Look, I think welcome has made it quite clear he is against in vitro fertilization that brings about extra zygotes because he thinks those zygotes are human life. It is not fair to ask him how he would clean up the situation that others have caused and are perpetuating, because he opposes that situation in the first place.
1 Like
Do you write for HBO?
This could be a season of Westworld.
Why extra? Take ten eggs, you’ll get maybe ten zygotes…not one more!
why?
their claim is humans should not be killed, and fertilized eggs are already humans, is this wrong?
You oppose to rape, so it is not fair to ask how you would treat rape victims?
The term is “snowflake babies” and it is a real thing, and some of those children have grown to adulthood.
1 Like
I don’t think anyone here has stated that. Are you referring to a link that hasn’t been posted?
I’ve thought @welcome has stated so.
Murder is not right. Humans should not be killed. Fertilized eggs are humans, so should not be killed (when they are in mother’s body).
Isn’t this the reason you are against abortions in any cases?
Me?
I’ve not stated my opinion in this thread to my knowledge.
I must have forgotten that I was replying to you, in the middle of the post. The you is welcome.
Has anyone looked into how the process takes place?
How the fetus is removed?
I am not religious, but it is satanic.
1 Like
Here’s my question: What does it mean to be “pro-life”?
I’m in favor of life in the sense that each of us has the right to live out our lives as we see fit without harming others.
But “pro-life” in the Republican sense of the word is not that.
To Republicans, unborn children must be protected as the number one priority until the day the arrive on the planet and blinking step into the sun. At that point, they are a burden on society. And it’s the mother’s fault cuz she shouldn’t have had the child in the first place.
There’s no logic to the current “pro-life” view. If someone is “pro-life”, I’d expect them to support favorable conditions for the other 80 years that a human might exist on the planet, rather than only “protecting” them for the first 6 months.
I’d like to learn more about how someone can say they are “pro-life” while also supporting cuts to healthcare, housing, food, and education for all human life.
2 Likes
is it equally satanic to use after pills or abortion pills or destroy embryos and mid or late term abortions?
2 Likes
It continually amazes me how people on the left are unable to understand others’ views.
There is no contradiction between believing it is immoral to kill a human life and not wanting the government to force you to provide care for other people, nonetheless merely disagreeing with the amount of care.
Interestingly, as leftists never seem to acknowledge, the reverse is, in fact, hypocrisy. Hence their rejection of science and redefinition of terms.
1 Like
I ain’t a “leftist”, @Mithrandir. I just don’t understand the need to help a fetus but a firm belief that once that fetus is born, it doesn’t deserve anyone’s help and should “pull itself up its bootstraps” and all that.
It’s immoral to kill a human life but there’s nothing wrong to pointing at a human and calling them lazy incompetent scum because they weren’t given the same access to housing, food and education from birth? Not to mention, everything in the system is set up to work against them. Perhaps even because their mother was forced to give birth to them at a young age and without the help from the father, who can easily get away with disappearing forever and no consequences? I’m still not clear on how that’s “pro-life”. Sounds more like men trying to find yet another way to make sure that women are stopped from being able to live out their lives the same way men do.
No one is forcing you to provide care for anyone. There are doctors and nurses who swore an oath to “do no harm” that will do that. According to people who are “pro-life”, Planned Parenthood, one of the few clinics that exists across the US for women’s health, should be defunded because a tiny fraction of what they do includes abortions. By tiny fraction, they don’t even know how small that fraction is because “pregnancy services” already is an insignificant amount compared to the other health services they provide, and, in case you don’t know how a woman gives birth, there’s a hell of a lot of healthcare that a woman needs in those 9 months leading up to giving birth to the human child, during the actual birth, and in the months after.
I would like to know what science “leftists” reject and redefine and how that relates to the abortion debate.
1 Like
I havent seen anyone in this thread condone late term abortion. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I would say you’re muddy the waters by conflating issues that aren’t logically related.
Uhhhh… sure. Fetuses must be protected at all costs!! Mother’s healthcare while she carries the fetus? Nah. Not related. Healthcare of the child when it’s still a fetus? That would require us to make sure the mother got healthcare, which she doesn’t need! A safe home for the mother so the unborn baby doesn’t feel her stress and develop who-knows-what-problems? Not necessary. Proper nutrition? Who needs it!
Everything is irrelevant; life only matters until it’s viable, and even then, we don’t care about the health of it, only that it gets born.
I’d like to know if you think abortion can be a legal choice when the pregnancy risk mother’s life.
If it was a legal choice that I could agree with, it would need safeguards to make sure it wasn’t abused and that it was a genuine life threatening medical issue.
I also think these types of cases would be statistically insignificant.
There is a clear difference between advocating against ending a human life (as scientific consensus labels an unborn human) and not agreeing with increased government spending on programs with mixed (generously stated) results.