent unwanted babies from being born. as such, i think there should be some practical reinforcement of the principle that this should be a last resort measure and not the primary method of birth control being used.

that's why i chose 3 abortions within 5 years as the arbitrary criteria in this case. that's a lot of abortions to have in such a short period of time. so unless there's a legit medical reason... i.e. each pregnancy is either threatening to the life of the woman or the baby is likely to be born with some sort of birth defect, i think 3 abortions in 5 years is most likely indicative of irresponsible sexual habits than anything else.

regarding rape... that's an extremely questionable scenario. is the woman being raped by the same man repeatedly? if so, then clearly something needs to happen about that. the man needs to be in jail. if it's by 3 different men then one needs to question how it is this woman keeps finding herself in this dangerous situation within a short period of time. once again there's either a problem with her current environment or her current behavior, most likely. and so that's what should be addressed, rather than just keep killing fetuses and sending her back into the world to continue to get repeatedly raped.

obviously no solution is perfect and is going to result in ideal results that are best in every case. i think that also applies to the current system of allowing as many abortions as one wants. in this case the less than ideal results are that human beings are being systematically killed to make up for the lack of proper birth control methods being used.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
Well it's a no-brainer if you'll pardon the pun, a woman has, or should have, a right to terminate any pregnancy up to 24 weeks, before there's any brain function. I'm sick of compromise with religious fanatics and their insane beliefs. No, a soul does not enter a fertilized egg immediately after ejaculation. Your bitterness has been noted because anytime you talk about the religious, you mention fanatics. Looks like there's only one here.

Originally posted by red g jacks
@ bashar

i understand the concern... i guess my counter concern is that i believe in abortion but only as a last measure. i do think it is a morally tricky situation that we are essentially allowing human beings to be killed as a measure to prevent unwanted babies from being born. as such, i think there should be some practical reinforcement of the principle that this should be a last resort measure and not the primary method of birth control being used.

that's why i chose 3 abortions within 5 years as the arbitrary criteria in this case. that's a lot of abortions to have in such a short period of time. so unless there's a legit medical reason... i.e. each pregnancy is either threatening to the life of the woman or the baby is likely to be born with some sort of birth defect, i think 3 abortions in 5 years is most likely indicative of irresponsible sexual habits than anything else.

regarding rape... that's an extremely questionable scenario. is the woman being raped by the same man repeatedly? if so, then clearly something needs to happen about that. the man needs to be in jail. if it's by 3 different men then one needs to question how it is this woman keeps finding herself in this dangerous situation within a short period of time. once again there's either a problem with her current environment or her current behavior, most likely. and so that's what should be addressed, rather than just keep killing fetuses and sending her back into the world to continue to get repeatedly raped.

obviously no solution is perfect and is going to result in ideal results that are best in every case. i think that also applies to the current system of allowing as many abortions as one wants. in this case the less than ideal results are that human beings are being systematically killed to make up for the lack of proper birth control methods being used.

i disagree about pre-embryo=human being, so the idea is much more palatable for me obviously.

not necessarily the same man repeatedly. you're leaving out many other scenarios. off the top of my head: what if the victim lives in terror of their attacker (like a molester guardian for example)? what if they are being trafficked in the sex slave trade? what if they were drugged/unconscious and cant identify their attacker?

i just think the best solution is one that doesnt involve placing the rights of embryonic cells over conscious sentient beings. (not trying to marginalize issues like late term abortions. i too find that practice mostly troubling)

Lol at late term abortion being "mostly troubling".

Sicko.

Originally posted by long pig
Lol at late term abortion being "mostly troubling".

Sicko.

In cases where the mothers life is in danger i think it should be permitted.

Calling people names proves you are more mature.

Originally posted by red g jacks
@ bashar

i understand the concern... i guess my counter concern is that i believe in abortion but only as a last measure. i do think it is a morally tricky situation that we are essentially allowing human beings to be killed as a measure to prevent unwanted babies from being born. as such, i think there should be some practical reinforcement of the principle that this should be a last resort measure and not the primary method of birth control being used.

that's why i chose 3 abortions within 5 years as the arbitrary criteria in this case. that's a lot of abortions to have in such a short period of time. so unless there's a legit medical reason... i.e. each pregnancy is either threatening to the life of the woman or the baby is likely to be born with some sort of birth defect, i think 3 abortions in 5 years is most likely indicative of irresponsible sexual habits than anything else.

regarding rape... that's an extremely questionable scenario. is the woman being raped by the same man repeatedly? if so, then clearly something needs to happen about that. the man needs to be in jail. if it's by 3 different men then one needs to question how it is this woman keeps finding herself in this dangerous situation within a short period of time. once again there's either a problem with her current environment or her current behavior, most likely. and so that's what should be addressed, rather than just keep killing fetuses and sending her back into the world to continue to get repeatedly raped.

obviously no solution is perfect and is going to result in ideal results that are best in every case. i think that also applies to the current system of allowing as many abortions as one wants. in this case the less than ideal results are that human beings are being systematically killed to make up for the lack of proper birth control methods being used.

Wouldn't the last measure be to carry the baby to full term, and then place it up for adoption? I can agree with a lot of the other stuff that you said, but even a law can not get around murder being murder. Just today a deranged woman threw a new born infant out of a window to its death, and everyone that spoke of the act seemed to be gasping for air. Is what she did any worse than aborting a fully formed fetus? It just seems that society is fine with anything that's passed as law, but there aren't many people that are capable of seeing right from wrong.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i disagree about pre-embryo=human being, so the idea is much more palatable for me obviously.
i googled the term pre-embryo, as i wasn't aware of exactly what it means. google says:


maybe if you're talking about plan b or something... this might be the kind of thing we're killing. but generally when you have to go to an abortion clinic, it's after this period of time.

but either way i think using any straightforward scientific definition of the term "human," even plan b is essentially ending a human life. to suggest otherwise is to me somewhat dogmatic and delusional. that's what i don't like about it. if you want to advocate being able to end a human life in this particular case... at least be honest and straight forward about it. don't hide behind deceptive language.

once again... 3 times in 5 years? something is amiss regardless of what the situation is. if someone finds themselves in need of an abortion 3 times in 5 years and all 3 times were due to rape, they are honestly probably better off being infertile and honestly possibly even being institutionalized.

i agree which is why i'm not against abortion altogether. i'm against habitually using it as a method of birth control

Originally posted by Stoic
Wouldn't the last measure be to carry the baby to full term, and then place it up for adoption? I can agree with a lot of the other stuff that you said, but even a law can not get around murder being murder. Just today a deranged woman threw a new born infant out of a window to its death, and everyone that spoke of the act seemed to be gasping for air. Is what she did any worse than aborting a fully formed fetus? It just seems that society is fine with anything that's passed as law, but there aren't many people that are capable of seeing right from wrong. when i say 'last measure' i mean least desirable solution

i'd say the adoption solution is more desirable than abortion but in some cases people aren't willing to do that. banning abortion might just prompt them to try to terminate the pregnancy the old fashioned/illegal way.

Abortion should be legal for the right reasons..possible death to the mother, diseased, disabled, or will die in child birth or shortly there after. It should not be tax payer funded, or have any ties to the government for corruption is sure to set in with the lobbyists and campaign contributions to senators and representatives., ie: PP.

Originally posted by red g jacks
when i say 'last measure' i mean least desirable solution

i'd say the adoption solution is more desirable than abortion but in some cases people aren't willing to do that. banning abortion might just prompt them to try to terminate the pregnancy the old fashioned/illegal way.

I know bro. I just think that people should be more responsible and own the mess that they themselves willfully create. I can't think of one thing more innocent and precious than that of the life of an infant. There has to be some means of holding the act of abortion up to the light to determine if it is the proper way to do things in all cases. Bill Nye is looking at this from a scientific point of view, which can at times be an inhumane outlook. Justifying an evil act is something that many people can not, and will not get behind.

Originally posted by Surtur
I also realize this is harsh but..I don't care much about aborted babies. We have enough people on the planet already. I am not saying we are over populated or anything like that..but we aren't in a "Children of Men" situation either.

So for me it's unfortunate if an abortion happens but..it is not the end of the world. There are more important things to worry about. We need to focus on the people that are here.
I often suspect that many anti-abortion people value the lives of unborn babies over the lives of people who disagree with them.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I often suspect that many anti-abortion people value the lives of unborn babies over the lives of people who disagree with them.

That kind of statement could be used to dismiss any kind of opposition from the other side.

Originally posted by Surtur
I also realize this is harsh but..I don't care much about aborted babies. We have enough people on the planet already. I am not saying we are over populated or anything like that..but we aren't in a "Children of Men" situation either.

So for me it's unfortunate if an abortion happens but..it is not the end of the world. There are more important things to worry about. We need to focus on the people that are here. the problem for me with this line of rhetoric is what is 'already here'...? outside the womb? there's nothing magic about a womb that renders it a barrier between what is already here and what's not here. to me, if human life is expendable for the sake of convenience then that expendability can easily be extended to human lives that exist outside the womb.

tbh if you throw a newborn baby in the dumpster it's not the end of the world either. and to me it's not all that different from an abortion, depending on how far along the fetus is.

i suspect that the real distinction lies in the fact that you can see the newborn baby you're murdering. and you can hear it crying. where as you don't necessarily have to interact with the unborn fetus you have aborted.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
That kind of statement could be used to dismiss any kind of opposition from the other side.
I didn't say that's how it is, but how I suspect it is.

also.. regarding sentience... for anyone who uses that distinction to justify abortion...

unless you are a vegetarian that line of rhetoric is likewise irrational to me

you are skirting the fact that the real dilemma is the species involved (i.e. human), not necessarily its capacity for thinking

otherwise it should be more wrong to kill a adult pig than a newborn human child

Originally posted by red g jacks
also.. regarding sentience... for anyone who uses that distinction to justify abortion...

unless you are a vegetarian that line of rhetoric is likewise irrational to me

you are skirting the fact that the real dilemma is the species involved (i.e. human), not necessarily its capacity for thinking

otherwise it should be more wrong to kill a adult pig than a newborn human child

All anti-abortionist should be vegan just to be safe.

as should everyone who disagrees with murdering newborn babies

luckily i happen to be a bad person and a hypocrite so i still get to eat whatever i like

Originally posted by red g jacks
also.. regarding sentience... for anyone who uses that distinction to justify abortion...

unless you are a vegetarian that line of rhetoric is likewise irrational to me

you are skirting the fact that the real dilemma is the species involved (i.e. human), not necessarily its capacity for thinking

otherwise it should be more wrong to kill a adult pig than a newborn human child


The capacity for thinking is what matters.

HeLa cancer cells are alive and independently human. Killing them is no biggie.

A brain-dead person is brain dead, pulling the plug isn't murder.

There's a variety of situations where living human-species but not intelligent is not considered a big deal.

And heck, as the Bill Nye video points out, a lot of the time this is what happens entirely naturally on it's own anyway. Most abortions are inducing a natural process- why is it bad when induced and not when it happens on it's own?



And we do provide smarter animals protection from inhumane treatment, so we recognize intelligence as a factor even with non-humans for that matter....


It's the most consistent factor we use in everything else.

Nor is 'at conception' a historic line either, it's a modern invention that, like Nye noted, was only added after science gave us additional information.


Heck, for that matter, I bet a lot of people here don't realize when conception takes place- here's a hint, it's not the time of the sex.

Originally posted by Q99
The capacity for thinking is what matters.

HeLa cancer cells are alive and independently human. Killing them is no biggie.

A brain-dead person is brain dead, pulling the plug isn't murder.

There's a variety of situations where living human-species but not intelligent is not considered a big deal.

And heck, as the Bill Nye video points out, a lot of the time this is what happens entirely naturally on it's own anyway. Most abortions are inducing a natural process- why is it bad when induced and not when it happens on it's own?



And we do provide smarter animals protection from inhumane treatment, so we recognize intelligence as a factor even with non-humans for that matter....


It's the most consistent factor we use in everything else.

Nor is 'at conception' a historic line either, it's a modern invention that, like Nye noted, was only added after science gave us additional information.


Heck, for that matter, I bet a lot of people here don't realize when conception takes place- here's a hint, it's not the time of the sex. you are right that killing humans is considered acceptable in certain situations

you are wrong that killing sentient beings is not likewise considered acceptable

unless you are a vegetarian.

Republicans need to take a stats class.

EDIT - Actually someone already brought that up in another thread.

Whatever. Republicans are filthy degenerate trash.

Originally posted by red g jacks
you are right that killing humans is considered acceptable in certain situations

you are wrong that killing sentient beings is not likewise considered acceptable

unless you are a vegetarian. to expand on this... you note we grant protections to some smarter animals... this is true

we grant little to no protections to pigs in terms of killing them for food. we ask they be treated humanely beforehand, and even there that is more of an ideal than something that is rigorously put into practice. but otherwise they are bred and raised to be slaughtered on an industrial scale.

an adult pig has to be smarter than a newborn child. and yet one is murder and the other is a legit business model.

my point isn't that sentience/intelligence is irrelevant... my point is that to act as if it's all that matters is incorrect. clearly the species involved plays a large role. there is literally no other species that you can be convicted of murdering with the same kinds of strict penalties that murdering a human carries. and it's not simply a matter of a human's intellectual capacity. because if you sneak in a hospital and murder someone in a coma, you nonetheless can be convicted of murdering that person. if you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries, you can be convicted of murdering her unborn child. simply because she had no intent to kill it, suddenly the unborn child is granted with the same rights as any other human. yet if she decided to kill it herself then it's 'just a bunch of cells.'

likewise... the other side of the debate is similarly confused. TI said something along the lines of it would be considered OK to abort if the fetus had disease or something wrong with it. yet murdering a kid that's already been born just cause he/she has a disease is considered morally reprehensible. so he is unknowingly making the same kind of distinction between a fetus and a child that pro-abortionists make.

my point is basically that drawing any concrete moral boundaries concerning this topic is not nearly as straight forward as either side would have you believe. it's basically a big mess of emotionally and ideologically charged confusion.

Originally posted by red g jacks
TI said something along the lines of it would be considered OK to abort if the fetus had disease or something wrong with it. yet murdering a kid that's already been born just cause he/she has a disease is considered morally reprehensible. so he is unknowingly making the same kind of distinction between a fetus and a child that pro-abortionists make.



Yes it sounds horrible I know, but thats the way it is. I am a realist, not a dreamer.

i consider myself something of a realist as well. that's why i think we're better off letting women abort their unwanted pregnancies. but if it becomes a habitual thing then we're better off just nipping the problem in the bud by having them sterilized (tubes tied).

Women cringe at that idea, the idea that they cannot give birth anymore frightens them to death, you could never mass convince them to do that.

i know it won't happen... it's one of those "if i were dictator" ideas

Is China still doing that 1 child policy?

as far as i know... honestly though i can understand that policy. it's easy to judge them but we aren't facing the same overpopulation crisis that they are in.

For their sake they need a 1 child policy. To many people there. In fants being left in toilets is a huge thing there.

Originally posted by Lucius
Republicans need to take a stats class.

EDIT - Actually someone already brought that up in another thread.

Whatever. Republicans are filthy degenerate trash.




Nope. That would be dumbasscrats. You have it backwards (as democrats often do).


They're the ones who value a convicted murderer's life more than an innocent unborn baby's. Democrats are a blight on society.

Originally posted by red g jacks
you are right that killing humans is considered acceptable in certain situations

you are wrong that killing sentient beings is not likewise considered acceptable

unless you are a vegetarian.


But we do give so protections, if, granted, not enough to prevent us from killing. And we also have a tendency to provide the greatest legal protections to other intelligent types. Elephants, whales, and so on, which get way more protection than pigs. Beings that can communicate and have culture, in other words.


So, species clearly matters some, yes, but we obviously do not give things that are humans but lack brains protection, and we give things with brains that are not human some, if lesser, protection.

Species is not the only factor, and not the overriding one.

Originally posted by Q99
But we do give so protections, if, granted, not enough to prevent us from killing. And we also have a tendency to provide the greatest legal protections to other intelligent types. Elephants, whales, and so on, which get way more protection than pigs. Beings that can communicate and have culture, in other words.pigs are pretty smart.. actually. the reason the animals you mentioned have more protections has more to do with the fact that we worry about driving them into extinction. pigs aren't protected in the same way because they are bred and raised for slaughter on an industrial scale.


that's just simply not true, as i explained in my earlier post. you can murder a person in a coma. you can murder a fetus. you cannot murder a whale or a dolphin or any other non-human animal. so yea, species IS the overriding factor.

Finally got around to seeing the video and Bil''s argument is flat out wrong.

His argument is that if we treat a zygote as a person that is entitled to full rights, then when one fails to attack to the uterus wall someone needs to be held accountable. The problem is this is a natural death akin to someone dying in their sleep. So no one needs to be held accountable or be punished.

BTW, I am pro-choice but I find this entire argument to be very flawed.

Originally posted by ares834
Finally got around to seeing the video and Bil''s argument is flat out wrong.

His argument is that if we treat a zygote as a person that is entitled to full rights, then when one fails to attack to the uterus wall someone needs to be held accountable. The problem is this is a natural death akin to someone dying in their sleep. So no one needs to be held accountable or be punished.

BTW, I am pro-choice but I find this entire argument to be very flawed.

Even if someone is presumed to have died of natural causes, there is still an investigation to determine the cause of death.

Likewise, if a fertilized egg has personhood rights and fails to implant, then the authorities would have to launch of full-investigation to ensure there was no foul play.