What can you listen to? You can't have a reasonable debate when one side if just making things up.
Abortion is science, climate change is science, race and gender differences are proven facts.
Edit:instead of downvoting me explain what's wrong? Wtf. So much for listening...
The thing is, Trump is just a symptom of some disease which the country has been suffering for many years. I'd say it's a mix of a lot of things, e.g. the decline of scientific education + decline of the middle class + a lot of other things.
We need to funnel money back into public education; the next generation is our only hope.
While I’ve often found that people can’t handle this question and just disengage, if you do get an answer, then you can actually try to say what they need to hear. They may move the goalposts after getting an answer, but it’s better than wasting time throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
This sounds like a much more conservative opinion than perhaps you intended.
...has actually been disproven more than it's been proven. Or rather, proven to be caused by things other than discrimination, as "wage gap" is meant to imply.
No, to me it is ethics!
Edit, added: Killing an innocent child does not have anything to do with science.
A fetus isn't viable until week 20ish. Even then it won't survive outside the mothers body. 1% of abortions happen after week 20.
About 90% of abortions happen before week 13. It's not even a fetus at this point. The body it self might abort still at this point, this is when mis carriages happen.
Why do you feel an unviable collection of cells is a human?
Because it is human, and it is alive.
It is human, in the sense that it is descended from humans and is not dog or a dandelion or a caterpillar. It has human genetic code. It is one continuous line from the merge of two human sex cells to full-grown human. There is no jump, somewhere along the way, from not human to human.
It is alive. A plant is alive, so surely so is a fetus.
> A fetus isn't viable until week 20ish.
Whether it is viable doesn't determine whether it is human or alive. A two-year-old outside the womb isn't very viable either. In fact, some 20-year-olds aren't very viable.
Viability is shaky ground upon which to base legal protection. Just think of the handicapped or those with other chronic maladies. Or any of us can become unviable temporarily through some accident or acute illness. Does our right to life disappear?
> Why do you feel an unviable collection of cells is a human
A "collection of cells" does not describe a fetus any better than an adult.
- At about 18 days, there is a heartbeat
- At about 40 days, there is brain activity
- By the end of the first trimester, it has all its organs. It just needs to grow.
"Photography of the human fetus developing in the womb": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD1gW88Lm-Y
> What does location have to do with it?
Inside the womb or outside the womb, its location seems to be the dimension used by those who say abortion is okay.
The difference between fetus and infants is the first is still attached to its mother. Its continued growth depends on its attachment to mother. Similar to a tumor.
I don't think you actually understand what you are talking about if you are confused about the term viability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability
Your link to photos means you are forming your opinion based off emotion and not understanding the difference between cells splitting, and what a independent human is.
At what point do you think the sperm and egg are human? Even the first split after they join is still just two cells.
What proof do you have that says a fetus at 16 weeks is alive? How are you defining alive?
> it has all its organs. It just needs to grow.
This is still dependent on the mother, it is not its own thing at this point.
Yes, and they are all human, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human
> None of these are living humans yet. They're pre humans.
Citation needed.
> without an identity or awareness
That is pretty easily disproven scientifically. Not even a biologist who is for legal abortion would say that a baby in the womb is unaware. There was an ultrasound a long time ago where you see the fetus recoil from the abortionist's knife. Of course it's aware. Just because it can't see the outside world yet doesn't mean it's unaware.
As far as identity, well, it has a unique fingerprint, DNA, etc. Are you saying you don't have an identity until there's a birth certificate?
> At what point do you think the sperm and egg are human?
Well, they are human from inception (see above). But they are a separate human being at conception.
> What proof do you have that says a fetus at 16 weeks is alive? How are you defining alive?
Even a single cell is alive. You have drifted from textbook science at this point.
> This is still dependent on the mother
Dependence doesn't disqualify you from being human or alive.
> Even a single cell is alive. You have really drifted from textbook science at this point.
We're not talking about human cells being alive. were talking about the whole organism being considered alive and its own thing.
Talking about whether an organism that can not exist independently of its host, that hasn't experienced life yet can be aborted by that host.
It feels like your being disingenuous arguing semantics like cell life with me. Yes cells are live, no the organism is not an independent thing with its own rights. An nonviable fetus is not a fully grown human, this isn't killing babies.
This is not some clump of cells that "responds to stimulus" before birth and magically becomes "conscious and aware" after birth. It doesn't even line up with fetal viability.
> We're not talking about human cells being alive. were talking about the whole organism being considered alive and its own thing.
The whole organism is alive and its own thing from conception. This is undisputed among biologists.
There is only one race, the human race. There are differences between ethnic groups, but we are all created in God's image because we're all descended from Adam. I don't know anyone who seriously thinks there are no differences with gender? Except maybe some gender confused professors at my University, but that aside does anyone who is sane really think they are the same? Man and Woman, while having physical deferences, different roles, and responisbilities, are nonethless equal before God.
I don't know what you mean by Abortion is science, but I do know that it is wrong because it's killing an innocent human being.
I explained my poor wording somewhere else in this thread.
Why do you feel an unviable collection of cells is a human life? It has no thought, that is what makes us human. At that point its a collection of cells leaching off the mother
Humananity is not defined by the ability to think. Even before the first thought the human embryo is not just a collection of cells. It's a distinct organism. It is dependent on the mother but those cells are independent in the sense that it directs itself on how to form. If you could remove an embryo from the womb and give it a good environment and nutrients it would form just the same. The unborn baby isn't slowly assembled out of parts to make a whole, the embryo is already functioning, it's a distinct human life. It is already human. If you define humanity by thought would you say a 3 year old is less human than a 10 year because their thoughts are less complex? What about when you're sleeping, are you less human when you're unconscious? Humanity is also not defined by it's viability. Is a wounded soldier who will die without life support all of a sudden less human or less valuable because his life depends on an outside source?
The embryo is a distinct human being that can direct it's own formation. It is separate from the mother's cells. And that is why it is a human life.
but instead we keep running referendums on failed obama policies combined with the sociocultural neurosis of overmedicated grad students while trying to pretend all of that is not the whitest shit imaginable.