On The Big Fight, we debate whether a woman should have the right to abort and if there is an urgent need to make abortion laws more liberal in the country. Watch full show: www.ndtv.com/vi...
@Parresia Eti are you insane ! How many children go to sleep hungry every night, how many children are in abuse foster care , how many children grow up with out a family because no one adopts them. Etc . If you care about life like you pertain you do, then care about them outside of a womb as well
@@yupitsme1385 the prolife stance is to protect and care for ALL life. That includes humans outside the womb. This fallacious argument proaborts spew constantly that “they only care about people until they’re born” is critically incorrect and exhausting. We can all work to fix other problems, but abortion is the opposite of a solution. Imagine being on the side that thinks it’s okay to kill people just because they will be poor and have a hard life.
@ENTJ gal Even those born from angelic parents suffer trauma. Don't people born to such parents commit suicide? But, remember, an abandoned child built up Apple Company No one can ask to be born. Even a child understands that. Shows how limited our choices are. Shows, life is given. No matter we like it or not. Shows, there is a giver. Can I do whatever I can with that GIVENNESS of life? I am curious to know. Doesn't the giver want us to take care of it rather, just as you would want the person whom u gift a puppy, to take care of it. Why a different logic for humans babies? An unborn baby does not belong to the woman alone, but, to the 'world' that takes care of the woman as well. Hence, every child belongs to the society, the humanity. She carries, delivers, and brings the child up for the humanity. ----Does she have the right to kill that baby, while she survives because many have taken care of her throughout her life?
@ENTJ gal Yes. The world - the doctors,the farmers, the employers, the teachers, ....the entire network of society which is structured to protect life. Think....think.... of how dependant we are on others and the kind nature. The biggest expenditure in the world is to maintain armies and develop weapons, and buy them. Why? To protect land? To protect the people? Both. When we protect people we protect humanity. The trillions worth health care system, research institutes, industries that manufacture cars, machines, health products, food, medicines,....all to protect and nurture life. On the other side, a group, FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO KILL AT WILL the helpless defenceless innocent unborn babies.. The healthcare system established to protect and save lives, turn murderers. Ironical. Isn't it?
@@pads2017 Not everybody lives in the kind of society that you described. You’re describing a fictitious world where everybody has access to the same resources. Reality isn’t on your side pal. There are women who live in third-world countries who’d be lucky to even have a home. Opportunities don’t exist for everyone and even in first-world countries children can still end up in shitty foster homes and live shitty lives.
@@openingshift7070 I’m pretty sure he was talking about life in the United States. Just because life is going to be hard, doesn’t mean someone deserves to die.
As a medical doctor and scientist (MD, PhD) I wish the abortion issue centered more around the current scientific consensus. As we currently define life in the scientific community, an embryo is not alive, nor is a fetus until 24 weeks ,the point where it could survive outside of the mother's womb. A fetus is considered alive not from the time there is a heart beat but rather when the last organ system to develop (the lungs) brings the fetus to a state where with medical respiratory assistance, it can live as a self-sustaining organism because the lungs are the last organ system to develop. The surfactant necessary to keep the alveoli open begins at 24-28 weeks and usually finishes at week 34 . Therefore, i think the best argument is made that the court cannot have jurisdiction over a group of proliferating cells nor can it grant personhood to something that is not alive.According to the current consensus the fetus and the mother are one organism, and they are not considered as two separate organisms until the fetus can self-sustain its biological systems.
Prolife or Prochoice? ....why don't we push adoptions?? too many couples that can't have kids in this world, couples that are proven, physically, mentally and financially fit...why is this option not brought up? Adoptions will keep all sides happy, an option that would be alot less of a burden for women.
@@mindslayer6810 no one is forcing anyone to do anything, it's simply providing another option we don't talk enough of. The more options for a woman the better path she feels more comfortable with.
it's a dumb issue, because you know what will happen, you make it illigal then women will either do whatever they can to get rid of it drugs or go to some underground clinic and get an abortion by a doctor who doesn't know what they're doing or is using tools that aren't clean, that ends up killing the women
@FastFox Basel Qawasmi so you honestly think that say if abortion was illigal, women who want to have an abortion aren't going to find ways to try and abort the baby, which would most likely end up killing the woman as well
@FastFox Basel Qawasmi you say if illiegal in a state and a woman gets it illigaly they should be executed or jailed, funny that you think those women will survive, they'll die and the fetus along with them. i do have a question when does it become illigal? is it fertilization? when? not judging just curious on your view point
Abortion shouldn’t be banned it should still be legal under certain circumstances if the baby isn’t going to survive if the mother can’t physically have the baby safely if the pregnancy is threatening the mother’s life or if the pregnancy was the result of rape those are real legitimate reasons for abortion where the mother would actually need it.
I give you an example, John Wayne Gacy is a serial killer and a product of bad childhood due to extremely bad parenting. If you give his mother a choice to abort him that's a better choice than ruining his entire childhood and turning him into a psychpath. BE NOT A PARENT THAN A BAD PARENT.
@@ricardoavacado3901 absolutely disagreed. I don’t think a victim of rape ,especially someone who is a literal child themself ,would be able to bring up a child of some one who has given them life long trauma. Let’s not talk about what the baby deserves but, about what the rape victim deserves?
@@macroni6282 What do you mean you "don't think" that the person couldn't "bring up" the child? That's your concern? What about preventing the murder of an innocent? That's what adoption centers are for.
@@IrinNarlelybut you're under the assumption that bad financial stress or bad parents automatically make a psychopath. That's like saying all the kids in Africa should be killed because, their life is full of suffering in comparison to others.
It's funny how they they can compare a scared troubled 22 year old girl - who wants an abortion - to a cold blooded murder. These two humans are not the same 🙄
@@blessed7146 fискеr let me get this straight, you think that an abortion (that kills an unborn human that doesnt understand anything) and a murder (killing an actual human that understands everything), is the same?
@Blessed, Saying bull like a teenage girl having abortion is as big of a murderer as goddamn Jeffrey Dahmer is the reason why I’ll never be on ur side.
You're acting like women can be pregnant on their own. Instead of blaming women for "murder", why don't you ask those irresponsible men to control themselves and not hurting women?
Pro-lifers hold both men and female accountable for their wrong lifestyle. Instead of playing the blame game and appealing to sexism everytime to make your arguments, why don't women also accept that you're not exactly innocent when it comes to your lifestyle choices?...and considering how the overwhelming majority of pregnancies happen because of voluntary participation by both parties, you shouldn't pretend like every woman who gets pregnant is a victim of rape or incest. Pro-aborts seriously need to get their arguments right and articulate their own positions, instead of simply imposing their views on everyone else while pretending the other side is the one doing that.
@@mkmarak If those women who got abortion cuz they just don't care, ofc they're doing wrong. And I'm not sexism, I'm just telling you a truth, when there's a woman pregnant then there must be a man involved, cuz we CAN'T be pregnant on our own. I'm angry cus everytime these kind of news out, everyone blame women and acting like it's right to call them murderer. Also I think the problem is why they're pregnant, not why they got abortion.
in a society that has chosen to kill a child it is lacking Love. Love is made up of patients and kindness; love will not be envious or boastful; LOVE is not arrogant or rude. LOVE does NOT insist on its OWN way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 Where is the Love?
There is no 100% proof birth control. We all know that and if a person decides to have sex wethere using protection or not then they need to assume the risks and responsibilities that may come with that. How can someone with a heart with feelings think it's OK to erase their responsibility or mistake by KILLING a baby. It's horrific
I give you an example, John Wayne Gacy is a serial killer and a product of bad childhood due to extremely bad parenting. If you give his mother a choice to abort him that's a better choice than ruining his entire childhood and turning him into a psychpath. BE NOT A PARENT THAN A BAD PARENT.
@@IrinNarlely bad parenting is a product of ignorance and hate and is something, that can be averted by education, realization and awareness. It is true to not be a parent than be a bad parent, but that doesn't justify medically twisting and mutilating an innocent and blameless human being inside a womb for your or your customer satisfaction and convenience. Moreover, there are great many people victims of domestic abuse and bad parenting, not all of them are serial killers or rapists.
@@burnup4032 why you want to force someone to have a baby? Afterall you are not going to give that child emotional support and financial support. Let others decide what they want to do. A fetus up to 4 months cannot be considered a full baby, so its okay to abort !
Frankly, I really don't see that they debated much. The pro-life arguments stated by the religious leaders weren't countered sufficiently. This could have been a lot more interesting.
Even if it obviously going to have a crappy life with two parents who would never make a good parent, and therefore is unable to raise the said fetus? Or where the child could go through abusive or uncaring foster homes? How is it immoral if you just think practically for a second and realize you can choose to abort it while it's a fetus instead of forcing it to have a horrible life because you think abortion is "evil"? real evil is not preventing a child from having a horrible life when you obviously could. Unless you can find good people who are capable of raising the child, you should not immediately argue against abortion.
@@biberflub there's a thing called adoption (or responsibility from the parents) it's not the child's fault if their parents are horrible people (in the case you're describing)
@@biberflub That means if your parents are horrible then you should not have life and if you are abused or poor your life has no value that is what you are saying Horrible to see this argument demhumanising a child same as the slavemasters used to do and claims other life as there property whether they kill him or not is their own choice and now pro choice people are doing it
@@mukulkansara1907 Isn’t it ironic that those who de-humanize the most are people like u who stop caring as soon as a child is no longer a fetus? And u got some damn nerve bring up slave masters when it’s u batting less than a table spoon on anyone who doesn’t fit ur narrative on what life matters.
Why do people think the adoption system is simple and easy? Don't say "just put it up for adoption". No, it's not as easy as just typing a sentence, have some respect for what women go through.
Hey.. think it from the aborted child's perspective... would you prefer living in a bad household, foster care or have your mother kill you to save the pain.
@@larav2534 So you believe that killing the child is better than having it go through the pain? Should we do that to children who are just born and their parents have abandoned them?
this is pro birth not pro life. If they want the kid to live then make sure you are able to provide an arena where it can grow. its sad that all these people care about is whether life is born with a sprinkle of mysoginy but will not be the ones helping reform a system that currently treats the child like street trash that succumbs to addiction, crime, depression and homelessness.
Are kids being killed after they are born? No. They are being killed before they are born. You are saying that if you advocate for one issue then you should also advocate for all these other issues.
Exactly! If she can say that having a child brings psychological problems to her, then why can't he? Feminists are pro-choice when it comes to women's rights to choose to be parents but anti-choice when it comes to men's rights to choose to be parents.
trigger glitter it’s men who provide the sperm and have to deal with child support for 18-21 years. If she wants to have an abortion then fine but at least give him the option to have a financial abortion.
Abortion should only be legalised to the rape victims. The thing is, those who are not rape victims should know the consequences of their actions. I mean, it's not the baby's fault they were conceived, right??? The baby could've lived a great life. You are depriving them the right to live or to be born.
I disagree if the woman isn’t finically stable or the woman could die in the process of child birth also half the child that were unwanted would end up in foster care or adoption centers half of them would live a very bad life
@@suswho8551 Not to mention how many people IVE seen who made terrible mothers. Plus if a girl got pregnant at like 16 or something, isnt that kinda screwy to force her to keep that baby? Also birth is ridiculously painful and to go through that only to not keep it is just not worth it. Get abortions instead of forcing a child into this world if you can't support it, or have to put it up for adoption, cause that can cause many problems in itself. Orphans dont always get a home, plus they might think their mom and dad didnt love them enough to keep them. It could make them very sad, and very depressed. If I had a kid too young and he/she found out I tried to kill them, I'd say "it's not that I didnt want you, I just didn't want you yet since I wanted you to have the best life you could"
@@suswho8551 It means what are you essentially saying if you are being consistent with your argument that just because child grows poor so its life is not valuable at all
It doesn't matter if it's alive or not, if it's inside of you, you should be able to get it out as soon as you want it out. It does not matter what it is that is inside of you, you should be the one that decides if it can stay there. EDIT: Hi, it's been a bit since I've commented this. I have come up with a less threatening way to explain my point of view, if you're interested.
@@onlybecca and I think the carrier's life matters more. Again, as soon as it's inside of you, it's in your body it's your choice. No one is going to say you have to abort the fetus if you get pregnant, so why should you be able to choose for others?
It’s a separate life. The life of their child. People treat like is something else and I just don’t get it. When you get pregnant what do you think is in there? A potato? A tomato? It’s a baby!!! Growing and developing and in 9 months it will be born. Treating the baby like it’s not alive just because it hasn’t been born is stupid. Have you watched what happens to the baby when he/she is aborted? It literally rips their organs apart. The baby suffers. It’s sickening. A baby starts to develop the brain as soon as three weeks. Has a heartbeat in 5 weeks. And you’re still deciding if it is alive or not. Also, why is all the arguments always about the mother? Like all they think about is themselves and their own convenience. It’s really selfish.
A lot of people are justifying abortion on the basis of "choice" so let me make it clear that you don't get to choose who lives and who dies. A foetus is not your body, it's IN your body.
@@LuciferXFallen290 It's killing an innocent baby, your mental gymnastics to remove guilt and responsibility won't work on me. It's shameful you defend killing a baby for your own convenience and to fix the actions of your own responsibilities.
It's not a matter of him being right or me being right. It's a matter of me going meta and realizing that what this whole debate is about is about him defending his own personal biases his ego and me defending my personal biases and my ego. And all that's happening here is we're just clashing our biases together without any kind of higher awareness and that's like a light bulb going up. This is a earth-shattering revelation when you realize this then you go meta on the whole debate and you realize ah i see this is not going to be resolved at the level of defeating his ideas or him defeating my ideas and it doesn't matter who wins this debate because this is all just an ego game. And then i can look inside of myself and i can realize oh yeah i can actually use mindfulness to penetrate into my own body become aware of my ego at work inside of me generating this ideology and then defending it and being closed-minded about it and refusing to look at the situation from a higher perspective. I can actually feel my body getting hotter. I can feel myself getting angry or defensive when he's making a good point. I can also start to notice the various manipulative tricks that his ego is using against me in this debate and then i can notice myself using those tricks against him and i can notice the double standards that i have and i can notice my own biases and i can notice his biases and i can notice the fact that the only reason i'm arguing with him is because i have a certain survival agenda that i'm trying to defend with my ego and i can notice that he's doing the same thing and when all of that is noticed the entire game of this debate collapses. That would be going meta. Can you see how powerful that is can you see how liberating that is. You see this is the kind of higher dimensional move that needs to be done to solve this particular problem.
is this a correct summary: "let go of your ideological biases and argument that suits it but embrace unbiase objectivity" now teach me the art of writing that long, i need that for my Essay
When you do that, what answer do you come up with? Personally my best guess is that it comes down to what you value: what things are at this present moment or potentials. A pro-life person looks at an embryo and thinks what this DNA might eventually become. A pro-choice person looks at an embryo and thinks it's neither viable nor sentient so it has no self-interest in living or dying. As long as we have different underlying philosophies valuing 2 or more different things, we'll never agree. I'm pro-choice. I don't believe in overriding the rights of a sentient being so that a non-sentient life may or may not someday become sentient and either be happy to be born or unhappy to be born. I'm pro-choice from both a scientific and religious perspective. Identical twins don't form for about a week which proves ensoulment doesn't happen at conception.
a woman should have the right to choose. my son was born with a genetic and terminal illness that would take away every human ability, to walk, to turn in bed, to use his hands, to breathe on his own, and eventually to swallow food. his heart and lungs would stop working and he would die. i know a few families who have had to make that difficult decision when the baby was found to have this disease... to terminate. its never easy and its truly heartbreaking.
@@obey_forever_mae You weren't paying attention. Even if he had a heartbeat he wouldn't be able to do anything. He'd be living the life of a vegetable.
But I assume you all abortion, not just in extreme cases, should be legal, meaning you are trying to use the exception to prove the rule. And I don't quite understand if you're saying his heart and lungs don't work on their own or if they do but only temporarily, because that would determine my answer to the rest of your comment
@@LuciferXFallen290 What if he was a healthy child and later on he met with a terrible accident and became in this state. Would you still end his life because of his disabilities.
I understand the connection you're trying to make. But there are big flaws in your analogy. Smoking and binge-eating affects only you and not a fetus that could potentially become a part of society one day. It doesn't take two people to become a smoker or binge-eater. Birth control fails, so there are a lot of women who do not subject themselves to pregnancy.
As opposed to not using them? Which is 100% chance at spreading the disease? Your argument falls short of logical, practical and rational reasoning. Why should the government waste even more money on a subject that isn't worth it in today's society. Most people are already born into or learn an ideology that teaches abstinence, and the sacredness of one's virginity. Premarital sex is still 95% of that population. Doesn't work. I'd rather they spend more money on more important issues.
True. I'd say they CAN make religious arguments. But if they're going to, they would have to prove that god exists. They would have to prove that god said life is valuable and worthy of protection and then they would have to explain why and how those religious beliefs should be imposed onto a secular government.
@@therealleddy364 Well is murder wrong in a secular world? Then abortion is also wrong. However you brought a good point. Morality comes from religon and God. In an atheist world, we are just a consuquence of a big cosmic accident. Only the fittest will survive and philosophically atheism doesnt explain why murder is wrong or any other crime for that matter. The very fact that we have a conscience and moral values is the clear evidence of God's existence. The Western criminal and civil law pretty much evolved from Judeao - Christian influence. Indian law I preseume would have its roots from Hinduism and Middle Eastern countries are inflienced by Islamic Law.
Church: Don't kill innocent human life You: Stop using religion as a basis for argument... So you think "don't murder", is a religious law? and can't be a secular one?
@@ManpreetSingh-kg9os Isn't almost always the other way around? Gays and atheists hate their families because of their religious beliefs. Regarding guns. There is nothing in the bible about it. We are supposed to love and pray for our enemies. Jesus goes as far to say that when someone slaps us, we should turn the other cheek. It is a matter of civil liberty. What will you do if the Indian government comes against Sikhs in India? Will your fate be any different from the Jews? Hitler banned Jews from owning guns and dangerous weapons. It didn't end well for the jews. The constitutional gun laws in US are not to fight thieves and rapists. There are to protect against a tyrannical government seeking to persecute its own people. Don't conflate the bible with the US constitution... not the same thing.
I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is. Sister Joan Chittister
I've never heard a pro-lifer say "let them starve". They may vote for a candidate they think will get people back to work faster so that less people need government benefits, but they don't want them to starve.
By the way, I find it idiotic and extremely ignorant to compare my opinion to that of Hitler. Although I realise pro-life people like to use him as their case in argument, which is again stupid. You should grow up and see what happens everyday in the real world.
I am pro life but I have never used Hitler as an argument, it is a very stupid strategy. What is the quote by the way? I mean don’t tell me, even if it makes sense, it is still stupid using someone who killed millions of Jews to support something you defend
1) Again, using fallacies to make your argument. I see no difference between preventing an egg & embryo from conceiving or aborting it right after. It is the same result. No life. And it isn't just about the potential for death, it is about long term health problems either shortening life span or negatively affecting life experience. Pregnancy & birth is far more risky than abortion, but it doesn't matter b/c common sense tells us that it should be the person's choice in the matter. cont.....
What about choice of men? you don't see difference but I will tell you the difference the embryo is genetically same as of the mother and sperm is genetically same as of father and both are produced by their own body but moment it is fertilized it has a unique DNA sequence which is different from mother and father so there is absolutely a huge difference based on DNA You write person's choice and person includes the 50% men of the population too so by your own common sense plz write it as women's choice not person as clearly you have shown to be manipulating fact by writing person instead of women I don't think you have common sense too and I bet you would also be in favour of killing anyone as it is your common sense that tells you that it is person's choice to kill anyone they want and more it should be legal.
Because the majority of the population will always have sex regardless if they are taught abstinence or not. So practicing safe sex is more practical in today's world. I explained to you the scientific reasoning. Are you blinded by your own emotions on this matter? You really are starting to sound like one of strong religious faith. I agree with what science says. I told you. I also told you that science accepts that what can be considered life can also branched into various categories.
im pro choice support abortion, not as a form of birth control though. If a woman is raped, if the child will have some sort of terminal disease or disorder, or quality of life will be extremely low (as in the case of health/birth defects/etc), then I believe it is only the correct choice to abort. (If you yourself have a genetic disposition for something, then maybe not think about having a child to spare future generations those genetic abnormalities. Also, just because you can procreate does not mean you should, the world population is increasing at such a rate that the Earth's resources will become limited. For all of the comments saying that if you are going to have an abortion you may as well go kill something, you already do kill living beings everyday, inadvertently for food and clothes. If you are going to talk about the value of life, humans aren't the only important beings on this planet. also abortion should be confidential and private
no. abortion is still not a solution in the case of rape. And you don't have the right to say that a child don't have the right to life just because he/she have some sort of terminal disease because we all have the right to live,even those with down syndrome. Regardless of age,levels of development,and potential, as human being we claim that right.
All the respect, but I do have the right to say that you might not agree with my views but I support pro-choice I am pro-choice I support abortion I support human women's rights to their bodies
Their is literally another body in there chick. You can't just kill other people and then say, _"Let me deal with my God."_ Murder doesn't get religious exemptions...
@@zetuan It's pretty low. Although, you can use a lack of objective morality as a reason as well. I see people say all the time, _"Don't force your ethics or beliefs on other women."_ Atheism can logically lead you (and obviously does more often) to a pro-choice stance, it seems.
@@Volmire1 I am taoist. Not an atheist. And I don't use religion or god to determine anything I do in life. What I consider is right or wrong depends on whether the outcome of my actions benefit others or causes harm. If I cannot decide whether to act or not, I have a 3rd option which is to do nothing. With regards to abortion, I am inclined to ignore the topic and do nothing because it is none of my business. I believe the decision lies with the woman. However, when there are people such as you who (use all sort of weird reasons eg god, religion, ethics, moral) shove ur beliefs down other peoples throats, people such as me tend to get annoyed and start wondering why u r sticking ur nose into peoples affairs. And that is why people like me will take a side to oppose you. Being pro choice does not mean i go round advocating abortion. I am merely stating that a woman is entitled to decide. It is not you or me to decide for her. I believe some women have their own reasons to do abortion. Also, please don't use the word murder or kill. As a meat eater, I already feel awful but I have acknowledged long ago I am nasty for taking the life of animals for my survival. Every single human being causes thousands of deaths to animals, unless u r a born vegetarian. Therefore, I do not see how aborting babies is bad to the earth in any way.
@@zetuan --- *And I don't use religion or god to determine anything I do in life.* My point was to say that you don't need God to justify bad behavior. --- *With regards to abortion, I am inclined to ignore the topic and do nothing because it is none of my business. I believe the decision lies with the woman.* A pro-slavery advocate could say the same thing. "Don't like slaves? Don't get one." or "my property, my choice." If someone is being killed unjustly, then it most certainly is your business. Homicide is not a private affair. --- *However, when there are people such as you who (use all sort of weird reasons eg god, religion, ethics, moral) shove ur beliefs down other peoples throats, people such as me tend to get annoyed and start wondering why u r sticking ur nose into peoples affairs. And that is why people like me will take a side to oppose you.* I use morals/ethics to determine what laws should be. What in the world else would you use? Your same sentiment could be stated about murder. After all, you are "sticking ur nose into peoples affairs" when advocating for ANY law. --- *Being pro choice does not mean i go round advocating abortion.* You do advocate for abortion to be legal, which is wrong. Advocating for the unjust killing of other humans is wrong. --- *Also, please don't use the word murder or kill.* Sorry, but there is a generation of people who honestly don't think that it is killing another human. But that is flat wrong, even abortionists will tell you this. In an abortion, you MUST kill the human before they are delivered, because you have to take them to the hospital if they are born alive. --- *As a meat eater, I already feel awful but I have acknowledged long ago I am nasty for taking the life of animals for my survival. Every single human being causes thousands of deaths to animals, unless u r a born vegetarian. Therefore, I do not see how aborting babies is bad to the earth in any way.* There is a difference in killing a human being and killing an animal. For example, if you had to choose between a teen human and a teen ape, on who would die, surely you would choose the human, yes? It doesn't change the calculus whether you have to choose between 1 human and 10 apes or 100 apes. Humans are more valuable than animals. Although, we shouldn't kill animals without reason, I would say.
@@Volmire1 I am unable to relate to ur points. U try to draw a comparison between between abortion, homicide and slavery. Unfortunately I don't find them similar at all. A woman aborting her baby is definitely not the same as an adult killing another. If an adult killer is lurking around, of course it affects me because my family members may become a target. A woman who aborts her baby... how in the world does it affect me till I need to meddle in her affairs? Slavery is wrong because the negative repercussions affects everybody. Again I dont get how slavery can compare with a woman who wants to abort her baby in private, in a hospital. Like I said prevously, I make decisions in life based on whether my actions harm people. Respecting a womans decision to abort means i keep silent. But people such as you who group together and try to pass legislation that makes abortion illegal; did it occur to u that u r causing harm to some minority women? Some women may have reasons to abort. And as bystanders, we should let them have a choice. I think it is wrong if you are going to deny a woman her right to decide as to whether she wants to carry the fetus or not. I advocate abortion to be legal because i respect women enough. I believe women will make the best decision whether to keep or abort the baby. You and I should only support them. Not condemn them if they make a decision that does not align with your beliefs. And while we are on the subject of life, I must say NOT all human life is more valuable than animals. U may think human life is precious, but between a terrorist and a dog with rabbies, I would still shoot the human terrorist first.
Not really because it's the woman's body. Say the doctor said this woman could die because of having a baby since her body isn't strong enough and she decided to abort it is her choice, choosing the baby is like suicide so there's no difference their both lives.
Jisoo Official man do you realize abortions for medical reasons are statistically rare so is rape/incest?most un radical pro lifers would say that’s the only circumstance that abortion is alright. Statistically speaking abortions are done by teenagers/ young people who made a terrible mistake and decide to take the easy way out. Just to do that mistake again.
@@aphradite321 lol it is not womens body it is seperate human that is bullst argument and abortions done for safty of women are extremly rare most are done for mistake
If you were a pregnant woman and people forced you to abort a baby you wanted. I would support you 100%. The issue of abortion such a grey area. There is no right or wrong. What is wrong is the millions of deaths as a direct result of pro-life movements. There was even an extreme case in Ireland a week or so ago where a woman died because a hospital denied her aborting her still-born :(
What about the millions of babies who were directly murdered? Pro-life doesn't only want to protect the child but their mother as well. They focus on providing help and would rather politics were more concentrated on how to prevent the mother die rather than easily killing an innocent life
@@lolaanfer88 The unborn do not have a right to live outside of the pregnant woman's resolve for them to live. A woman is born with one million ova. 1% of her ova ovulate and 1% of those get fertilized, 30% of those implant. Then 70% of those will be born 15% will be aborted. After 14 weeks gestation 95% will be born. At birth the number of children she has increases by an integer. Until then it is hers alone to decide its fate. Tell me what should we do about the 999 999 that don't make it ? Only if it is her resolve that they should live, is there any emphasis that they should live.
In a survey of around 1000 women from your country. It was found that women are socially and economically better off from having abortions. 76% denied end up on public assistance, and some were reported in domestic violence. Poland the same as the USA? is it the same as Africa? Do you realise people who want abortions just go to another country? What's the point of that example? That's just a biased law based on religious beliefs and beliefs of people not affected.
I hate the it's my body argument cause a baby which happens to be in your body is not a body part. The baby in your body is a completely separate human. If you want to cut your arm off our take out your liver that's fine with me but to kill another human being that happens to be living in your body I am not ok with.
I give you an example, John Wayne Gacy is a serial killer and a product of bad childhood due to extremely bad parenting. If you give his mother a choice to abort him that's a better choice than ruining his entire childhood and turning him into a psychpath. BE NOT A PARENT THAN A BAD PARENT.
Mass genocide of a race of people is not the same. But millions of Africans have died because of pro-life movements. Funny you mention ideology. It's the religious ideology that is responsible for all those deaths in Africa. It maybe definitive to you, but I said basic because it's a matter of interpretation. Your interpretation is that life begins at fertilization. I already explained to you what other scientific studies have defined that matter into different categories.
It's sad that abortion which is murder of another innocent human being is merely termed as a termination of pregnancy. From the moment of conception, a new life begins in the womb of a mother. This is not and cannot be about the right of a woman's body, it's about another person's life. Abortion is wrong.
Signal people have survived abortion and been left with life long health conditions as a result of their own Mothers "choice" I suggest you pay for abortion survivors medical bills!
Lester Menezes I completely agree. God doesn’t make children to die before they have a chance to live. Abortion IS wrong. Abortion is murder. If a mother killed a one month old baby merely because she doesn’t want it is that right?
You understand that science backs abortion too right? Whether or not you see abortion as being wrong comes down to your interpretation of what stage the life form is at and that you would classify it as terminating an actual child. Like I said, if your a female and don't want to have an abortion that is fine. I support your decision. But if someone else wants to then it is fine also. I use religion because when talking to people who support pro life its the same. Like talking to a brick wall.
TheRealLeddy for me, the valid reason for you to say that “my body, my choice” on an abortion topic is when you were raped or when the doctors say it’ll be suicide if you keep your baby but if you just wanna abort your baby just because you have a choice or just because you want to, man, you had a choice to fck or not to fck in the very first place.
@@pradyumnashetty5982. Men have to go through physical and mental strain in order to support a child they may never have wanted because some woman decided to take them and their wallet hostage. If a woman can opt out of motherhood during her pregnancy, then it should follow that men can opt out of fatherhood during her pregnancy.
@@jeanninestreiff7961 personally experiencing the pain of pregnancy and birth doesn't really make you an authority on the issue though, after all you can give birth but not know anything about biology or the moral implications of abortion. The arguments themselves made for either side are valid/invalid regardless of who is the one saying them.
@@foreverrocks7989 there are countless examples all through history of atrocities against human rights being legal. American Slavery, the holocaust are two of the big ones. Legality doesn’t not necessarily reflect morality. This is not a matter of legality, rather a matter of science and fundamental morality.
Only 2 cases should abortion be allowed. Rape and life in danger. And even then it was hard to make a decision. Do you know how abortion is performed? They litterally rip the organs off the fetus. Only 2 cases should abortion be allowed. Only 2.
@Tuathe Moon I thought you said the woman should use one so that she doesn’t get pregnant and I’m saying that they don’t always work and if it didn’t work then I think she should be able to abort the baby.
Never mind thanks for you time then. It's clear this discussion can go on forever. Thanks for enlightening me on this subject. I however would continue to support women's rights. We can see from civilizations all around the world, when we empower women as individuals and give them the ability to make a stand/choices in their life, society is a lot better as a whole.
It is not a women’s right when a baby girl is being killed (or a boy). I stand with women, I think we should empower women, I think that women should have the right to do what they want with their body, but giving women the choice to decide if another human being dies or lives (a defenseless ones at that), I think that’s a little far.
@@maevekitchens True, both of them, the woman and the foetus have equal rights. But it's the foetus that's invading the woman's body and it's her right wether to let it grow or expel it by all means. It rather counts as self defence on the woman's part.
My take is you may not agree with abortion however no one has the power to override what someone does with their body. It’s not your choice it’s their’s and should be left as a option. What ever you believe should never dictate someone else. I personally don’t 100 percent agree with certain 3rd and 2nd trimester abortions, but I don’t understand each persons situation and can’t make their choice. Furthermore, it would be foolish to make laws against abortion because it doesn’t effect anyone, but the person getting the abortion and shouldn’t be dictated by the government.
Everything you said is only true because you assume right from the start the what you're aborting (essentially killing) isn't a human being with human value. The abortion debate hinges on what the unborn is. You don't just skip that inconvenient question and go directly to arguing about the mother's autonomy. When you say it affects no-one, you've already assumed that the unborn is no-one or nothing. Assuming something you have to prove or disprove is one of the most basic of all logical fallacies. Also, even if the unborn really were not relevant, you're factually incorrect when you say it doesn't affect anyone - there's plenty of documented cases where abortion has had negative effects on the parents. And I don't get why pro-aborts keep saying that pro-lifers are the ones imposing their views on other people via the government, when pro-aborts have literally been using the government to impose their view on pro-lifers for the past few decades?? The government literally dictates what's right in your favour, even though everyone agrees that the abortion debate isn't a settled matter and y'all have no problem with that. Perfect example of "rules for thee and none for me." And the funny part is when it comes to logical arguments and science, the pro-life position almost infinitely makes more sense than being pro-abortion.
the body of the baby is its own not the mothers, is it right for any of our mother to kill us in our twenties because we are her child, no . have u seen a how an abortion is conducted. they rip apart the baby from inside the womb and they dispose the body. the women can do whatever she want with her body, but not anyone else's. We as mankind has killed over 600 million babies. there is no justification for killing somebody.
if only there was some scientific breakthrough by which we could make all the pro-lifers carry the "unwanted" babies to term in their bodies.....I'm sure they would not object because they care so much about the sanctity of life , don't they?
lol how does that prove or disprove anything? First of all, it's not even real data or evidence. You literally just made that up. And secondly, pro-lifers deciding to turn into pro-aborts and vice versa doesn't prove or disprove either the pro-life position or the pro-abortion position. You're acting as if you've made a valid case against the pro-life position, when you've done no such thing. 😅 The abortion debate isn't a matter of a pro-lifer or a pro-abort not being up to your perceived ideal of a person. It's a matter of ethics. Even if you hate pro-lifers, you still have to contend with the pro-lifer position itself, instead of using ad hominem (which if I may say you pro-aborts do a lot). lol it would be so much better if there was a scientific breakthrough whereby pro-aborts could be made smarter so that they would know the right choices when it comes to their sexual activity. Y'all can't even make the right choices when it comes to that and have the nerve to expect everyone else to believe that you can make the right choices when it comes to abortion.
Nur ein Name according to what standards it’s not a human? Someone who has a heartbeat, can feel pain, has a distinct DNA that is separate from any in human history.
v b no I don’t think it’s a valid argument, your argument is basically that since an unborn baby is being a burden on women, they have the right to do something that can kill it. For example, newborn baby still relies on mother’s milk etc and in some rare cases where they cannot provide breast milk, they still have to take care of them day and often sleepless nights that are very very hard on women’s bodies. If they don’t do that(provide breast milk) and take care of baby while sacrificing their own bodies in hard work day and night, baby would literally die too. And in legal cases it’s considered murder. The question should be is the fetus in the womb living thing or not
@@sammatthew2841 India is pro - abortion but within the bounds of legality. Abortion arguments barely take place because majority of the population is pro - choice.
Everyone in this world aware of how the woman becomes pregnant if she doesn't want to take risk and responsibilities comes with it , why then she need to undergo that process.
@@tristan12424 sure it will always say yes because he or she deserves the experience of life, and don’t tell me “oh but what if the baby grows up in poverty?” I grew up in poverty and I always loved my life, also grew up fatherless as well, you can ask any baby if they wanted to live once thier born and they will always say yes because all babies are scared of the thought of death.
You will be charged with murder if you do something to cause the fetus of a pregnant woman to die, even if she is planning on aborting the fetus. To charge someone with murder, we have to admit that it is a human being. Yet a woman can make the decision to abort that same fetus. So by logical thinking, we have given a woman the right to decide what is human and what is not. Or we have given her the right to commit murder legally. Or both. How hypocritical.
satguy11 I think it's more about taking away the woman's right to choose whether she wanted to keep it or not. And it's more about the potential of what it could've been.
the "life" is in the woman! She's the one who is giving resources to a fertilized egg that develops into a baby. Seems pretty logical to have her decide if it's a potential human
The reason i am pro choice is, because if you are not ready to have a child and you are forced to have a child and raise it, that will not be good for you and your child in long term, and people say you can give the child to adoption centre, but we know what is the condition of adoption centre in the world, it's not good, if i am not capable of giving my child a good life ,then i am not having it, and there is guilt and regret in every condition, if you choose to raise your child, you will have regret that because of that child you didn't do what you wanted to do, and maybe you will be bitter to your child and that is not good for both mother and child, if you choose to give it to adoption centre then you will have guilt that how are they raising your child, are they giving them good life, and if you aborting , then you will also have guilt, And i personally think that you are not able to give your child a good life then you shouldn't have it, and i will have less guilt in aborting the kid than giving it to adoption centre and wondering if that kid has a good life or not
If you are pro life, you are assuming that the baby WANTS to live the life you force upon it. What if they don't want to live? When Huamans are capable of requesting euthanasia/assisted suicide, so are babies. Who are you to decide for the embryo, whether they want to live or not. Who is going to be answerable to the child when they are forced to live their life in a dingy orphanage without proper food, education, safety or social standing. Or forced to endure a difficult life with a cranky penniless single mother?
I can say that all your argument is, is that of 1.Your emotional opinion, 2.A single scientific claim. (You support and twist science in your favor here but not when they are the very people that take those fertilized cells and use them for research) and 3.Nazi Germany. No I would not go with the flow if it meant such a thing. However society had a choice between saving the lives of fully grown people, to that of small cells. Logic and reasoning would tell me to save the first group. Logic.
a 20/24 week fetus is not just a group of cells... it can actually perceive pain rather normally...... also a full term down syndrome fetus whose termination our laws allow can definitely perceive physical pain as they in the surgical procedure slowly cut his limbs and crush his skull to bring it out. why can't i do that to a 1 year old baby with down's ???? the fact is there is so much new data and new scientific perspective on when life begins.
The fact I’m having to go to a Indian news channel to find an actual debate on abortion even though it’s such a big deal, tells me that TH-cam really doesn’t want that to come out. Probably because all facts are on pro-life side
You should be able to abort a child if you want, and adopt a child if you want. Full stop. The body which the baby is coming from is the mother. So it's FULLY the mother's choice. If she wants to abort, she can.
the body of the baby is its own not the mothers, is it right for any of our mother to kill us in our twenties because we are her child, no . have u seen a how an abortion is conducted. they rip apart the baby from inside the womb and they dispose the body. the women can do whatever she want with her body, but not anyone else's. We as mankind has killed over 600 million babies. there is no justification for killing somebody.
@Tuathe Moon the father should also have a choice but unfortunately due to science it’s the mum who gives birth, so then it comes to whether the mother is a good person or not therefore willing to take into consideration the fathers choices.
@@navaneethjeevan2956 the body of baby is IN the mother’s body so at the end of the day it’s the mother’s body and choice what she does. Theres a certain amount of months within which the mother can make a decision to give birth or abort, and in this certain amount of months yes we may think the baby has feelings etc but scientifically it’s brain and conscious is not developed. When we are in our twenties or even when we turn 1 years old we are our own bodies with our own consciences- so now of course it’s not right for any mother to kill. But that’s different to what abortion is.
@@navaneethjeevan2956 we as mankind have also given birth to millions of babies who are left without homes or shelter or up for adoptions etc. If you believe u can’t provide a good childhood for your child in the future , feel free to abort.
@Tuathe Moon no it’s not at all. For example if a woman got raped hence pregnant, just because the embryo in her body is her ‘offspring’ she shouldn’t be forced to have it at all.
“It’s a woman’s body” - how do people still use this terrible argument. The abortion debate is not about what women do with their bodies. The abortion debate is about what women do with the children inside their bodies.
@P P try as hard as you want to label the unborn as a parasite…but the truth is a born child will feed off you against your will. You’ll still have to provide food and clothes and warmth for a born child, MORE than you would an unborn child, yet you wouldn’t say you could kill an unwanted born child would you?
A fetus is dependent on the woman's body to survive. The choice, to allow the fetus her body's support or not, is entirely the woman's to make. Men, like myself, regardless of religion or moral beliefs should have no say in the matter.
Im not sure if you are aware of the primary function of the uterus. Its not like any other organ in the body. Its specifically designed for the fetus to grow in it. So you cannot say its using the womans body. So according to your logic its ok for a woman to decide to not allow her child to her breast milk (body support).
@@desi_feminist84 So you if anyone sees a pro-choice women trying to commit suicide by throwing her body off a tall building, then we should not try to stop her since its her body and she can decide what to do with it.
@@alfabeta6817 according to pro lifers then we shouldn't eat anything at all. Plants are alive. You don't care about lives it has never been about that. This is a system of control used on women.
@@rohitbhushan8855 no, just stop breeding. What alternative do you have? What alternative do we have? What will you do when you have no water? Maybe you will kill each other to get water. Its a scary thought.
@@theothistledon6935 How can you possibly expect 1.3 billion people to stop breeding out of nowhere ? Its obvious that you're completely clueless about the nature of the population rate vs time curve. Its an exponential curve which means bigger the population is, higher the population rate will be. That's why stop linking the problem of overpopulation with everything. The real reason is the people who abuse the natural resources, deliberately... who take the availability of these resources for granted. I often get to see the wastage of water.. like a tons of gallons of water per day. I'm sure that you have also seen it , especially, if you live in the northern plain. Tell me what you have done so far about it.. I mean other than writing a longa$$ comment on TH-cam.
@@rohitbhushan8855 okay. well fair enough thats good reply, you wrote long response. Okay well dont worry about it then, do nothing and by 2040 there will be no water. Chaos, mass killings, I guess and maybe famine. Either way the problem solves itself. I cant see any other way out of it. Good day sir. 😊👍
@@rohitbhushan8855 we in AUSTRALIA are already on water restrictions. Water is expensive which means we cannot afford to waste it. My electricity usage is 1/10 of an average person. My water usage is extremely low. Again it cost money and were on water restrictions. Green lawns are a thing of the 80s. People have peoples now and almost no lawn. Already 2~3 towns they are saying are in trouble. One guy said they would need 100 trucks per day but where do they get water from? This a big provincial town. I've noticed some hardwood timber is hard to get and very very expensive. Globally there is a shortage of coffe. Instant coffee is cut with cornmeal, soy, chicory, sticks, twigs, and even dirt. Fish stocks are predicted to run out in 2030. I read these estimates are wrong because every year they're getting similar amount of fish. Technology means the same yield despite the dwindling fish stocks. Which means fish stocks will be depleted before 2030. Many fish species are now exstinct. The worlds bugs are being depleted. Honey bees colonies are collapsing. Pollution is so bad now. 8 million tons of plastic enters the oceans annually maybe more. We cant just ignore these facts.
Pro-life people have held back so much progress in scientific research. Who knows how far we could have come if religious and personal conflict didn't halt this. Anyways your so smart on this subject. How do you help in the prevention of AIDS in Africa? Knowing that condoms and teachings of abstinence and denying a woman's rights to abortions don't work in this situation?
No because a fertilized egg is a unique being, with DNA different from any other human beings, sperm is literally just the father's DNA and if sperm is left in it's natural state then it won't develop into a human, a fertilized egg will develop into a human
@@soapycloudie5943 @XxSAINxX Your answer surprised me. That's an unusal angle of attack. First,are you aware that life mean a lot of things? I you check the definition on internet, you will find that few define life as the moment where a creature aquiere a soul or become an individual. Doctors,biologists,priests, soldiers...each field have its own definition of "life". So you may have misinterpreted what they meant by life. Second, let's suppose what you say is true. How could any scientist possibly proove this? What is the procedure to follow to determine if something is or isn't a human life? At one point,they will have to choose an arbitrary definition. Third,why aren't scientists calling for the end of abortion?
@@LuciferXFallen290 Were you ever a fetus?(medical term) when man has always said "with child" but medical terms often attempt to mask the realities...A murderer(Abortionist) states....its a fetus...merely cells... So i ask you...were you ever a fetus?
@@LuciferXFallen290 In all truth...when a life is killed inside the womb....you have killed a person..a life ,a living soul,with all the potential of a life to come.... We were all fetus' yes?...of course we were...and to kill one is to kill us all. It truly is murder...now matter how it is attempted to say otherwise.
@@MarcosJ-mq4lk I have a better understanding on the development of the foetus than you do. Did you know that a foetus of 6 weeks looks like a bean? Now no more attacks on medical knowledge. Time to use common sense. Say in abortion is murder is not common sense. It's NPC
I agree. I never said that you get to kill just because someone doesn't feel pain. I don't understand why anti-choice people have difficulty following an argument. If you are going to give an embryo equal rights to women then it creates a conflict of rights. We are forced to choose. The right to abort is the right to defend and protect your own body. A woman can suffer and an embryo can't. This is a categorical distinction to help us choose who's rights are more important.
Rak haemet, this thread is probably too old to comment now but I just wanted to congratulate you for your passion, intellect and common sense. Yours, are probably the best comments I have ever read on this subject.
A child is not a women's body. It's actually inside a woman because he/she is dependent to her mother. A child is dependent even after been born. The women of India cannot be biased on child's life. If you are against childs infanticide then you must also have to go against child abortion.
@@natural3362 So why do we keep people in a coma alive? They have no cognitive function. We know that there's a chance they'll wake up some day. In the same way, we know that at some point the baby's going to leave the womb. All you want to do is kill a baby because it's inconvenient to you.
@@ErenYeager-oi6hu eh wrong. People in coma are sentient. They're just unconscious. People in coma aren't in women' womb. They have no right to kill them. Why are you trying to control women womb
The difference is you choose to have sex, you don't choose cancer. Rape victims should give up to relatives or orphanages if they hate babies enough to kill 'em.
The rape argument is bullcrap it counts for less than 1 percent of murders last year as the reason for murdering a baby. I don't call it abortions it's murder maybe they should stop using the word abortion and use murder instead. Maybe that will help stop some
Ahh, these people who got raped, should endure 9 months of pregnancy (that comes with complications and pain etc), without being the one responsible for the pregnancy in the first place?
I give you an example, John Wayne Gacy is a serial killer and a product of bad childhood due to extremely bad parenting. If you give his mother a choice to abort him that's a better choice than ruining his entire childhood and turning him into a psychpath. BE NOT A PARENT THAN A BAD PARENT.
Our individual DNA process is a continuous process, unfurling from the moment of conception. There is no later stage of our existence that is not dependent on earlier stages of our existence, as a continuous entity in space and time. Our DNA process is continuous in both space and time from the moment of our conception, to the moment of our death. Acceptance, rationalization of the termination of an already unfurling DNA process, once invited to unfurl, requires the irrational acceptance of a temporal bias. In the continuum of space/time, that continuously unfurling DNA process is not a complete individual human 'yet.' That is because we are not regarding that human over the complete time-space continuum that it exists in. But, the only thing required to see the complete individual human is the passage of time. We are, of course, much more than our unfurling DNA processes, but whatever we are, the basis of our life, cannot exist without the unmolested possession of that unfurling DNA process. The fetus is a concrete example of a new individual DNA process, unfurling. There is and has been a conflict to define the most fundamental aspect of an individual -- the term of its existence. The resolution of this conflict -- between the newest individual and others -- is resolved by others, based on whatever philosophical or moral guidance they bring to the conflict. The rationalizations in support of abortion boil down to the convenience of the others, based mostly on a shaky temporal bias that is permitted to stand, unquestioned.
So what would you say about the term of the human existence? You left that question hanging. The "unfurling of DNA processes" which you talk about take place even after the death of a person. So surely the inception of these processes shouldn't be the basis of the decision of whether a person (fetus) is alive or not.
'Abortion is for the convenience of others'.. lol no.. Taking this method of birth control to assuage your conscience from the unpleasantness of nature is 'caprice'.. All of the lofty quixotic 'rationale' of your speech denouncing abortion aside, abortion is a natural phenomenon, a practice found in all other species and humans since time millennium (only recently in natural history, were we able to terminate in utero). Ergo abortion is a necessity we evolved, not a 'convenience'.. We still and have been terminating the life of offspring for the same reasons: to control the population bc the environment was judged to be unsupportive of an increase in a particular species.. Ironically, we will only be able to debate in the way you have attempted to employ in this case, until we created a society where abortion doesnt exist.. Until we've reached that by addressing the actual triggers of abortion, one not being 'convenience'😒, we will be at the mercy of the same environmental pressures which culled our predecessors' progeny.. Until we grow up and recognize that abortion is incredibly and innately natural and used for legitimate reasons, we can never hope to factor it out.. To your thing about dna, all living things, individual species and cancer biopsies, have a unique dna sequence.. What about this can be used to conclude that a zygote is a person, if by that logic cancer biopsies are ppl.. ?
Your emotional and kind heart is telling you to save both. Not logic. It's your opinion which is based on your own morality and ethics on this matter. I also share my emotion towards both sides. But as a society we must accept what is the better decision down the road. Your opinion has been taught to the people of africa and has failed miserably.
Detrap yes a lot of this debate is people talking about their feelings which is a logical fallacy however a lot of things aren’t definable in this debate. However there are certain facts we can use to prove certain points.
When you do that, what answer do you come up with? Personally my best guess is that it comes down to what you value: what things are at this present moment or potentials. A pro-life person looks at an embryo and thinks what this DNA might eventually become. A pro-choice person looks at an embryo and thinks it's neither viable nor sentient so it has no self-interest in living or dying. As long as we have different underlying philosophies valuing 2 or more different things, we'll never agree. I'm pro-choice. I don't believe in overriding the rights of a sentient being so that a non-sentient life may or may not someday become sentient and either be happy to be born or unhappy to be born. I'm pro-choice from both a scientific and religious perspective. Identical twins don't form for about a week which proves ensoulment doesn't happen at conception.
So let me ask everyone out there, pro life, pro choice, whatever you are. If a girl got pregnant and the doctor told her that she would die if she gave birth, would she get an abortion or die for her baby?
Ethics aside, abortion should be legal because in the places in the world where it's outlawed, it has the highest rates of occurrence. Also, because it's outlawed, the procedures are unregulated and often dangerous to the pregnant women. The choice then is between fewer safe abortions, or more dangerous abortions.
It’s a shallow question, but could countries with smaller populations be more concerned about pro-choice issues? In India, with its large population, abortion laws don’t significantly impact the overall population numbers, as many people still want children. This situation is different from countries like Japan and Korea, where population concerns are more pressing. So, why is abortion still not accepted in India? Because of religious reasons?
I was just referring to executions. It is more expensive to have someone put to death than it is to keep them locked up for life. The thing is everyone has their own opinion on it. So heres a solution. Let it be an option. Those who are against it have the right to say no when they get unwanted pregnancy. Don't force your sense of morals onto others when it has nothing to do with anyone except the one person involved.
Its only a matter of time before some other clown like you stand up and start saying that killing a fully grown person is not wrong according to his/her morals and hence, the law should not have any say in it. That's where you numbnuts are headed, to be honest...
Lots of pregnant women refer to their unborn child as their baby.... Regardless of what the unborn child is called, he or she IS a human being. Innocent human beings should have a right to life.
It is not human until it is born and can survive. Then they are human. Until they, Mathilde, they are a fetus or a bunch of cells that are multiplying fast. You can call it what you want but that's your emotion speaking, not facts. If they were human, they would have a SSN, name, birth certificate, government benefits at conception...why don't they? Because life is not defined at conception, its defined at birth...that actual word says it all, you dimwit.
@@NoCreativeNameGirl What a lame logic!!! Few hundreds years ago there was no SSN/Birth Certificate or Govt facilities. Even now a days lot of people (refugees, tribal people...) dont have those paper works. Does this mean they are not human? Life is larger than some documents or digital data.
An analogy that has no reference to the subject at hand. Yes we must not forget history. Mortility rates have dropped incredibly with the encouraged use of medical abortions. More barbaric methods were used not so long ago. Why do you make assumptions that a small % of people should dictate what should be decided for everyone else? Here's a quote for you as well. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." - Leonard Nimoy's Spock By the way that is considered a logical quote.
Mortility means movement. Mortality rates have increased! Every baby that is aborted is killed. Abortion = death. Murder. Murdering babies does not increase the amount of babies that are born alive. It just means less babies are birthed.
@@cnault3244 but they will eventually want to be alive. People who are in coma can't care whether or not you kill them. But they will eventually care once they wake up.
@@cnault3244 yeah because you took that choice away from them. You can't kill someone in coma and say its okay cause he hasn't woken up yet. Also, it's not okay to kill someone in their sleep just cause they don't have consciousness for a specific period of time....
If the child has a sick condition that may kill them after they're born, I guess it's better to put them out of their misery than to let them suffer after being born.
Ours is an age where ethics has become obsolete. It is superseded by science, deleted by philosophy and dismissed as emotive by psychology. It is drowned in compassion, evaporates into aesthetics and retreats before relativism. The usual moral distinctions between good and bad are simply drowned in a maudlin emotion in which we feel more sympathy for the murderer than for the murdered, for the adulterer than for the betrayed, and in which we have actually begun to believe that the real guilty party, the one who somehow caused it all, is the victim, and not the perpetrator of the crime. -Robert Fitch We see a Dr cram metal into a baby and tear it apart until its heart stops beating, and Until a its brain waves cease. We see a mother lay quietly as they tear off his little arms and legs from his body. Then we say the mother is the victim, and the baby is at fault. Then we pretend the Dr is not guilty as he overpowers the little heartbeat with violance and injustice.
That's your own view. I accept that. Like I said as my original point at what stage it can be considered human is up to the individual. Science has given us a basic answer, but understands what has to be done for the good of society. There can be negative consequences on both sides for whether a woman has the child or not. We don't see abortion for other mammals to be wrong, because we feel emotionally superior to any other. We see the value of human life with emotion, rather than logic.
in a society that has chosen to kill a child it is lacking Love. Love is made up of patients and kindness; love will not be envious or boastful; LOVE is not arrogant or rude. LOVE does NOT insist on its OWN way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 *VENGEANCE FOR THE CHILDREN IS COMING SOON* REPENT FOR THE DREADFUL DAY OF THE LORD IS COMING
First of all it's not her body her choice in case of abortion it's another body inside her body, And second in india anti abortion laws are very important because people will misuse abortion and terminate girl child's.
I don't think that was what Anand was referring to.... When you say "a fetus is not a baby" you are attempting to dehumanize a human being.... I can say "a newborn is not a toddler" - that doesn't mean it's OK to kill newborns. Yes, there are developmental differences between fetuses and babies just as there are developmental differences between newborns and toddlers but human fetuses, babies and toddlers are all human beings that should be protected, not killed.
Western influence. They'll try to guilt trip you into accepting their beliefs even if there are vast socio-economic differences between both countries. I can't imagine why something would even think of outlawing abortions in a densely populated, poverty stricken country like india.
@@nitinhardy4078 But embryos are not ''innocent people''... If you search for the definition of the word you will se that an embryo cannot be considered as ''people''. Your comparison is not valid
@@barriguinhamole291 yes it doesn't. But in 9 months it will be a baby if you didn't kill it. Life is not an instant process, it takes time. And before conception there is no potential for life . Its as simple as that
@@barriguinhamole291 yes and it's a kinda murder beacause it will be a baby in 9 months. What you are killing is a zygote which we all were at one stage. But our mothers didn't terminate there pregnancy that's why we are here .
![Medical School Interview - Medical Ethics - Abortion [DEBATE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/oLlhAcpWM3o/mqdefault.jpg)
![เขามัทรี - เอ็กซ์ ศุภกฤต - จอนนี่มิวสิค [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AS9ufKuQIVs/mqdefault.jpg)
This is a much better debate than the debates in the United States. Here there are multiple viewpoints and they actually answer questions asked.
Times when the news discussed real issues 🤷🏻
FAX
Yup
Lol
Something useful
😂😂😂 you are just foolish
Why do people debate a fetus but not the child livelihood when it’s born.
@Parresia Eti are you insane ! How many children go to sleep hungry every night, how many children are in abuse foster care , how many children grow up with out a family because no one adopts them. Etc . If you care about life like you pertain you do, then care about them outside of a womb as well
Yup It’s me Listen to him instead of calling him insane.
@@yupitsme1385 so u think they should be killed because they are gonna go through poverty?, oh wow lets k*** all the foster care children
@@yupitsme1385 the prolife stance is to protect and care for ALL life. That includes humans outside the womb. This fallacious argument proaborts spew constantly that “they only care about people until they’re born” is critically incorrect and exhausting. We can all work to fix other problems, but abortion is the opposite of a solution. Imagine being on the side that thinks it’s okay to kill people just because they will be poor and have a hard life.
@@alexkenchel lets be honest, Ya'll are pro-birth not pro-life
" All those who speak for abortion are already Born" R Reagan.
@ENTJ gal Even those born from angelic parents suffer trauma. Don't people born to such parents commit suicide? But, remember, an abandoned child built up Apple Company
No one can ask to be born. Even a child understands that. Shows how limited our choices are. Shows, life is given. No matter we like it or not. Shows, there is a giver. Can I do whatever I can with that GIVENNESS of life? I am curious to know. Doesn't the giver want us to take care of it rather, just as you would want the person whom u gift a puppy, to take care of it.
Why a different logic for humans babies?
An unborn baby does not belong to the woman alone, but, to the 'world' that takes care of the woman as well. Hence, every child belongs to the society, the humanity. She carries, delivers, and brings the child up for the humanity.
----Does she have the right to kill that baby, while she survives because many have taken care of her throughout her life?
@ENTJ gal
Yes. The world - the doctors,the farmers, the employers, the teachers, ....the entire network of society which is structured to protect life. Think....think.... of how dependant we are on others and the kind nature.
The biggest expenditure in the world is to maintain armies and develop weapons, and buy them. Why? To protect land? To protect the people? Both. When we protect people we protect humanity. The trillions worth health care system, research institutes, industries that manufacture cars, machines, health products, food, medicines,....all to protect and nurture life.
On the other side, a group, FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO KILL AT WILL the helpless defenceless innocent unborn babies.. The healthcare system established to protect and save lives, turn murderers.
Ironical. Isn't it?
@@pads2017 Not everybody lives in the kind of society that you described. You’re describing a fictitious world where everybody has access to the same resources. Reality isn’t on your side pal. There are women who live in third-world countries who’d be lucky to even have a home. Opportunities don’t exist for everyone and even in first-world countries children can still end up in shitty foster homes and live shitty lives.
@@openingshift7070 I’m pretty sure he was talking about life in the United States. Just because life is going to be hard, doesn’t mean someone deserves to die.
@@nbaclashofclanspro9198 And that’s not your choice to make is it?
As a medical doctor and scientist (MD, PhD) I wish the abortion issue centered more around the current scientific consensus. As we currently define life in the scientific community, an embryo is not alive, nor is a fetus until 24 weeks ,the point where it could survive outside of the mother's womb. A fetus is considered alive not from the time there is a heart beat but rather when the last organ system to develop (the lungs) brings the fetus to a state where with medical respiratory assistance, it can live as a self-sustaining organism because the lungs are the last organ system to develop. The surfactant necessary to keep the alveoli open begins at 24-28 weeks and usually finishes at week 34 . Therefore, i think the best argument is made that the court cannot have jurisdiction over a group of proliferating cells nor can it grant personhood to something that is not alive.According to the current consensus the fetus and the mother are one organism, and they are not considered as two separate organisms until the fetus can self-sustain its biological systems.
Prolife or Prochoice? ....why don't we push adoptions?? too many couples that can't have kids in this world, couples that are proven, physically, mentally and financially fit...why is this option not brought up? Adoptions will keep all sides happy, an option that would be alot less of a burden for women.
@MrSteezyR yes, but the shitty indian adoption laws dont allow single males to adopt. is a child born out of rape any less human?
Who’s gonna carry the foetus for 9 freaking months
@@mindslayer6810 obviously, the mother would.
Sai Kiran well what if the mother doesn’t want to carry the child. You want to force her to carry the child.
@@mindslayer6810 no one is forcing anyone to do anything, it's simply providing another option we don't talk enough of. The more options for a woman the better path she feels more comfortable with.
Only 16 thousand views on such an important issue.
it's a dumb issue, because you know what will happen, you make it illigal then women will either do whatever they can to get rid of it drugs or go to some underground clinic and get an abortion by a doctor who doesn't know what they're doing or is using tools that aren't clean, that ends up killing the women
@FastFox Basel Qawasmi that's wishful thinking, but not reality
@FastFox Basel Qawasmi so you honestly think that say if abortion was illigal, women who want to have an abortion aren't going to find ways to try and abort the baby, which would most likely end up killing the woman as well
@FastFox Basel Qawasmi you say if illiegal in a state and a woman gets it illigaly they should be executed or jailed, funny that you think those women will survive, they'll die and the fetus along with them. i do have a question when does it become illigal? is it fertilization? when? not judging just curious on your view point
@FastFox Basel Qawasmi “trust me bro”
Abortion shouldn’t be banned it should still be legal under certain circumstances if the baby isn’t going to survive if the mother can’t physically have the baby safely if the pregnancy is threatening the mother’s life or if the pregnancy was the result of rape those are real legitimate reasons for abortion where the mother would actually need it.
I give you an example, John Wayne Gacy is a serial killer and a product of bad childhood due to extremely bad parenting. If you give his mother a choice to abort him that's a better choice than ruining his entire childhood and turning him into a psychpath. BE NOT A PARENT THAN A BAD PARENT.
Yes except for rape. The baby is still a human even if concepted by rape. It doesn't deserved capital punishment for it's father's actions
@@ricardoavacado3901 absolutely disagreed. I don’t think a victim of rape ,especially someone who is a literal child themself ,would be able to bring up a child of some one who has given them life long trauma. Let’s not talk about what the baby deserves but, about what the rape victim deserves?
@@macroni6282 What do you mean you "don't think" that the person couldn't "bring up" the child? That's your concern? What about preventing the murder of an innocent? That's what adoption centers are for.
@@IrinNarlelybut you're under the assumption that bad financial stress or bad parents automatically make a psychopath. That's like saying all the kids in Africa should be killed because, their life is full of suffering in comparison to others.
It's funny how they they can compare a scared troubled 22 year old girl - who wants an abortion - to a cold blooded murder. These two humans are not the same 🙄
Yes they are, they are both willingly taking a human life.
@blessed facts
@@blessed7146 fискеr let me get this straight, you think that an abortion (that kills an unborn human that doesnt understand anything) and a murder (killing an actual human that understands everything), is the same?
@@blessed7146 💯🎯
@Blessed, Saying bull like a teenage girl having abortion is as big of a murderer as goddamn Jeffrey Dahmer is the reason why I’ll never be on ur side.
You're acting like women can be pregnant on their own.
Instead of blaming women for "murder", why don't you ask those irresponsible men to control themselves and not hurting women?
Do you mean rape when you mentioned that men should stop hurting women.
Pro-lifers hold both men and female accountable for their wrong lifestyle. Instead of playing the blame game and appealing to sexism everytime to make your arguments, why don't women also accept that you're not exactly innocent when it comes to your lifestyle choices?...and considering how the overwhelming majority of pregnancies happen because of voluntary participation by both parties, you shouldn't pretend like every woman who gets pregnant is a victim of rape or incest. Pro-aborts seriously need to get their arguments right and articulate their own positions, instead of simply imposing their views on everyone else while pretending the other side is the one doing that.
@@mkmarak If those women who got abortion cuz they just don't care, ofc they're doing wrong.
And I'm not sexism, I'm just telling you a truth, when there's a woman pregnant then there must be a man involved, cuz we CAN'T be pregnant on our own.
I'm angry cus everytime these kind of news out, everyone blame women and acting like it's right to call them murderer.
Also I think the problem is why they're pregnant, not why they got abortion.
in a society that has chosen to kill a child it is lacking Love. Love is made up of patients and kindness; love will not be envious or boastful; LOVE is not arrogant or rude. LOVE does NOT insist on its OWN way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
1 Corinthians 13:4-7
Where is the Love?
Having a child is as much of a choice as choosing to not have a child and in both cases a fetus does not have a choice.
@Rokenrol Bro 2019 So the mother has no choice? Good argument. Not.
@@LogicAndReason2025 does the father not have a choice? also tell me under what situation is murder moral
@@hippios its not murder
@@dingleberrygangster6198 Why isn't it murder?
You call yourself pro choice her value only certain choices
There is no 100% proof birth control. We all know that and if a person decides to have sex wethere using protection or not then they need to assume the risks and responsibilities that may come with that. How can someone with a heart with feelings think it's OK to erase their responsibility or mistake by KILLING a baby. It's horrific
So if I took the morning after pill and it failed shouldn't I prevent the pregnancy from trying to take place?
True Mari Lopez
I give you an example, John Wayne Gacy is a serial killer and a product of bad childhood due to extremely bad parenting. If you give his mother a choice to abort him that's a better choice than ruining his entire childhood and turning him into a psychpath. BE NOT A PARENT THAN A BAD PARENT.
@@IrinNarlely bad parenting is a product of ignorance and hate and is something, that can be averted by education, realization and awareness. It is true to not be a parent than be a bad parent, but that doesn't justify medically twisting and mutilating an innocent and blameless human being inside a womb for your or your customer satisfaction and convenience.
Moreover, there are great many people victims of domestic abuse and bad parenting, not all of them are serial killers or rapists.
@@burnup4032 why you want to force someone to have a baby? Afterall you are not going to give that child emotional support and financial support. Let others decide what they want to do. A fetus up to 4 months cannot be considered a full baby, so its okay to abort !
Frankly, I really don't see that they debated much. The pro-life arguments stated by the religious leaders weren't countered sufficiently. This could have been a lot more interesting.
Bringing 'Religious Beleifs' into an argument that should be based on facts isn't a good way to proceed anyways.
@@Aryan-fo1ls We really shouldn't need religion to tell us that killing babies is demented and the definition of selfishness.
@@Gebdoe Yes
But if every healthy baby wasn't aborted, the earth would get way too populated.
@@electroskates2434 so killing a baby is right because of that
What a dumb argument
The human being inside the womb has right to life (a secular fundamental right).
Even if it obviously going to have a crappy life with two parents who would never make a good parent, and therefore is unable to raise the said fetus? Or where the child could go through abusive or uncaring foster homes? How is it immoral if you just think practically for a second and realize you can choose to abort it while it's a fetus instead of forcing it to have a horrible life because you think abortion is "evil"? real evil is not preventing a child from having a horrible life when you obviously could. Unless you can find good people who are capable of raising the child, you should not immediately argue against abortion.
Such rights are made up. And there’s no double standard under the law since there’s a clear medical difference
@@biberflub there's a thing called adoption (or responsibility from the parents) it's not the child's fault if their parents are horrible people (in the case you're describing)
@@biberflub That means if your parents are horrible then you should not have life and if you are abused or poor your life has no value that is what you are saying
Horrible to see this argument demhumanising a child same as the slavemasters used to do and claims other life as there property whether they kill him or not is their own choice and now pro choice people are doing it
@@mukulkansara1907 Isn’t it ironic that those who de-humanize the most are people like u who stop caring as soon as a child is no longer a fetus? And u got some damn nerve bring up slave masters when it’s u batting less than a table spoon on anyone who doesn’t fit ur narrative on what life matters.
Why do people think the adoption system is simple and easy? Don't say "just put it up for adoption".
No, it's not as easy as just typing a sentence, have some respect for what women go through.
True
@Serg go help out and adopt then
Hey.. think it from the aborted child's perspective... would you prefer living in a bad household, foster care or have your mother kill you to save the pain.
@@pallavprabhakar forcing a child to live that life and suffer is far more cruel and anyone that wishes a child that life is disgusting x
@@larav2534 So you believe that killing the child is better than having it go through the pain? Should we do that to children who are just born and their parents have abandoned them?
this is pro birth not pro life. If they want the kid to live then make sure you are able to provide an arena where it can grow. its sad that all these people care about is whether life is born with a sprinkle of mysoginy but will not be the ones helping reform a system that currently treats the child like street trash that succumbs to addiction, crime, depression and homelessness.
THIS
@Kemal Isra if you consider the thought of wanting to die because living everyday is a struggle a good thing, then yeah sure.
Are kids being killed after they are born? No. They are being killed before they are born. You are saying that if you advocate for one issue then you should also advocate for all these other issues.
"If you can kill the baby, I can at least abandon him" -Dave Chappelle
Exactly! If she can say that having a child brings psychological problems to her, then why can't he?
Feminists are pro-choice when it comes to women's rights to choose to be parents but anti-choice when it comes to men's rights to choose to be parents.
@@richa4847 exactly
@@W11l why do others get to decide what a person does with their body!
Pradyumna Shetty exactly. Why do women get to decide what a man can do with his body or his money?
trigger glitter it’s men who provide the sperm and have to deal with child support for 18-21 years. If she wants to have an abortion then fine but at least give him the option to have a financial abortion.
Abortion should only be legalised to the rape victims. The thing is, those who are not rape victims should know the consequences of their actions. I mean, it's not the baby's fault they were conceived, right??? The baby could've lived a great life. You are depriving them the right to live or to be born.
you still shouldn't get an abortion if if you were a rape victim.
I disagree if the woman isn’t finically stable or the woman could die in the process of child birth also half the child that were unwanted would end up in foster care or adoption centers half of them would live a very bad life
@@suswho8551 Not to mention how many people IVE seen who made terrible mothers. Plus if a girl got pregnant at like 16 or something, isnt that kinda screwy to force her to keep that baby? Also birth is ridiculously painful and to go through that only to not keep it is just not worth it. Get abortions instead of forcing a child into this world if you can't support it, or have to put it up for adoption, cause that can cause many problems in itself. Orphans dont always get a home, plus they might think their mom and dad didnt love them enough to keep them. It could make them very sad, and very depressed. If I had a kid too young and he/she found out I tried to kill them, I'd say "it's not that I didnt want you, I just didn't want you yet since I wanted you to have the best life you could"
@@suswho8551 It means what are you essentially saying if you are being consistent with your argument that just because child grows poor so its life is not valuable at all
@@mukulkansara1907 but fetus is not a life not a child. That's science. There are upper limits set for having abortion already.
3 times more reasonable than western debates
It doesn't matter if it's alive or not, if it's inside of you, you should be able to get it out as soon as you want it out.
It does not matter what it is that is inside of you, you should be the one that decides if it can stay there.
EDIT: Hi, it's been a bit since I've commented this. I have come up with a less threatening way to explain my point of view, if you're interested.
I think it does matter if it is alive. We are talking about a baby not an organ.
@@onlybecca and I think the carrier's life matters more. Again, as soon as it's inside of you, it's in your body it's your choice.
No one is going to say you have to abort the fetus if you get pregnant, so why should you be able to choose for others?
It’s a separate life. The life of their child. People treat like is something else and I just don’t get it. When you get pregnant what do you think is in there? A potato? A tomato? It’s a baby!!! Growing and developing and in 9 months it will be born. Treating the baby like it’s not alive just because it hasn’t been born is stupid. Have you watched what happens to the baby when he/she is aborted? It literally rips their organs apart. The baby suffers. It’s sickening. A baby starts to develop the brain as soon as three weeks. Has a heartbeat in 5 weeks. And you’re still deciding if it is alive or not. Also, why is all the arguments always about the mother? Like all they think about is themselves and their own convenience. It’s really selfish.
True
@@onlybecca organs are alive
A lot of people are justifying abortion on the basis of "choice" so let me make it clear that you don't get to choose who lives and who dies. A foetus is not your body, it's IN your body.
I don't think abortion is wrong, and I don't base it on choice. I think the termination of a fetus has no inherent negative morality.
hope you don't use rubber to kill/waste baby sperms in your body?
@@gdgobi7330
Sperm is not. A human life
And you don't get to have a say in what they can and can't do with their body
@@LuciferXFallen290
It's killing an innocent baby, your mental gymnastics to remove guilt and responsibility won't work on me. It's shameful you defend killing a baby for your own convenience and to fix the actions of your own responsibilities.
Choice to murder ?
What a logic
Force to give a birth to the child?
What a logic
Allowing abortion is unfair
@@animesparklingdreamer1438 not letting the mother kill her child is forced birth?
@@animesparklingdreamer1438 Better keep legs closed.Or use safety.
@@alfabeta6817 what if the victim got rped?
It's not a matter of him being right or me being right. It's a matter of me going meta and realizing that what this whole debate is about is about him defending his own personal biases his ego and me defending my personal biases and my ego.
And all that's happening here is we're just clashing our biases together without any kind of higher awareness and that's like a light bulb going up. This is a earth-shattering revelation when you realize this then you go meta on the whole debate and you realize ah i see this is not going to be resolved at the level of defeating his ideas or him defeating my ideas and it doesn't matter who wins this debate because this is all just an ego game.
And then i can look inside of myself and i can realize oh yeah
i can actually use mindfulness to penetrate into my own body become aware of my ego at work inside of me generating this ideology and then defending
it and being closed-minded about it and
refusing to
look at the situation from a higher perspective.
I can actually feel my body getting
hotter. I can feel myself getting angry or defensive when he's making a good point.
I can also start to notice the various manipulative tricks that his ego is using against me in this debate and then i can notice myself using those tricks against him and i can notice the double standards that i have and i can notice my own biases and i can notice his biases and i can notice the fact that the only reason i'm arguing with him is because i have a certain survival agenda that i'm trying to defend with my ego and i can notice that he's doing the same thing and when all of that is noticed the entire game of this debate collapses.
That would be going meta. Can you see how powerful that is can you see how liberating that is.
You see this is the kind of higher dimensional move that needs to be done to solve this particular problem.
How to over explain a simple debate tactic 101:
Nope. Abortion is killing people period. You can be against that or not, but it's fact.
is this a correct summary:
"let go of your ideological biases and argument that suits it but embrace unbiase objectivity"
now teach me the art of writing that long, i need that for my Essay
When you do that, what answer do you come up with? Personally my best guess is that it comes down to what you value: what things are at this present moment or potentials.
A pro-life person looks at an embryo and thinks what this DNA might eventually become.
A pro-choice person looks at an embryo and thinks it's neither viable nor sentient so it has no self-interest in living or dying.
As long as we have different underlying philosophies valuing 2 or more different things, we'll never agree.
I'm pro-choice. I don't believe in overriding the rights of a sentient being so that a non-sentient life may or may not someday become sentient and either be happy to be born or unhappy to be born. I'm pro-choice from both a scientific and religious perspective. Identical twins don't form for about a week which proves ensoulment doesn't happen at conception.
a woman should have the right to choose. my son was born with a genetic and terminal illness that would take away every human ability, to walk, to turn in bed, to use his hands, to breathe on his own, and eventually to swallow food. his heart and lungs would stop working and he would die. i know a few families who have had to make that difficult decision when the baby was found to have this disease... to terminate. its never easy and its truly heartbreaking.
Lub Siab ... So you don't want your precious son- with a heartbeat to live?
@@obey_forever_mae You weren't paying attention. Even if he had a heartbeat he wouldn't be able to do anything. He'd be living the life of a vegetable.
But I assume you all abortion, not just in extreme cases, should be legal, meaning you are trying to use the exception to prove the rule. And I don't quite understand if you're saying his heart and lungs don't work on their own or if they do but only temporarily, because that would determine my answer to the rest of your comment
@@LuciferXFallen290 What if he was a healthy child and later on he met with a terrible accident and became in this state. Would you still end his life because of his disabilities.
MTP is legal in many cases like this one. Right to choose implies a completely different thing.
So by that logic we should forbid hospitals from saving smokers and binge-eaters from the habits they subjected themselves to.
What are you even talking about?
Of all the comments here, yours has to be the most autistic.
???
I understand the connection you're trying to make. But there are big flaws in your analogy. Smoking and binge-eating affects only you and not a fetus that could potentially become a part of society one day. It doesn't take two people to become a smoker or binge-eater. Birth control fails, so there are a lot of women who do not subject themselves to pregnancy.
that's an individuals decision. it isn't right to kill them before they even get to live and make that choice for themselves.
As opposed to not using them? Which is 100% chance at spreading the disease?
Your argument falls short of logical, practical and rational reasoning.
Why should the government waste even more money on a subject that isn't worth it in today's society. Most people are already born into or learn an ideology that teaches abstinence, and the sacredness of one's virginity. Premarital sex is still 95% of that population. Doesn't work. I'd rather they spend more money on more important issues.
ok so, when are people who are 'pro life' going to NOT use religion as the base of their argument?
True.
I'd say they CAN make religious arguments. But if they're going to, they would have to prove that god exists. They would have to prove that god said life is valuable and worthy of protection and then they would have to explain why and how those religious beliefs should be imposed onto a secular government.
@@therealleddy364 Well is murder wrong in a secular world? Then abortion is also wrong. However you brought a good point. Morality comes from religon and God. In an atheist world, we are just a consuquence of a big cosmic accident. Only the fittest will survive and philosophically atheism doesnt explain why murder is wrong or any other crime for that matter. The very fact that we have a conscience and moral values is the clear evidence of God's existence. The Western criminal and civil law pretty much evolved from Judeao - Christian influence. Indian law I preseume would have its roots from Hinduism and Middle Eastern countries are inflienced by Islamic Law.
Church: Don't kill innocent human life
You: Stop using religion as a basis for argument...
So you think "don't murder", is a religious law? and can't be a secular one?
@@awesomewxyz7083 church : pro gun , abandon children if they are gay or atheist . 🤡
And they pretend to become sensitive on these topics
@@ManpreetSingh-kg9os Isn't almost always the other way around? Gays and atheists hate their families because of their religious beliefs.
Regarding guns. There is nothing in the bible about it. We are supposed to love and pray for our enemies. Jesus goes as far to say that when someone slaps us, we should turn the other cheek.
It is a matter of civil liberty. What will you do if the Indian government comes against Sikhs in India? Will your fate be any different from the Jews?
Hitler banned Jews from owning guns and dangerous weapons. It didn't end well for the jews. The constitutional gun laws in US are not to fight thieves and rapists. There are to protect against a tyrannical government seeking to persecute its own people.
Don't conflate the bible with the US constitution... not the same thing.
I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.
Sister Joan Chittister
I've never heard a pro-lifer say "let them starve". They may vote for a candidate they think will get people back to work faster so that less people need government benefits, but they don't want them to starve.
Annnnd I've never heard a pro-lifer say "do something for the currently alive and abused/neglected children and their struggling mothers".
Sara Bear and why aren’t you demonrats doing anything about the kids who are mistreated? Hypocrite
True
By the way, I find it idiotic and extremely ignorant to compare my opinion to that of Hitler. Although I realise pro-life people like to use him as their case in argument, which is again stupid. You should grow up and see what happens everyday in the real world.
Yup
Dude, I think you aren't replying to the guy you were having a debate with... lol?
I am pro life but I have never used Hitler as an argument, it is a very stupid strategy.
What is the quote by the way? I mean don’t tell me, even if it makes sense, it is still stupid using someone who killed millions of Jews to support something you defend
1) Again, using fallacies to make your argument. I see no difference between preventing an egg & embryo from conceiving or aborting it right after. It is the same result. No life. And it isn't just about the potential for death, it is about long term health problems either shortening life span or negatively affecting life experience. Pregnancy & birth is far more risky than abortion, but it doesn't matter b/c common sense tells us that it should be the person's choice in the matter. cont.....
@@brianhill3707 they have a right to their bodies, but not at the cost of somebody else. That's the whole point.
@@elonex7659 true
@@elonex7659 ok but that's the mothers fault.
What about choice of men? you don't see difference but I will tell you the difference the embryo is genetically same as of the mother and sperm is genetically same as of father and both are produced by their own body but moment it is fertilized it has a unique DNA sequence which is different from mother and father so there is absolutely a huge difference based on DNA
You write person's choice and person includes the 50% men of the population too so by your own common sense plz write it as women's choice not person as clearly you have shown to be manipulating fact by writing person instead of women I don't think you have common sense too and I bet you would also be in favour of killing anyone as it is your common sense that tells you that it is person's choice to kill anyone they want and more it should be legal.
@@brianhill3707 dude then giving birth or even conceiving should be illegal too lol. Did that child choose to live?
Because the majority of the population will always have sex regardless if they are taught abstinence or not. So practicing safe sex is more practical in today's world.
I explained to you the scientific reasoning. Are you blinded by your own emotions on this matter?
You really are starting to sound like one of strong religious faith.
I agree with what science says. I told you. I also told you that science accepts that what can be considered life can also branched into various categories.
im pro choice support abortion, not as a form of birth control though. If a woman is raped, if the child will have some sort of terminal disease or disorder, or quality of life will be extremely low (as in the case of health/birth defects/etc), then I believe it is only the correct choice to abort. (If you yourself have a genetic disposition for something, then maybe not think about having a child to spare future generations those genetic abnormalities. Also, just because you can procreate does not mean you should, the world population is increasing at such a rate that the Earth's resources will become limited. For all of the comments saying that if you are going to have an abortion you may as well go kill something, you already do kill living beings everyday, inadvertently for food and clothes. If you are going to talk about the value of life, humans aren't the only important beings on this planet. also abortion should be confidential and private
no. abortion is still not a solution in the case of rape. And you don't have the right to say that a child don't have the right to life just because he/she have some sort of terminal disease because we all have the right to live,even those with down syndrome. Regardless of age,levels of development,and potential, as human being we claim that right.
All the respect, but I do have the right to say that you might not agree with my views but I support pro-choice I am pro-choice I support abortion I support human women's rights to their bodies
Abortion is not a contraception method, i think we all agree on that !
Do we murder a rapist?
Do we murder a rapist child?
@@belmum1689 You are obsessed with murder
Their is literally another body in there chick. You can't just kill other people and then say, _"Let me deal with my God."_ Murder doesn't get religious exemptions...
Here we go again. Using god as a reason.
@@zetuan It's pretty low. Although, you can use a lack of objective morality as a reason as well. I see people say all the time, _"Don't force your ethics or beliefs on other women."_
Atheism can logically lead you (and obviously does more often) to a pro-choice stance, it seems.
@@Volmire1 I am taoist. Not an atheist. And I don't use religion or god to determine anything I do in life. What I consider is right or wrong depends on whether the outcome of my actions benefit others or causes harm. If I cannot decide whether to act or not, I have a 3rd option which is to do nothing.
With regards to abortion, I am inclined to ignore the topic and do nothing because it is none of my business. I believe the decision lies with the woman.
However, when there are people such as you who (use all sort of weird reasons eg god, religion, ethics, moral) shove ur beliefs down other peoples throats, people such as me tend to get annoyed and start wondering why u r sticking ur nose into peoples affairs. And that is why people like me will take a side to oppose you.
Being pro choice does not mean i go round advocating abortion. I am merely stating that a woman is entitled to decide. It is not you or me to decide for her. I believe some women have their own reasons to do abortion.
Also, please don't use the word murder or kill. As a meat eater, I already feel awful but I have acknowledged long ago I am nasty for taking the life of animals for my survival. Every single human being causes thousands of deaths to animals, unless u r a born vegetarian. Therefore, I do not see how aborting babies is bad to the earth in any way.
@@zetuan --- *And I don't use religion or god to determine anything I do in life.*
My point was to say that you don't need God to justify bad behavior.
--- *With regards to abortion, I am inclined to ignore the topic and do nothing because it is none of my business. I believe the decision lies with the woman.*
A pro-slavery advocate could say the same thing. "Don't like slaves? Don't get one." or "my property, my choice." If someone is being killed unjustly, then it most certainly is your business. Homicide is not a private affair.
--- *However, when there are people such as you who (use all sort of weird reasons eg god, religion, ethics, moral) shove ur beliefs down other peoples throats, people such as me tend to get annoyed and start wondering why u r sticking ur nose into peoples affairs. And that is why people like me will take a side to oppose you.*
I use morals/ethics to determine what laws should be. What in the world else would you use? Your same sentiment could be stated about murder. After all, you are "sticking ur nose into peoples affairs" when advocating for ANY law.
--- *Being pro choice does not mean i go round advocating abortion.*
You do advocate for abortion to be legal, which is wrong. Advocating for the unjust killing of other humans is wrong.
--- *Also, please don't use the word murder or kill.*
Sorry, but there is a generation of people who honestly don't think that it is killing another human. But that is flat wrong, even abortionists will tell you this. In an abortion, you MUST kill the human before they are delivered, because you have to take them to the hospital if they are born alive.
--- *As a meat eater, I already feel awful but I have acknowledged long ago I am nasty for taking the life of animals for my survival. Every single human being causes thousands of deaths to animals, unless u r a born vegetarian. Therefore, I do not see how aborting babies is bad to the earth in any way.*
There is a difference in killing a human being and killing an animal. For example, if you had to choose between a teen human and a teen ape, on who would die, surely you would choose the human, yes? It doesn't change the calculus whether you have to choose between 1 human and 10 apes or 100 apes. Humans are more valuable than animals. Although, we shouldn't kill animals without reason, I would say.
@@Volmire1 I am unable to relate to ur points. U try to draw a comparison between between abortion, homicide and slavery. Unfortunately I don't find them similar at all. A woman aborting her baby is definitely not the same as an adult killing another. If an adult killer is lurking around, of course it affects me because my family members may become a target. A woman who aborts her baby... how in the world does it affect me till I need to meddle in her affairs? Slavery is wrong because the negative repercussions affects everybody. Again I dont get how slavery can compare with a woman who wants to abort her baby in private, in a hospital.
Like I said prevously, I make decisions in life based on whether my actions harm people. Respecting a womans decision to abort means i keep silent. But people such as you who group together and try to pass legislation that makes abortion illegal; did it occur to u that u r causing harm to some minority women? Some women may have reasons to abort. And as bystanders, we should let them have a choice. I think it is wrong if you are going to deny a woman her right to decide as to whether she wants to carry the fetus or not.
I advocate abortion to be legal because i respect women enough. I believe women will make the best decision whether to keep or abort the baby. You and I should only support them. Not condemn them if they make a decision that does not align with your beliefs.
And while we are on the subject of life, I must say NOT all human life is more valuable than animals. U may think human life is precious, but between a terrorist and a dog with rabbies, I would still shoot the human terrorist first.
Not against women's right but murdering babies for your own convenience is Despicable
Not really because it's the woman's body.
Say the doctor said this woman could die because of having a baby since her body isn't strong enough and she decided to abort it is her choice, choosing the baby is like suicide so there's no difference their both lives.
Jisoo Official man do you realize abortions for medical reasons are statistically rare so is rape/incest?most un radical pro lifers would say that’s the only circumstance that abortion is alright. Statistically speaking abortions are done by teenagers/ young people who made a terrible mistake and decide to take the easy way out. Just to do that mistake again.
@@aphradite321 lol it is not womens body it is seperate human that is bullst argument
and abortions done for safty of women are extremly rare most are done for mistake
@@underratedbollywoodactors6534 it literally a human body, it takes from teh women feeds from the women what even are you taking about
@@user-ml4ps5cq3v it is seperate body so you think your mother can kill you now?
it is proven murder on name of choice
If you were a pregnant woman and people forced you to abort a baby you wanted. I would support you 100%. The issue of abortion such a grey area. There is no right or wrong. What is wrong is the millions of deaths as a direct result of pro-life movements. There was even an extreme case in Ireland a week or so ago where a woman died because a hospital denied her aborting her still-born :(
What about the millions of babies who were directly murdered? Pro-life doesn't only want to protect the child but their mother as well. They focus on providing help and would rather politics were more concentrated on how to prevent the mother die rather than easily killing an innocent life
@@lolaanfer88 The unborn do not have a right to live outside of the pregnant woman's resolve for them to live.
A woman is born with one million ova.
1% of her ova ovulate and 1% of those get fertilized, 30% of those implant.
Then 70% of those will be born 15% will be aborted.
After 14 weeks gestation 95% will be born.
At birth the number of children she has increases by an integer.
Until then it is hers alone to decide its fate.
Tell me what should we do about the 999 999 that don't make it ?
Only if it is her resolve that they should live, is there any emphasis that they should live.
There is a purpose in each creation. The child comes through you not from you, so no one has the right to interfere in the creation.
In a survey of around 1000 women from your country. It was found that women are socially and economically better off from having abortions. 76% denied end up on public assistance, and some were reported in domestic violence. Poland the same as the USA? is it the same as Africa? Do you realise people who want abortions just go to another country? What's the point of that example? That's just a biased law based on religious beliefs and beliefs of people not affected.
Congrats sir idk if you're still alive but you're like the 10% of the whole comment
I hate the it's my body argument cause a baby which happens to be in your body is not a body part. The baby in your body is a completely separate human. If you want to cut your arm off our take out your liver that's fine with me but to kill another human being that happens to be living in your body I am not ok with.
I give you an example, John Wayne Gacy is a serial killer and a product of bad childhood due to extremely bad parenting. If you give his mother a choice to abort him that's a better choice than ruining his entire childhood and turning him into a psychpath. BE NOT A PARENT THAN A BAD PARENT.
Pro-Life❤
Mass genocide of a race of people is not the same. But millions of Africans have died because of pro-life movements. Funny you mention ideology. It's the religious ideology that is responsible for all those deaths in Africa.
It maybe definitive to you, but I said basic because it's a matter of interpretation. Your interpretation is that life begins at fertilization. I already explained to you what other scientific studies have defined that matter into different categories.
It's sad that abortion which is murder of another innocent human being is merely termed as a termination of pregnancy. From the moment of conception, a new life begins in the womb of a mother. This is not and cannot be about the right of a woman's body, it's about another person's life. Abortion is wrong.
Lester Menezes you cannot murder something that isn't born. Go adopt unwanted children and mind your own God damn business
Signal.......What a hypocrite, practice what u preach.
Lester Menezes, I see your point but I disagree tremendously
Signal people have survived abortion and been left with life long health conditions as a result of their own Mothers "choice" I suggest you pay for abortion survivors medical bills!
Lester Menezes I completely agree. God doesn’t make children to die before they have a chance to live. Abortion IS wrong. Abortion is murder. If a mother killed a one month old baby merely because she doesn’t want it is that right?
You understand that science backs abortion too right? Whether or not you see abortion as being wrong comes down to your interpretation of what stage the life form is at and that you would classify it as terminating an actual child. Like I said, if your a female and don't want to have an abortion that is fine. I support your decision. But if someone else wants to then it is fine also. I use religion because when talking to people who support pro life its the same. Like talking to a brick wall.
How tf does "science back abortion"?
That's rubbish!
by science, do you mean abortionists who administer abortion? science backs that abortion is murder.
How does science support abortion?
Bruh whereever you studied science you should ask for money back because they didn't teach you science they filled your head up with this ideology
@@bromponie7330 science doesn't back abortion, they have to give better arguments than this
If you’re pro-choice, you must know that you had a choice from the very beginning.
Elaborate
TheRealLeddy for me, the valid reason for you to say that “my body, my choice” on an abortion topic is when you were raped or when the doctors say it’ll be suicide if you keep your baby but if you just wanna abort your baby just because you have a choice or just because you want to, man, you had a choice to fck or not to fck in the very first place.
I’m not sure if you’re a man but if you’re not, imma just change the “man” because it might offend you
Pradyumna Shetty who’ll decide for the baby?
@@pradyumnashetty5982. Men have to go through physical and mental strain in order to support a child they may never have wanted because some woman decided to take them and their wallet hostage. If a woman can opt out of motherhood during her pregnancy, then it should follow that men can opt out of fatherhood during her pregnancy.
It is funny that people without uterus makes law for uterus
commieboi sikklehammerstar exactly. Men will never have to experience the pain of pregnancy and birth
@@jeanninestreiff7961 personally experiencing the pain of pregnancy and birth doesn't really make you an authority on the issue though, after all you can give birth but not know anything about biology or the moral implications of abortion. The arguments themselves made for either side are valid/invalid regardless of who is the one saying them.
Use your sense. Without man can a woman become pregnant?
@@siddabathulasrinivas6708 but use your sense.. Do men die from childbirth?
"It's funny that people without slaves make laws against abusing slaves."
One doesn't need a uterus to call out murder.
Abortion is fine. Execution no, way too expensive.
Sometimes the invention for life saving medicine also cost millions of dollars. Are you going to stop that because it too expensive.
The issue is when do people believe human life begins. Surely it's not okay to kill a human, so when is it considered a human?
At the time of conception. Any other time after this can lead to a slippery slope even right up to 9 months.
@@viodsa I agree, but the question isn't for people who are against abortion. I know your answer already lol
@@gramonehundred technically a zygote is a living organism and it contains a human genetic code, so I think the moment fertilization occurs
It's not about being ok.
It's about legality.
@@foreverrocks7989 there are countless examples all through history of atrocities against human rights being legal. American Slavery, the holocaust are two of the big ones. Legality doesn’t not necessarily reflect morality. This is not a matter of legality, rather a matter of science and fundamental morality.
if a woman was raped, and the woman tested positive in pregnancy, does she have the choice to abort the baby or not?
Only 2 cases should abortion be allowed. Rape and life in danger. And even then it was hard to make a decision. Do you know how abortion is performed? They litterally rip the organs off the fetus.
Only 2 cases should abortion be allowed. Only 2.
No she should not. The question I ask you in return is why should this even be a consideration.
@Tuathe Moon They don’t always work.
@Tuathe Moon I thought you said the woman should use one so that she doesn’t get pregnant and I’m saying that they don’t always work and if it didn’t work then I think she should be able to abort the baby.
No.
Pro choice basically whatever the woman wants....Her body her choice
Pro life. Baby's body, not the mother's choice
Including murder
That seems unfair...
Never mind thanks for you time then. It's clear this discussion can go on forever. Thanks for enlightening me on this subject. I however would continue to support women's rights. We can see from civilizations all around the world, when we empower women as individuals and give them the ability to make a stand/choices in their life, society is a lot better as a whole.
It is not a women’s right when a baby girl is being killed (or a boy). I stand with women, I think we should empower women, I think that women should have the right to do what they want with their body, but giving women the choice to decide if another human being dies or lives (a defenseless ones at that), I think that’s a little far.
@@maevekitchens tue
@@maevekitchens false
@@zealrot4992 please explain to me why my statements are false
@@maevekitchens True, both of them, the woman and the foetus have equal rights. But it's the foetus that's invading the woman's body and it's her right wether to let it grow or expel it by all means. It rather counts as self defence on the woman's part.
My take is you may not agree with abortion however no one has the power to override what someone does with their body. It’s not your choice it’s their’s and should be left as a option. What ever you believe should never dictate someone else. I personally don’t 100 percent agree with certain 3rd and 2nd trimester abortions, but I don’t understand each persons situation and can’t make their choice. Furthermore, it would be foolish to make laws against abortion because it doesn’t effect anyone, but the person getting the abortion and shouldn’t be dictated by the government.
Everything you said is only true because you assume right from the start the what you're aborting (essentially killing) isn't a human being with human value. The abortion debate hinges on what the unborn is. You don't just skip that inconvenient question and go directly to arguing about the mother's autonomy. When you say it affects no-one, you've already assumed that the unborn is no-one or nothing. Assuming something you have to prove or disprove is one of the most basic of all logical fallacies. Also, even if the unborn really were not relevant, you're factually incorrect when you say it doesn't affect anyone - there's plenty of documented cases where abortion has had negative effects on the parents. And I don't get why pro-aborts keep saying that pro-lifers are the ones imposing their views on other people via the government, when pro-aborts have literally been using the government to impose their view on pro-lifers for the past few decades?? The government literally dictates what's right in your favour, even though everyone agrees that the abortion debate isn't a settled matter and y'all have no problem with that. Perfect example of "rules for thee and none for me." And the funny part is when it comes to logical arguments and science, the pro-life position almost infinitely makes more sense than being pro-abortion.
the body of the baby is its own not the mothers, is it right for any of our mother to kill us in our twenties because we are her child, no . have u seen a how an abortion is conducted. they rip apart the baby from inside the womb and they dispose the body. the women can do whatever she want with her body, but not anyone else's. We as mankind has killed over 600 million babies. there is no justification for killing somebody.
if only there was some scientific breakthrough by which we could make all the pro-lifers carry the "unwanted" babies to term in their bodies.....I'm sure they would not object because they care so much about the sanctity of life , don't they?
Yes. True
Thanks like saying if I want to end world hunger, I have to feed everyone in the world. Your logic is stupid.
@@typicalchannel4069 even your analogy is wrong. I would literally have to educate you first to take your case. Not worth it. Peace out incel !!
@@abhishekamol4404 Your analogy is wrong,
lol how does that prove or disprove anything? First of all, it's not even real data or evidence. You literally just made that up. And secondly, pro-lifers deciding to turn into pro-aborts and vice versa doesn't prove or disprove either the pro-life position or the pro-abortion position. You're acting as if you've made a valid case against the pro-life position, when you've done no such thing. 😅 The abortion debate isn't a matter of a pro-lifer or a pro-abort not being up to your perceived ideal of a person. It's a matter of ethics. Even if you hate pro-lifers, you still have to contend with the pro-lifer position itself, instead of using ad hominem (which if I may say you pro-aborts do a lot). lol it would be so much better if there was a scientific breakthrough whereby pro-aborts could be made smarter so that they would know the right choices when it comes to their sexual activity. Y'all can't even make the right choices when it comes to that and have the nerve to expect everyone else to believe that you can make the right choices when it comes to abortion.
What is "my choice"? You can't kill another human in the name of "human right".
It's not a human yet
@Pin Apple u r also a mass of cells
Nur ein Name according to what standards it’s not a human? Someone who has a heartbeat, can feel pain, has a distinct DNA that is separate from any in human history.
v b no I don’t think it’s a valid argument, your argument is basically that since an unborn baby is being a burden on women, they have the right to do something that can kill it. For example, newborn baby still relies on mother’s milk etc and in some rare cases where they cannot provide breast milk, they still have to take care of them day and often sleepless nights that are very very hard on women’s bodies. If they don’t do that(provide breast milk) and take care of baby while sacrificing their own bodies in hard work day and night, baby would literally die too. And in legal cases it’s considered murder. The question should be is the fetus in the womb living thing or not
Mcdonald Christian before it develops a heartbeat and can feel pain I don't consider it human yet
Force your narrow minded morals onto someone else. You should be ashamed.
Shame .
@Wekil he is supporting choice
india is highly overpopulated, which has resulted in mass unemployment and poverty. They shouldn't be just PRO-CHOICE they should be PRO-ABORTION.
@@sammatthew2841 If you are so concerned about population just castrate everyone, beginning with yourself.
@@sammatthew2841 India is pro - abortion but within the bounds of legality.
Abortion arguments barely take place because majority of the population is pro - choice.
Why do we force a woman who doesn't want an unwanted pregnancy which is very dangerous to her life
Everyone in this world aware of how the woman becomes pregnant if she doesn't want to take risk and responsibilities comes with it , why then she need to undergo that process.
That’s a selfish reason to have an abortion if you care about your life more than your own child’s life selfish baby killer
@@mattewclubb5882 I think we should ask the baby if they even want to live
@@tristan12424 sure it will always say yes because he or she deserves the experience of life, and don’t tell me “oh but what if the baby grows up in poverty?” I grew up in poverty and I always loved my life, also grew up fatherless as well, you can ask any baby if they wanted to live once thier born and they will always say yes because all babies are scared of the thought of death.
@@SWJ2119 there not always dangerous to her life so stop with your pro choice propaganda
You will be charged with murder if you do something to cause the fetus of a pregnant woman to die, even if she is planning on aborting the fetus. To charge someone with murder, we have to admit that it is a human being. Yet a woman can make the decision to abort that same fetus. So by logical thinking, we have given a woman the right to decide what is human and what is not. Or we have given her the right to commit murder legally. Or both. How hypocritical.
satguy11 I think it's more about taking away the woman's right to choose whether she wanted to keep it or not. And it's more about the potential of what it could've been.
Lol no.
@@rauloneill9752 no
the "life" is in the woman! She's the one who is giving resources to a fertilized egg that develops into a baby. Seems pretty logical to have her decide if it's a potential human
Iam pro Life
All these men telling women what to do their own bodies... How ridiculous.
So the baby is the woman? It doesn't have its own body? The baby is its own human too. Stop denying basic science.
The reason i am pro choice is, because if you are not ready to have a child and you are forced to have a child and raise it, that will not be good for you and your child in long term, and people say you can give the child to adoption centre, but we know what is the condition of adoption centre in the world, it's not good, if i am not capable of giving my child a good life ,then i am not having it, and there is guilt and regret in every condition, if you choose to raise your child, you will have regret that because of that child you didn't do what you wanted to do, and maybe you will be bitter to your child and that is not good for both mother and child, if you choose to give it to adoption centre then you will have guilt that how are they raising your child, are they giving them good life, and if you aborting , then you will also have guilt,
And i personally think that you are not able to give your child a good life then you shouldn't have it, and i will have less guilt in aborting the kid than giving it to adoption centre and wondering if that kid has a good life or not
If you are pro life, you are assuming that the baby WANTS to live the life you force upon it. What if they don't want to live? When Huamans are capable of requesting euthanasia/assisted suicide, so are babies. Who are you to decide for the embryo, whether they want to live or not. Who is going to be answerable to the child when they are forced to live their life in a dingy orphanage without proper food, education, safety or social standing. Or forced to endure a difficult life with a cranky penniless single mother?
I can say that all your argument is, is that of 1.Your emotional opinion, 2.A single scientific claim. (You support and twist science in your favor here but not when they are the very people that take those fertilized cells and use them for research) and 3.Nazi Germany.
No I would not go with the flow if it meant such a thing. However society had a choice between saving the lives of fully grown people, to that of small cells. Logic and reasoning would tell me to save the first group. Logic.
a 20/24 week fetus is not just a group of cells... it can actually perceive pain rather normally...... also a full term down syndrome fetus whose termination our laws allow can definitely perceive physical pain as they in the surgical procedure slowly cut his limbs and crush his skull to bring it out. why can't i do that to a 1 year old baby with down's ???? the fact is there is so much new data and new scientific perspective on when life begins.
The fact I’m having to go to a Indian news channel to find an actual debate on abortion even though it’s such a big deal, tells me that TH-cam really doesn’t want that to come out. Probably because all facts are on pro-life side
I know right? Holy hell.
Yup
It's quite the opposite. The algorithm's really trying to push pro life agenda ahead
Without the woman's body, there'll be NO CHILD.
You should be able to abort a child if you want, and adopt a child if you want. Full stop. The body which the baby is coming from is the mother. So it's FULLY the mother's choice. If she wants to abort, she can.
the body of the baby is its own not the mothers, is it right for any of our mother to kill us in our twenties because we are her child, no . have u seen a how an abortion is conducted. they rip apart the baby from inside the womb and they dispose the body. the women can do whatever she want with her body, but not anyone else's. We as mankind has killed over 600 million babies. there is no justification for killing somebody.
@Tuathe Moon the father should also have a choice but unfortunately due to science it’s the mum who gives birth, so then it comes to whether the mother is a good person or not therefore willing to take into consideration the fathers choices.
@@navaneethjeevan2956 the body of baby is IN the mother’s body so at the end of the day it’s the mother’s body and choice what she does. Theres a certain amount of months within which the mother can make a decision to give birth or abort, and in this certain amount of months yes we may think the baby has feelings etc but scientifically it’s brain and conscious is not developed. When we are in our twenties or even when we turn 1 years old we are our own bodies with our own consciences- so now of course it’s not right for any mother to kill. But that’s different to what abortion is.
@@navaneethjeevan2956 we as mankind have also given birth to millions of babies who are left without homes or shelter or up for adoptions etc. If you believe u can’t provide a good childhood for your child in the future , feel free to abort.
@Tuathe Moon no it’s not at all. For example if a woman got raped hence pregnant, just because the embryo in her body is her ‘offspring’ she shouldn’t be forced to have it at all.
“It’s a woman’s body” - how do people still use this terrible argument.
The abortion debate is not about what women do with their bodies. The abortion debate is about what women do with the children inside their bodies.
It's relevant though
@P P Exactly! I don't get why people don't get it. It's basically self defence at that point.
@P P try as hard as you want to label the unborn as a parasite…but the truth is a born child will feed off you against your will. You’ll still have to provide food and clothes and warmth for a born child, MORE than you would an unborn child, yet you wouldn’t say you could kill an unwanted born child would you?
@@zealrot4992 no it’s not. It’s not self defence for a mother to kill her child.
@@ericsonofjohn9384 It is when it's in her body against her wishes.
A fetus is dependent on the woman's body to survive. The choice, to allow the fetus her body's support or not, is entirely the woman's to make.
Men, like myself, regardless of religion or moral beliefs should have no say in the matter.
madmanbenji no
Yes you are right. After all men are not the ones who have to give birth to the child
Im not sure if you are aware of the primary function of the uterus. Its not like any other organ in the body. Its specifically designed for the fetus to grow in it. So you cannot say its using the womans body. So according to your logic its ok for a woman to decide to not allow her child to her breast milk (body support).
@@viodsa many women choose not to breastfeed and it's not our place to tell them what they must do with their body.
@@desi_feminist84 So you if anyone sees a pro-choice women trying to commit suicide by throwing her body off a tall building, then we should not try to stop her since its her body and she can decide what to do with it.
Pro life Org should stop Guns and War b4 talking about other things concerning life!!!
Whataboutism
@@alfabeta6817 cope
@@deniz1603 When does life begins?
@@alfabeta6817 when an organism can consume oxygen
@@alfabeta6817 according to pro lifers then we shouldn't eat anything at all. Plants are alive. You don't care about lives it has never been about that. This is a system of control used on women.
It is so sad how there are countries and people in poverty, drought and war, and here we are, arguing whether murder is ok for conveniece
If India doesn't STOP breeding will you have enough water? Can you support a population of 1.5 billion?
So, should we start killing each other ??
@@rohitbhushan8855 no, just stop breeding. What alternative do you have? What alternative do we have? What will you do when you have no water? Maybe you will kill each other to get water. Its a scary thought.
@@theothistledon6935
How can you possibly expect 1.3 billion people to stop breeding out of nowhere ? Its obvious that you're completely clueless about the nature of the population rate vs time curve. Its an exponential curve which means bigger the population is, higher the population rate will be. That's why stop linking the problem of overpopulation with everything. The real reason is the people who abuse the natural resources, deliberately... who take the availability of these resources for granted. I often get to see the wastage of water.. like a tons of gallons of water per day. I'm sure that you have also seen it , especially, if you live in the northern plain. Tell me what you have done so far about it.. I mean other than writing a longa$$ comment on TH-cam.
@@rohitbhushan8855 okay. well fair enough thats good reply, you wrote long response. Okay well dont worry about it then, do nothing and by 2040 there will be no water. Chaos, mass killings, I guess and maybe famine. Either way the problem solves itself. I cant see any other way out of it. Good day sir. 😊👍
@@rohitbhushan8855 we in AUSTRALIA are already on water restrictions. Water is expensive which means we cannot afford to waste it.
My electricity usage is 1/10 of an average person.
My water usage is extremely low. Again it cost money and were on water restrictions. Green lawns are a thing of the 80s. People have peoples now and almost no lawn.
Already 2~3 towns they are saying are in trouble. One guy said they would need 100 trucks per day but where do they get water from?
This a big provincial town.
I've noticed some hardwood timber is hard to get and very very expensive.
Globally there is a shortage of coffe.
Instant coffee is cut with cornmeal, soy, chicory, sticks, twigs, and even dirt.
Fish stocks are predicted to run out in 2030.
I read these estimates are wrong because every year they're getting similar amount of fish.
Technology means the same yield despite the dwindling fish stocks.
Which means fish stocks will be depleted before 2030.
Many fish species are now exstinct.
The worlds bugs are being depleted.
Honey bees colonies are collapsing.
Pollution is so bad now.
8 million tons of plastic enters the oceans annually maybe more.
We cant just ignore these facts.
Pro-life people have held back so much progress in scientific research. Who knows how far we could have come if religious and personal conflict didn't halt this. Anyways your so smart on this subject. How do you help in the prevention of AIDS in Africa? Knowing that condoms and teachings of abstinence and denying a woman's rights to abortions don't work in this situation?
U there?
If you believe foetus should get special rights because they're a future human,they you should give sperm the same rights.
No because a fertilized egg is a unique being, with DNA different from any other human beings, sperm is literally just the father's DNA and if sperm is left in it's natural state then it won't develop into a human, a fertilized egg will develop into a human
Human life only begins at fertilization (aka conception). Sperm and Ovum alone doesn't matter
@@soapycloudie5943 Proofs?
@@philguer4802 It's really told by science many times, it's also told by a lot of science books that human life begins at conception
@@soapycloudie5943 @XxSAINxX Your answer surprised me.
That's an unusal angle of attack.
First,are you aware that life mean a lot of things? I you check the definition on internet, you will find that few define life as the moment where a creature aquiere a soul or become an individual.
Doctors,biologists,priests, soldiers...each field have its own definition of "life".
So you may have misinterpreted what they meant by life.
Second, let's suppose what you say is true. How could any scientist possibly proove this? What is the procedure to follow to determine if something is or isn't a human life? At one point,they will have to choose an arbitrary definition.
Third,why aren't scientists calling for the end of abortion?
Its a babies body and should have a choice.....who will speak for them?.
Question: when is a baby not a baby when in the mother's womb?
@@LuciferXFallen290 Were you ever a fetus?(medical term) when man has always said "with child" but medical terms often attempt to mask the realities...A murderer(Abortionist) states....its a fetus...merely cells...
So i ask you...were you ever a fetus?
@@LuciferXFallen290 In all truth...when a life is killed inside the womb....you have killed a person..a life ,a living soul,with all the potential of a life to come....
We were all fetus' yes?...of course we were...and to kill one is to kill us all.
It truly is murder...now matter how it is attempted to say otherwise.
@@MarcosJ-mq4lk I have a better understanding on the development of the foetus than you do. Did you know that a foetus of 6 weeks looks like a bean? Now no more attacks on medical knowledge. Time to use common sense. Say in abortion is murder is not common sense. It's NPC
@@MarcosJ-mq4lk Pro life = NPC
I agree. I never said that you get to kill just because someone doesn't feel pain. I don't understand why anti-choice people have difficulty following an argument. If you are going to give an embryo equal rights to women then it creates a conflict of rights. We are forced to choose. The right to abort is the right to defend and protect your own body. A woman can suffer and an embryo can't. This is a categorical distinction to help us choose who's rights are more important.
Rak haemet, this thread is probably too old to comment now but I just wanted to congratulate you for your passion, intellect and common sense. Yours, are probably the best comments I have ever read on this subject.
A child is not a women's body. It's actually inside a woman because he/she is dependent to her mother. A child is dependent even after been born. The women of India cannot be biased on child's life. If you are against childs infanticide then you must also have to go against child abortion.
But fetuses are in mothers. Therefore mothers have the choice whether or not she is willing to keep the fetuses
@@natural3362 That's not how it works. A human is inside the mother no matter what stage. It has human DNA. It still has the right to live.
@@ErenYeager-oi6hu eh no. It's sentient. Therefore the mother has the right to kill it just like you kill animals
@@natural3362 So why do we keep people in a coma alive? They have no cognitive function. We know that there's a chance they'll wake up some day. In the same way, we know that at some point the baby's going to leave the womb. All you want to do is kill a baby because it's inconvenient to you.
@@ErenYeager-oi6hu eh wrong. People in coma are sentient. They're just unconscious. People in coma aren't in women' womb. They have no right to kill them. Why are you trying to control women womb
This video has so much insights on this topic🤝
I thought the arguments were a bit limited on both sides
The difference is you choose to have sex, you don't choose cancer. Rape victims should give up to relatives or orphanages if they hate babies enough to kill 'em.
The rape argument is bullcrap it counts for less than 1 percent of murders last year as the reason for murdering a baby. I don't call it abortions it's murder maybe they should stop using the word abortion and use murder instead. Maybe that will help stop some
Amen!
Ahh, these people who got raped, should endure 9 months of pregnancy (that comes with complications and pain etc), without being the one responsible for the pregnancy in the first place?
Fetuses are not babies
No uterus, no opinion.
Your body, your choice, your sin, your judgement.
I give you an example, John Wayne Gacy is a serial killer and a product of bad childhood due to extremely bad parenting. If you give his mother a choice to abort him that's a better choice than ruining his entire childhood and turning him into a psychpath. BE NOT A PARENT THAN A BAD PARENT.
@@IrinNarlely that is a very rare example
Our individual DNA process is a continuous process, unfurling from the moment of conception. There is no later stage of our existence that is not dependent on earlier stages of our existence, as a continuous entity in space and time. Our DNA process is continuous in both space and time from the moment of our conception, to the moment of our death.
Acceptance, rationalization of the termination of an already unfurling DNA process, once invited to unfurl, requires the irrational acceptance of a temporal bias. In the continuum of space/time, that continuously unfurling DNA process is not a complete individual human 'yet.' That is because we are not regarding that human over the complete time-space continuum that it exists in. But, the only thing required to see the complete individual human is the passage of time.
We are, of course, much more than our unfurling DNA processes, but whatever we are, the basis of our life, cannot exist without the unmolested possession of that unfurling DNA process.
The fetus is a concrete example of a new individual DNA process, unfurling. There is and has been a conflict to define the most fundamental aspect of an individual -- the term of its existence. The resolution of this conflict -- between the newest individual and others -- is resolved by others, based on whatever philosophical or moral guidance they bring to the conflict. The rationalizations in support of abortion boil down to the convenience of the others, based mostly on a shaky temporal bias that is permitted to stand, unquestioned.
So what would you say about the term of the human existence? You left that question hanging. The "unfurling of DNA processes" which you talk about take place even after the death of a person. So surely the inception of these processes shouldn't be the basis of the decision of whether a person (fetus) is alive or not.
india is highly overpopulated, which has resulted in mass unemployment and poverty. They shouldn't be just PRO-CHOICE they should be PRO-ABORTION.
@@sammatthew2841 what?
@@derejemeshesha884 eh yea.. there ought to be some population control.. js
'Abortion is for the convenience of others'.. lol no.. Taking this method of birth control to assuage your conscience from the unpleasantness of nature is 'caprice'..
All of the lofty quixotic 'rationale' of your speech denouncing abortion aside, abortion is a natural phenomenon, a practice found in all other species and humans since time millennium (only recently in natural history, were we able to terminate in utero). Ergo abortion is a necessity we evolved, not a 'convenience'.. We still and have been terminating the life of offspring for the same reasons: to control the population bc the environment was judged to be unsupportive of an increase in a particular species..
Ironically, we will only be able to debate in the way you have attempted to employ in this case, until we created a society where abortion doesnt exist.. Until we've reached that by addressing the actual triggers of abortion, one not being 'convenience'😒, we will be at the mercy of the same environmental pressures which culled our predecessors' progeny.. Until we grow up and recognize that abortion is incredibly and innately natural and used for legitimate reasons, we can never hope to factor it out..
To your thing about dna, all living things, individual species and cancer biopsies, have a unique dna sequence.. What about this can be used to conclude that a zygote is a person, if by that logic cancer biopsies are ppl.. ?
They make a lot more sense than Americans discussing about this topic
Your emotional and kind heart is telling you to save both. Not logic. It's your opinion which is based on your own morality and ethics on this matter.
I also share my emotion towards both sides. But as a society we must accept what is the better decision down the road. Your opinion has been taught to the people of africa and has failed miserably.
Detrap yes a lot of this debate is people talking about their feelings which is a logical fallacy however a lot of things aren’t definable in this debate. However there are certain facts we can use to prove certain points.
When you do that, what answer do you come up with? Personally my best guess is that it comes down to what you value: what things are at this present moment or potentials.
A pro-life person looks at an embryo and thinks what this DNA might eventually become.
A pro-choice person looks at an embryo and thinks it's neither viable nor sentient so it has no self-interest in living or dying.
As long as we have different underlying philosophies valuing 2 or more different things, we'll never agree.
I'm pro-choice. I don't believe in overriding the rights of a sentient being so that a non-sentient life may or may not someday become sentient and either be happy to be born or unhappy to be born. I'm pro-choice from both a scientific and religious perspective. Identical twins don't form for about a week which proves ensoulment doesn't happen at conception.
I AM PRO LIFE!!! Have a debate with me.
REMOVE FEMALE SUFFRAGE!!! Have a debate with me.
Qwetery what do women expect when they get pregnant. Pain free?
@@ellieschaefer Some women actually don't choose to get pragnant.
@@aphradite321 yea but does that mean they should kill the baby?
@@MrShang-rb3zy it isnt a baby! its basically an organ up until the point it pops out the coochie :)
So let me ask everyone out there, pro life, pro choice, whatever you are. If a girl got pregnant and the doctor told her that she would die if she gave birth, would she get an abortion or die for her baby?
depends if the baby can be saved. IF the baby can be saved and not the mother, the life of the baby should have greater emphasis.
@@qweteryFTW what! You're deciding to let the babies live instead of the mother?
Ethics aside, abortion should be legal because in the places in the world where it's outlawed, it has the highest rates of occurrence. Also, because it's outlawed, the procedures are unregulated and often dangerous to the pregnant women. The choice then is between fewer safe abortions, or more dangerous abortions.
It’s a shallow question, but could countries with smaller populations be more concerned about pro-choice issues? In India, with its large population, abortion laws don’t significantly impact the overall population numbers, as many people still want children. This situation is different from countries like Japan and Korea, where population concerns are more pressing. So, why is abortion still not accepted in India? Because of religious reasons?
I was just referring to executions. It is more expensive to have someone put to death than it is to keep them locked up for life.
The thing is everyone has their own opinion on it. So heres a solution. Let it be an option. Those who are against it have the right to say no when they get unwanted pregnancy. Don't force your sense of morals onto others when it has nothing to do with anyone except the one person involved.
Its only a matter of time before some other clown like you stand up and start saying that killing a fully grown person is not wrong according to his/her morals and hence, the law should not have any say in it. That's where you numbnuts are headed, to be honest...
True
Exactly
watching someone kill a baby and being ok with it is JUST as bad as killing the baby.
If a fetus eats the other fetus in the womb is it a murderer after a certain month?
India has exactly the right laws on abortion.
No..Iam an Indian , ok.
I support pro-life movement.
U r correct we do hv the right laws
@@pradyumnashetty5982 i guess the murdered child would not agree with you
@@viodsa well that doesn’t matter since they’re not alive
Simple. It's his body, his choice.
IamAnthonological * her
@Arindam Das a fetus is not a baby
Lots of pregnant women refer to their unborn child as their baby....
Regardless of what the unborn child is called, he or she IS a human being. Innocent human beings should have a right to life.
It is not human until it is born and can survive. Then they are human. Until they, Mathilde, they are a fetus or a bunch of cells that are multiplying fast. You can call it what you want but that's your emotion speaking, not facts. If they were human, they would have a SSN, name, birth certificate, government benefits at conception...why don't they? Because life is not defined at conception, its defined at birth...that actual word says it all, you dimwit.
@@NoCreativeNameGirl What a lame logic!!! Few hundreds years ago there was no SSN/Birth Certificate or Govt facilities. Even now a days lot of people (refugees, tribal people...) dont have those paper works. Does this mean they are not human? Life is larger than some documents or digital data.
An analogy that has no reference to the subject at hand.
Yes we must not forget history. Mortility rates have dropped incredibly with the encouraged use of medical abortions. More barbaric methods were used not so long ago.
Why do you make assumptions that a small % of people should dictate what should be decided for everyone else?
Here's a quote for you as well.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." - Leonard Nimoy's Spock
By the way that is considered a logical quote.
Mortility means movement. Mortality rates have increased! Every baby that is aborted is killed. Abortion = death. Murder. Murdering babies does not increase the amount of babies that are born alive. It just means less babies are birthed.
“No man is free until all men are free”
Is your argument that collective agreement determines morality?
"should the woman have a right-"
Yes. Debate over.
Easy to say once you are born...
@@awesomewxyz7083 If they hadn't been born they wouldn't care one way or the other.
@@cnault3244 but they will eventually want to be alive.
People who are in coma can't care whether or not you kill them. But they will eventually care once they wake up.
@@awesomewxyz7083 "but they will eventually want to be alive."
Not if they haven't been born.
@@cnault3244 yeah because you took that choice away from them.
You can't kill someone in coma and say its okay cause he hasn't woken up yet.
Also, it's not okay to kill someone in their sleep just cause they don't have consciousness for a specific period of time....
Abortion...….Does your child deserve the death penalty?
If the child has a sick condition that may kill them after they're born, I guess it's better to put them out of their misery than to let them suffer after being born.
5:50 there is no such thing as loophole ,it's either legal or illegal.
Ours is an age where ethics has become obsolete. It is superseded by science, deleted by philosophy and dismissed as emotive by psychology. It is drowned in compassion, evaporates into aesthetics and retreats before relativism. The usual moral distinctions between good and bad are simply drowned in a maudlin emotion in which we feel more sympathy for the murderer than for the murdered, for the adulterer than for the betrayed, and in which we have actually begun to believe that the real guilty party, the one who somehow caused it all, is the victim, and not the perpetrator of the crime.
-Robert Fitch
We see a Dr cram metal into a baby and tear it apart until its heart stops beating, and Until a its brain waves cease.
We see a mother lay quietly as they tear off his little arms and legs from his body.
Then we say the mother is the victim, and the baby is at fault. Then we pretend the Dr is not guilty as he overpowers the little heartbeat with violance and injustice.
That's your own view. I accept that. Like I said as my original point at what stage it can be considered human is up to the individual. Science has given us a basic answer, but understands what has to be done for the good of society. There can be negative consequences on both sides for whether a woman has the child or not. We don't see abortion for other mammals to be wrong, because we feel emotionally superior to any other. We see the value of human life with emotion, rather than logic.
You've contradicted yourself multiple times in this comment.
in a society that has chosen to kill a child it is lacking Love. Love is made up of patients and kindness; love will not be envious or boastful; LOVE is not arrogant or rude. LOVE does NOT insist on its OWN way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
1 Corinthians 13:4-7
*VENGEANCE FOR THE CHILDREN IS COMING SOON*
REPENT FOR THE DREADFUL DAY OF THE LORD IS COMING
@@leonardu6094 haha but its funny reading this comment without context. Idk who he was arguing to tho
@@nazteee8769 lol created his own bogeyman in his head and even then he still couldn't win the argument.
@@rev.redhand6205 bruh the moment you bring religion into an argument unrelated to religion you've lost
I’m pro choice
The shame on you
🍭
Lollipops
you mean you're pro-killing vulnerable human beings
We must support choice. Anything else is forced breeding and slavery.
Who can force someone to get pregnant. You know rape is illegal right?
First of all it's not her body her choice in case of abortion it's another body inside her body, And second in india anti abortion laws are very important because people will misuse abortion and terminate girl child's.
You can't say that unless you've gotten pregnant and I know you can't. A fetus is not a baby
@@LuciferXFallen290 read some science books then you'll know what I'm talking about
@@raptoryt9322 people misused abortion when it was illegal.
@@raptoryt9322 I don't need to. I have a mother who is a retired nurse. I already know the medical down sides to abortion.
I don't think that was what Anand was referring to.... When you say "a fetus is not a baby" you are attempting to dehumanize a human being.... I can say "a newborn is not a toddler" - that doesn't mean it's OK to kill newborns. Yes, there are developmental differences between fetuses and babies just as there are developmental differences between newborns and toddlers but human fetuses, babies and toddlers are all human beings that should be protected, not killed.
Why are we having these stupid debates in India?
Western influence. They'll try to guilt trip you into accepting their beliefs even if there are vast socio-economic differences between both countries. I can't imagine why something would even think of outlawing abortions in a densely populated, poverty stricken country like india.
pro-choice isn't pro-abortion
it's pro- I will not judge u for the choice u are making
So if there is a guy who choose to murder innocent people should i also say that I am Pro- i will not judge you for the choice u are making.
@@nitinhardy4078 But embryos are not ''innocent people''... If you search for the definition of the word you will se that an embryo cannot be considered as ''people''. Your comparison is not valid
@@barriguinhamole291 yes it doesn't. But in 9 months it will be a baby if you didn't kill it. Life is not an instant process, it takes time. And before conception there is no potential for life . Its as simple as that
@@dontknow2326But that's the idea, interrupt the pregnance before it become a baby ! Simple as that
@@barriguinhamole291 yes and it's a kinda murder beacause it will be a baby in 9 months. What you are killing is a zygote which we all were at one stage. But our mothers didn't terminate there pregnancy that's why we are here .
Why is almost always men against abortion and women pro-choice?
Seems like you have not seen pro life woman ever.
@@ADITYASHARMA-im2qo say it louder for him in the back!!! He can't listen!!
its like 50 50