nein51 said:

---

That's not condom issues. That's a matter of living in your parents attic. People (teens included) are having much less sex and with fewer partners. Largely due to the fact that they don't spend much time with people "irl".

The most common living situation for those under 30 (and it might be 35 now) is with their parents. Hard to have a raging good time living with mom and dad.

---

Thank that, porn, soon VR and the democrats ability to convince the feeble minded women they don't need a man and waste their birthing years only to end up barren while the women that told them that have 3,4,5 kids lol. It's so sad and yet absurd and predictable

Fre3dombear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

That's not condom issues. That's a matter of living in your parents attic. People (teens included) are having much less sex and with fewer partners. Largely due to the fact that they don't spend much time with people "irl".

The most common living situation for those under 30 (and it might be 35 now) is with their parents. Hard to have a raging good time living with mom and dad.

---

Thank that, porn, soon VR and the democrats ability to convince the feeble minded women they don't need a man and waste their birthing years only to end up barren while the women that told them that have 3,4,5 kids lol. It's so sad and yet absurd and predictable

---

Problem has been around for a while but got real bad post Covid. People just don't interact like they used to.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

....

I believe abortion is a personal medical decision and would hatw to make it for anyone besides myself.

---

Very ironic statement, considering that abortion is making a personal life or death decision for someone besides yourself.

---

The only time i was faced with that decision i chose to be a father. Three times. It was our decision, not the states.

---

That's exactly what I mean. You made a life or death decision for someone else besides yourself.

---

I, or really we, made a decision about something we had created. Therefore it was our decision. It was not the states decision, not our parents decision and not your decision.

---

You are still making a life or death decision for someone besides yourself. You can't escape from this, try as you might.

Also, saying it's your decision (whether or not to kill your baby) because you "created" it is ridiculously stupid. That would mean you could decide to kill your baby at any stage of development, all the way up to the point of delivery....and even beyond that. You could decide to kill them at any point even after they are delivered, whether during childhood or adulthood because they will always be your "creation" no matter how old they are. Complete nonsense.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

By making pornhub illegal, Texas has stopped the murder of millions of babies by the hand sock.

---

You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that sperm all on it's own, is the same as a baby.

---

Life begins at ejaculation.

---

How clever you must feel. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. The 65 million murdered thank you.

---

If a zygote is life, sperm is life. Or it would have become life if you didn't kill it with the sock. 650 million murdered.

This is all virtue signaling. But as soon as your side chick says she's pregnant? "I paid but it was her choice"

---

so, in your warped view, a pregnancy that ends in the birth of only one child is actually the deaths of 649,999,999?

Clowns will clown I suppose.

---

No. That's as intended. Wasting 650M sperm for your pleasure goes against God's will.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Human life does not begin at conception. That's more fact than you presented.

Although conception required for human life, conception alone does not create life.

If an egg is fertilized but does not attach to the uterus was that life? And is so, should the woman be charged with murder?

Of the eggs fertilized eggs that do attach, a significant number are lost during the menstrual cycle.

Then all the other things can happen before this is life.

Although conception is required for life, conception alone does not begin life.

You also can't create life with sperm. There must be an ejaculation to get the sperm. So, if it's true that life begins at conception, it's more true that life begins at ejaculation.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Human life does not begin at conception. That's more fact than you presented.

Although conception required for human life, conception alone does not create life.

If an egg is fertilized but does not attach to the uterus was that life? And is so, should the woman be charged with murder?

Of the eggs fertilized eggs that do attach, a significant number are lost during the menstrual cycle.

Then all the other things can happen before this is life.

Although conception is required for life, conception alone does not begin life.

You also can't create life with sperm. There must be an ejaculation to get the sperm. So, if it's true that life begins at conception, it's more true that life begins at ejaculation.

---

So when does life begin? After a certain number of weeks? After the baby is born?

Whiskey Pete said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

If a fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one, do you save the tray of 1,000 fertilized embryos or one baby?

---

I came across this question about 15 years ago. In that article discussing this topic, the general consensus was that if faced with such a difficult choice, the correct action would be to save the baby because:

1) The baby has a heartbeat
2) The baby can feel pain
3) The baby has reached personhood status

Th article seemed to put a heavy emphasis on personhood status, especiall when tasked with the choice of which life to save

---

Doesn't this give credibility to those that would support abortions to a certain point?

1. Most heartbeat bills are 6-10 weeks. All four chambers of the heart aren't formed until 17-20 weeks

2. We don't know when a fetus can feel pain, many doctors think this is 24 weeks, but some think it could be as early as 13 weeks.

3. When does a fetus develop personhood status? When they are born? When their brain develops around 15-16 weeks?

Which is why almost everyone except the US has a ban after 12-16 weeks.

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Whiskey Pete said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

If a fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one, do you save the tray of 1,000 fertilized embryos or one baby?

---

I came across this question about 15 years ago. In that article discussing this topic, the general consensus was that if faced with such a difficult choice, the correct action would be to save the baby because:

1) The baby has a heartbeat
2) The baby can feel pain
3) The baby has reached personhood status

Th article seemed to put a heavy emphasis on personhood status, especiall when tasked with the choice of which life to save

---

Doesn't this give credibility to those that would support abortions to a certain point?

1. Most heartbeat bills are 6-10 weeks. All four chambers of the heart aren't formed until 17-20 weeks

2. We don't know when a fetus can feel pain, many doctors think this is 24 weeks, but some think it could be as early as 13 weeks.

3. When does a fetus develop personhood status? When they are born? When their brain develops around 15-16 weeks?

---

Don't know. Just repeating what that article had said about what came out of that symposium. Like I said, I came across that question a long time ago. Sorry, didn't save the article.

I happen to be pro-choice up to a certain number of weeks. How many weeks? Not sure. It seems that countries which allow abortion, the majority of them have settled on around 12 weeks. I do know that I'm against abortion being allowed up until birth.

I also believe it should be a state issue.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Human life does not begin at conception. That's more fact than you presented.

Although conception required for human life, conception alone does not create life.

If an egg is fertilized but does not attach to the uterus was that life? And is so, should the woman be charged with murder?

Of the eggs fertilized eggs that do attach, a significant number are lost during the menstrual cycle.

Then all the other things can happen before this is life.

Although conception is required for life, conception alone does not begin life.

You also can't create life with sperm. There must be an ejaculation to get the sperm. So, if it's true that life begins at conception, it's more true that life begins at ejaculation.

---

You truly are ignorant.

If a fertilized egg does not implant or is otherwise lost through some form of miscarriage... it is a tragedy. Murder requires intent. Even a small child understands the difference between murder and the loss of life through random chance.

Abortion is the intentional act of ending a human life... even Bill Maher can admit this.
A miscarriage is not intentional.

The idea that you continue to claim that sperm is life... wow... you really are one of the most un-intelligent people on these boards. Go read a BASIC biology text on human reproduction.

NEW: Room goes silent as Bill Maher admits that he thinks abortion is murder but says he is okay with that because “there's 8 billion people in the world.”

Yikes.

“I scold the left on when they say: ‘oh, you know what, they just hate women. People who aren't pro-life, they… pic.twitter.com/A2ps5CNNtG

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 13, 2024

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Human life does not begin at conception. That's more fact than you presented.

Although conception required for human life, conception alone does not create life.

If an egg is fertilized but does not attach to the uterus was that life? And is so, should the woman be charged with murder?

Of the eggs fertilized eggs that do attach, a significant number are lost during the menstrual cycle.

Then all the other things can happen before this is life.

Although conception is required for life, conception alone does not begin life.

You also can't create life with sperm. There must be an ejaculation to get the sperm. So, if it's true that life begins at conception, it's more true that life begins at ejaculation.

---

You truly don't know what you're talking about.

Do you honestly not know the difference between sperm/egg and a human zygote? Your whole perception and argument regarding this topic is founded upon ignorance and stupidity. It truly is a marvel, how the ones avidly pushing for something so serious as abortion don't even have a clue.

Whiskey Pete said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Whiskey Pete said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

If a fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one, do you save the tray of 1,000 fertilized embryos or one baby?

---

I came across this question about 15 years ago. In that article discussing this topic, the general consensus was that if faced with such a difficult choice, the correct action would be to save the baby because:

1) The baby has a heartbeat
2) The baby can feel pain
3) The baby has reached personhood status

Th article seemed to put a heavy emphasis on personhood status, especiall when tasked with the choice of which life to save

---

Doesn't this give credibility to those that would support abortions to a certain point?

1. Most heartbeat bills are 6-10 weeks. All four chambers of the heart aren't formed until 17-20 weeks

2. We don't know when a fetus can feel pain, many doctors think this is 24 weeks, but some think it could be as early as 13 weeks.

3. When does a fetus develop personhood status? When they are born? When their brain develops around 15-16 weeks?

---

Don't know. Just repeating what that article had said about what came out of that symposium. Like I said, I came across that question a long time ago. Sorry, didn't save the article.

I happen to be pro-choice up to a certain number of weeks. How many weeks? Not sure. It seems that countries which allow abortion, the majority of them have settled on around 12 weeks. I do know that I'm against abortion being allowed up until birth.

I also believe it should be a state issue.

---

That's pretty much where I'm at. Personally I am against abortion, but politically I'm okay with a 12-16 week limit and being left up to the state or maybe even the county level.

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

You keep arguing with your straw man. Just read what I type rather than what you imagine I typed.

I actually did not state my position. I stated that the only consistent Pro Life position is Pro Life regardless of how the baby was conceived and that the only consistent Pro Choice position is abortion up to the moment of birth.

I do think it is virtually impossible to determine "when life begins." I do not profess to have any answer. What we end of doing is rationalizing to create some artificial line.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Human life does not begin at conception. That's more fact than you presented.

Although conception required for human life, conception alone does not create life.

If an egg is fertilized but does not attach to the uterus was that life? And is so, should the woman be charged with murder?

Of the eggs fertilized eggs that do attach, a significant number are lost during the menstrual cycle.

Then all the other things can happen before this is life.

Although conception is required for life, conception alone does not begin life.

You also can't create life with sperm. There must be an ejaculation to get the sperm. So, if it's true that life begins at conception, it's more true that life begins at ejaculation.

---

You truly don't know what you're talking about.

Do you honestly not know the difference between sperm/egg and a human zygote? Your whole perception and argument regarding this topic is founded upon ignorance and stupidity. It truly is a marvel, how the ones avidly pushing for something so serious as abortion don't even have a clue.

---

I do know. Is there life without ejeculation?

---

Is there ejaculation without conception?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

.....

I do think it is virtually impossible to determine "when life begins." I do not profess to have any answer. What we end of doing is rationalizing to create some artificial line.

---

Which is why conception is the logical and scientific starting point of human life, given that is the precise point from which the continuum of development from zygote to fetus to adulthood began. Like you say, any point along that continuum after conception would only be an "artificial line" that is completely arbitrary.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Human life does not begin at conception. That's more fact than you presented.

Although conception required for human life, conception alone does not create life.

If an egg is fertilized but does not attach to the uterus was that life? And is so, should the woman be charged with murder?

Of the eggs fertilized eggs that do attach, a significant number are lost during the menstrual cycle.

Then all the other things can happen before this is life.

Although conception is required for life, conception alone does not begin life.

You also can't create life with sperm. There must be an ejaculation to get the sperm. So, if it's true that life begins at conception, it's more true that life begins at ejaculation.

---

You truly are ignorant.

If a fertilized egg does not implant or is otherwise lost through some form of miscarriage... it is a tragedy. Murder requires intent. Even a small child understands the difference between murder and the loss of life through random chance.

Abortion is the intentional act of ending a human life... even Bill Maher can admit this.
A miscarriage is not intentional.

The idea that you continue to claim that sperm is life... wow... you really are one of the most un-intelligent people on these boards. Go read a BASIC biology text on human reproduction.

NEW: Room goes silent as Bill Maher admits that he thinks abortion is murder but says he is okay with that because “there's 8 billion people in the world.”

Yikes.

“I scold the left on when they say: ‘oh, you know what, they just hate women. People who aren't pro-life, they… pic.twitter.com/A2ps5CNNtG

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 13, 2024

---

The ignorance is on you.

A fertilized egg that doesn't implant isn't a tragedy. It just is. Every egg does t become life. Every sperm doesn't become life. Every zygote doesn't become life.

---

Every zygote IS human life. Failure of the zygote to attach to the uterus would end that human life. Attachment doesn't make the zygote alive - it was alive before it attaches. Every single one of the 30+ trillion cells your body has, and has ever had, came from that one progenitor cell, the zygote, which began to exist at conception. Therefore, conception is the logical (and scientific) beginning of human life. Following conception there's a continuum of development into a fetus, then neonate, infant, child, and then adult. Designating the start of human life to be any other point along this continuum of development after conception would be completely arbitrary, and thus untenable.

---

Is there a Zygote without ejaculation? Based on your theory, ejaculation is the start of human life.

There's even a biblical reference as God killed Onan for ejaculating onto the ground.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Human life does not begin at conception. That's more fact than you presented.

Although conception required for human life, conception alone does not create life.

If an egg is fertilized but does not attach to the uterus was that life? And is so, should the woman be charged with murder?

Of the eggs fertilized eggs that do attach, a significant number are lost during the menstrual cycle.

Then all the other things can happen before this is life.

Although conception is required for life, conception alone does not begin life.

You also can't create life with sperm. There must be an ejaculation to get the sperm. So, if it's true that life begins at conception, it's more true that life begins at ejaculation.

---

You truly don't know what you're talking about.

Do you honestly not know the difference between sperm/egg and a human zygote? Your whole perception and argument regarding this topic is founded upon ignorance and stupidity. It truly is a marvel, how the ones avidly pushing for something so serious as abortion don't even have a clue.

---

I do know. Is there life without ejeculation?

---

Is there ejaculation without conception?

---

Yes (If I believe the Genesis story)

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Yes, human life, but personhood is the legal question, and there is no real indication of when it begins. You are wrong, the starting point is when is a person a person, with the natural right to life. That is the starting and ending point of the discussion.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

You keep arguing with your straw man. Just read what I type rather than what you imagine I typed.

I actually did not state my position. I stated that the only consistent Pro Life position is Pro Life regardless of how the baby was conceived and that the only consistent Pro Choice position is abortion up to the moment of birth.

I do think it is virtually impossible to determine "when life begins." I do not profess to have any answer. What we end of doing is rationalizing to create some artificial line.

---

Read what I wrote, not what you made up. I asked a question. That is different from arguing. Yes there is a basic condition to the question, it is not for the truly binary single issue voter, but for anyone who can admit they aren't really sure on the legal side of things. You answered, and I replied "I see." Stop being such a victim. I just wanted the answer, now I have it. We are done here.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Human life does not begin at conception. That's more fact than you presented.

Although conception required for human life, conception alone does not create life.

If an egg is fertilized but does not attach to the uterus was that life? And is so, should the woman be charged with murder?

Of the eggs fertilized eggs that do attach, a significant number are lost during the menstrual cycle.

Then all the other things can happen before this is life.

Although conception is required for life, conception alone does not begin life.

You also can't create life with sperm. There must be an ejaculation to get the sperm. So, if it's true that life begins at conception, it's more true that life begins at ejaculation.

---

You truly don't know what you're talking about.

Do you honestly not know the difference between sperm/egg and a human zygote? Your whole perception and argument regarding this topic is founded upon ignorance and stupidity. It truly is a marvel, how the ones avidly pushing for something so serious as abortion don't even have a clue.

---

I do know. Is there life without ejeculation?

---

Is there ejaculation without conception?

---

Yes (If I believe the Genesis story)

---

If Adam, then you answered your question - there is life without ejaculation. Your infinite regress argument failed.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Human life does not begin at conception. That's more fact than you presented.

Although conception required for human life, conception alone does not create life.

If an egg is fertilized but does not attach to the uterus was that life? And is so, should the woman be charged with murder?

Of the eggs fertilized eggs that do attach, a significant number are lost during the menstrual cycle.

Then all the other things can happen before this is life.

Although conception is required for life, conception alone does not begin life.

You also can't create life with sperm. There must be an ejaculation to get the sperm. So, if it's true that life begins at conception, it's more true that life begins at ejaculation.

---

You truly are ignorant.

If a fertilized egg does not implant or is otherwise lost through some form of miscarriage... it is a tragedy. Murder requires intent. Even a small child understands the difference between murder and the loss of life through random chance.

Abortion is the intentional act of ending a human life... even Bill Maher can admit this.
A miscarriage is not intentional.

The idea that you continue to claim that sperm is life... wow... you really are one of the most un-intelligent people on these boards. Go read a BASIC biology text on human reproduction.

NEW: Room goes silent as Bill Maher admits that he thinks abortion is murder but says he is okay with that because “there's 8 billion people in the world.”

Yikes.

“I scold the left on when they say: ‘oh, you know what, they just hate women. People who aren't pro-life, they… pic.twitter.com/A2ps5CNNtG

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 13, 2024

---

The ignorance is on you.

A fertilized egg that doesn't implant isn't a tragedy. It just is. Every egg does t become life. Every sperm doesn't become life. Every zygote doesn't become life.

---

Every zygote IS human life. Failure of the zygote to attach to the uterus would end that human life. Attachment doesn't make the zygote alive - it was alive before it attaches. Every single one of the 30+ trillion cells your body has, and has ever had, came from that one progenitor cell, the zygote, which began to exist at conception. Therefore, conception is the logical (and scientific) beginning of human life. Following conception there's a continuum of development into a fetus, then neonate, infant, child, and then adult. Designating the start of human life to be any other point along this continuum of development after conception would be completely arbitrary, and thus untenable.

---

Is there a Zygote without ejaculation? Based on your theory, ejaculation is the start of human life.

There's even a biblical reference as God killed Onan for ejaculating onto the ground.

---

Theoretically, yes, a zygote can exist without there being ejaculation.

No, based on my theory, ejaculation isn't conception. You continue to show your complete ignorance and stupidity.

Why was God angry with Onan?

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

You keep arguing with your straw man. Just read what I type rather than what you imagine I typed.

I actually did not state my position. I stated that the only consistent Pro Life position is Pro Life regardless of how the baby was conceived and that the only consistent Pro Choice position is abortion up to the moment of birth.

I do think it is virtually impossible to determine "when life begins." I do not profess to have any answer. What we end of doing is rationalizing to create some artificial line.

---

Read what I wrote, not what you made up. I asked a question. That is different from arguing. Yes there is a basic condition to the question, it is not for the truly binary single issue voter, but for anyone who can admit they aren't really sure on the legal side of things. You answered, and I replied "I see." Stop being such a victim. I just wanted the answer, now I have it. We are done here.

---

Hope that made you feel better.

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Yes, human life, but personhood is the legal question, and there is no real indication of when it begins. You are wrong, the starting point is when is a person a person, with the natural right to life. That is the starting and ending point of the discussion.

---

"Personhood" is a legal and semantic question. However, the question of abortion is a moral one. Answering a moral question with legalese and semantics is woefully inadequate and thus invalid.

So no, the starting point can't be legalese and semantics.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

.....

I do think it is virtually impossible to determine "when life begins." I do not profess to have any answer. What we end of doing is rationalizing to create some artificial line.

---

Which is why conception is the logical and scientific starting point of human life, given that is the precise point from which the continuum of development from zygote to fetus to adulthood began. Like you say, any point along that continuum after conception would only be an "artificial line" that is completely arbitrary.

---

That's at the heart of my point. Logically, it is really impossible to define any line between conception and birth. Everything in between is arbitrary because it feels "more yucky" after said point.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Human life does not begin at conception. That's more fact than you presented.

Although conception required for human life, conception alone does not create life.

If an egg is fertilized but does not attach to the uterus was that life? And is so, should the woman be charged with murder?

Of the eggs fertilized eggs that do attach, a significant number are lost during the menstrual cycle.

Then all the other things can happen before this is life.

Although conception is required for life, conception alone does not begin life.

You also can't create life with sperm. There must be an ejaculation to get the sperm. So, if it's true that life begins at conception, it's more true that life begins at ejaculation.

---

You truly don't know what you're talking about.

Do you honestly not know the difference between sperm/egg and a human zygote? Your whole perception and argument regarding this topic is founded upon ignorance and stupidity. It truly is a marvel, how the ones avidly pushing for something so serious as abortion don't even have a clue.

---

I do know. Is there life without ejeculation?

---

Is there ejaculation without conception?

---

Yes (If I believe the Genesis story)

---

If Adam, then you answered your question - there is life without ejaculation. Your infinite regress argument failed.

---

Was there conception to create Adam or Eve?

Or has the cycle been Adam Eve ejaculation Cane. Ejaculation Able. On and on?

Extraordinary candor. Shocking and indeed chilling, to be sure, that Bill Maher acknowledges that abortion is (or "kind of is") murder and endorses it anyway. But he's no science denier. He's willing to look the brutal reality of what abortion is right in the face ... and own it. https://t.co/nEg5352YNS

— Robert P. George (@McCormickProf) April 14, 2024

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.

Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.

I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.

If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.

Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.

(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).

---

The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.

The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.

---

That's an immature response.

All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,

This is not complicated.

Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"

---

Again, skirting the issue. Immature? Lol. Dumb.

If society in a given state has decided that a 1 month old fetus is not a person, the victim of rape may not want to carry an ever present reminder of that gross crime in her body. And a woman in another state might look at her and wonder why she is forced into such a different result of an evil she was the victim of.

It is easy to look at the issue any number of ways, but I do think that people who want victims of rape to bear the children of their rapist should have some basic capability of explaining why their opinion/political view should force a woman into such a thing.

I can understand the binary thinking of "it is a person therefore has the right to life" but for anyone who can admit they don't know for sure, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Are you capable of that, or is name calling your way of avoiding it?

---

Sorry. Try re-reading the thread. It is there in black and white. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If a person believes life begins at conception and life is worth preserving, how that life was created is irrelevant to the argument. It's actually very simple.

Here is a hypothetical question I suspect you will not answer: let's assume there is a test that can determine if a baby is going to be gay. Would you support a woman aborting a baby only because it will be go so she can try again for a non-gay baby? How do you think most rabid, pro-abortion folks would answer that?

(I don't think you know what name calling means)

---

I see. You admit you aren't sure when a person acquires personhood, but still want everyone else to abide by your opinion. It is really that simple for most, I just forget sometimes.

---

Human life begins at conception - fact, not opinion.
Abortion involves the ending (killing) of a human life - fact, not opinion.

^^THIS has to be the starting point from which the whole discussion/debate arises. Any argument that starts with counting the number of cells or invoking legal and semantic designations of "personhood" or "baby" is built purely on arbitrary grounds and is skirting the key moral component of this issue, thus it is a woefully inadequate argument.

---

Human life does not begin at conception. That's more fact than you presented.

Although conception required for human life, conception alone does not create life.

If an egg is fertilized but does not attach to the uterus was that life? And is so, should the woman be charged with murder?

Of the eggs fertilized eggs that do attach, a significant number are lost during the menstrual cycle.

Then all the other things can happen before this is life.

Although conception is required for life, conception alone does not begin life.

You also can't create life with sperm. There must be an ejaculation to get the sperm. So, if it's true that life begins at conception, it's more true that life begins at ejaculation.

---

You truly are ignorant.

If a fertilized egg does not implant or is otherwise lost through some form of miscarriage... it is a tragedy. Murder requires intent. Even a small child understands the difference between murder and the loss of life through random chance.

Abortion is the intentional act of ending a human life... even Bill Maher can admit this.
A miscarriage is not intentional.

The idea that you continue to claim that sperm is life... wow... you really are one of the most un-intelligent people on these boards. Go read a BASIC biology text on human reproduction.

NEW: Room goes silent as Bill Maher admits that he thinks abortion is murder but says he is okay with that because “there's 8 billion people in the world.”

Yikes.

“I scold the left on when they say: ‘oh, you know what, they just hate women. People who aren't pro-life, they… pic.twitter.com/A2ps5CNNtG

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 13, 2024

---

The ignorance is on you.

A fertilized egg that doesn't implant isn't a tragedy. It just is. Every egg does t become life. Every sperm doesn't become life. Every zygote doesn't become life.

In most cases, I suppose, most people don't even know that there was a fertilized egg unless they are running blood tests.

The estimation is 15% of fertilized eggs don't attach to the uterus. Its failure to attach means life didn't begin in those cases and another large percentage of successful conceptions don't survive.

Besides, I've never shared my opinion on abortion here. I'll leave this here. My bet is Trump and many "Christians" arguing with me have paid for more abortions than me.

---

No, you are the ignorant one. You asked if an egg that didn't implant should result in the woman being charged with murder. That shows a severe level of ignorance.
No one has ever suggested that a miscarriage should result in a murder charge. Murder requires intent.