Beyonce is CLEARLY anti-abortion. Why isn't she vilified?

conservati radio guy wrote:

Pro Life wrote:

I honestly cannot understand how anyone can be pro-choice at this point. It is clearly a human inside of the uterus. I mean, have you seen an ultrasound? I totally understand the complications with rape/incest and all the rest, but "the right to choose" on a general level is just a practice in ignorance.

Life begins at conception?

So you think a 2 week old zygote has exactly the same moral valence as a newborn? If I said "I am either going to scrape this zygote or strangle a 3 year old, you choose", you'd just shrug and say "Doesn't really matter, it is all the same". Only a moral monster would think so. But, then again, what do you expect from people who believe in a God that would torture people for eternity just because they didn't "believe" in him and that said belief (something one doesn't choose in any case) is the highest form of good.

Why on earth would a thing without a brain or nervous system have the same moral valence as a full-term person? What is it we find morally valent about killing? Only a woo-filled religious belief based on soul-talk could put a lump of cells on equal moral footing with a person.

So would a clone be alive? There is no conception.

A Fetus wrote:

conservati radio guy wrote:

I am drawing my arbitrary line at around 3mo (with exceptions).

Here is a baby at 2 months. 1 full month before your line:

http://www.dimensionsinfo.com/how-big-is-a-2-month-old-fetus/

Would feel comfortable killing that and not calling it a baby?

Absolutely. No brain, no pain, no sense of autonomy, nothing. If my parents had aborted me then, I would never had known - I would have been just like the infinite number of unconceived babies.

DO you guys have any idea how many "babies" your god kills? Quite a few more than we do. God is the biggest abortionist of all.

I have now....impressive.http://shame-full.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/800_beyonce-knowles-hot-1019681697.jpgimplants?

ghk wrote:

Wondering d wrote:

Just watched the Beyonce documentary on HBO and it is quite clear that she is vehemently anti-abortion. How come no one is talking about this? Where is the outrage?

Have you seen her boobs...? Question answered.

If a woman does not want to carry a fetus to full term, that should be her right. It's her body, i can imagine an unwanted fetus might feel creepy, like a parasite feeding and growing within you against your will. However the fetus is alive too and it has a right to life that is independent of the mother. So the solution should be to remove the fetus and let it fend for itself (with the help of modern medicine of course). I believe the record for a surviving premature baby is around 21 weeks of gestation. That is halfway through the second trimester.

If the fetus/baby is truly a person, let it be a person out in the world. If it can't survive "on its own" then we shouldn't be endowing it with people rights.

Fhjiurd wrote:

If a woman does not want to carry a fetus to full term, that should be her right. It's her body, i can imagine an unwanted fetus might feel creepy, like a parasite feeding and growing within you against your will. However the fetus is alive too and it has a right to life that is independent of the mother. So the solution should be to remove the fetus and let it fend for itself (with the help of modern medicine of course). I believe the record for a surviving premature baby is around 21 weeks of gestation. That is halfway through the second trimester.

If the fetus/baby is truly a person, let it be a person out in the world. If it can't survive "on its own" then we shouldn't be endowing it with people rights.

Uh... A damn 2 year old cannot survive "on its own," nor can my grandfather, for that matter.

Hitch22 wrote:

So you think a 2 week old zygote has exactly the same moral valence as a newborn? If I said "I am either going to scrape this zygote or strangle a 3 year old, you choose", you'd just shrug and say "Doesn't really matter, it is all the same".

In the grand scheme of things, yes, it is all the same. Because the zygote is just a younger version of the three year old. Assuming normal development (which is the case for the vast majority of fetuses), in several years time that zygote will be a three year old too.

Let me guess, you probably think it is unacceptable to kill a 5 year old, but newborn babies are ok to kill because the baby isn't as old as the 5 year old? what about 2 years old? can we kill them too? after all, if the mother does not want a baby in her life, then why can't she have the baby killed? Why can't she just have her 2 year old gased--it's painless to the baby, afterall. As a woman, she deserves her rights, yes? This child will be her responsibility and in her life for the next 16 years at least, so she has the right to control her own life, right?

And no, this is not a rhetorical question. Why can a mother not kill her 2 year old if she wants to? Many of the same arguments for abortion can be applied to young infants too.

That is a straw man. I think both are awful. If I said that I was either going to (1) pull the plug on someone under anesthesia during surgery or (2) bludgeon a baby in the face with a bat, which one would you chose? Is one really more moral than the other just because one will feel it and the other won't? Faulty argument on your part.

Another straw man. I don't believe that and it has absolutely nothing to do with this argument. Bad try.

Fully formed brain and nervous system, you mean? While you're at it, why don't you go ahead and let us know what body parts are required for being labelled a full-term person. How about those soldiers who come home without arms? Are they considered people? How about the ones with brain damage? I suppose we ought to just go ahead and shoot them like dogs. What worth are they after all?

You are a disgrace to the discussion with your inability to form a coherent argument.

Hitch22 wrote:

So would a clone be alive? There is no conception.

Cloning humans is a horrible idea for so many reasons, but there would, in fact, be a moment of conception. It would be a different form of conception, but a life would be created at some point in the process. Do you disagree?

Actually, this is a great question for you to answer, hot shot. At what point in the cloning process would it all of a sudden be immoral to kill the clone?

Don't be a retard, you know what I mean. Surviving on it's own as in not hooked up to a placenta, which encroaches on the mother. Any surviving children delivered prematurely in this manner would be put up for adoption.

And for the record this means I don't think we should be killing fetuses beyond 21 weeks since they are potentially viable outside the womb. I would be fine with abortion being illegal beyond that since after 21 weeks it is a real life person, just inside another person.

Neither can you.

Don't believe me? Go walk into the woods with nothing but the clothes on your back. Come back out in 13 months and tell us about it.

runn wrote:Two weeks into my wife's first pregnancy she had an ultra sound (she was high risk so they did it early).

There was a blinking light on the screen.

My wife asked, "What's that?"

The tech said, "It's the heartbeat."

My wife said, "It's the baby?"

The tech said, "There IS no baby."

I got her fired.

If there's a heartbeat there's a baby. That non-baby heartbeat is now a successful 23 year old.

Life begins at conception.

You forgot the QED.

Nobody is going to convince anyone else of anything in this awful thread. Just start living your lie knowing that people will have different opinions than you, and that people will make different choices in their lives than you will. Some of them will get pregnant and not want their kid. That's a bummer but it's not your life.

Fhjiurd wrote:

Don't be a retard, you know what I mean. Surviving on it's own as in not hooked up to a placenta, which encroaches on the mother. Any surviving children delivered prematurely in this manner would be put up for adoption.

And for the record this means I don't think we should be killing fetuses beyond 21 weeks since they are potentially viable outside the womb. I would be fine with abortion being illegal beyond that since after 21 weeks it is a real life person, just inside another person.

If you aren't a troll, I am extremely worried about the people in this world. Do you realize how many people require machines to live outside of the womb? How in the world does that make them any less human?

Also, what is a "real life person?"

jan and wayne skylar wrote:

Nobody is going to convince anyone else of anything in this awful thread. Just start living your lie knowing that people will have different opinions than you, and that people will make different choices in their lives than you will. Some of them will get pregnant and not want their kid. That's a bummer but it's not your life.

What if people had said this about the Holocaust? Stand up for what is right and denounce what is wrong. Abortion is flat-out wrong and it needs to be said.

You all have it backwards: It is always immoral to create life.

I think everyone on this thread needs to read this book:

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296422.001.0001/acprof-9780199296422

And before quickly dismissing this note that the author makes a very compelling point that is regarded widely as worthy argument and he is much smarter than you are.

You'll notice that the Pro-Choice people in this thread have a very aggressive and accusatory tone. This is a typical response from Liberals as they know they are in the wrong and feel very uncomfortable talking about the issue. They will argue semantics and try to present straw men, as we have seen numerous times already. Watch, it will continue to happen. At the end of the day, Pro-Choice people are arguing that it is okay to kill babies. What?

Finder of Research wrote:

Waster of time wrote:

Maybe because a LARGE majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade? Just a thought...

You are wrong, anyway. In 2009, the balance was tipped in favor of Pro-Life and it continues to grow.

Here is a Gallup poll from 2012:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx

The trends are interesting, and the last poster was correct in that it seems to follow technological advances such as sonograms, 3d ultrasounds, etc.

Wow, a right winger cherry picks some data to support his ideology.....who would have thought THAT was possible??!? Hey, there is a first time for everything.

Look douchebag (and I say that will all due respect), the guy you were attempting to prove "wrong," wrote: "a LARGE majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade."

So, what are the facts on that?

"Seven in 10 Americans believe Roe v. Wade should stand according to data from a WSJ/NBC News poll, as the landmark Supreme Court abortion-rights ruling turns 40 on Tuesday.

That is the highest level of support for the decision, which established a woman's right to an abortion, since polls began tracking it in 1989. The shift is mostly the result of more Democrats backing the decision—particularly Hispanics and African-Americans—and a slight uptick in support from Republicans."

So who is "wrong" ?? right, that would be you. And the trend is DEFINITELY not going your way, so nothing "interesting" about, at least as far as what you find "interesting."

But let me guess, this was because of the "liberal" WSJ making stuff up, eh? If things don't go your way, it's gotta be a conspiracy.

Benetar wrote:

And before quickly dismissing this note that the author makes a very compelling point that is regarded widely as worthy argument and he is much smarter than you are.

This guy is a nut who was dismissed by both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life people. He presents a rabbit hole that justifies all kinds of atrocities.

Your assertion that he "is much smarter than you are" isn't relevant to the discussion. Many smart people are antisocial and sometimes even psychopathic lunatics.

A fine quote:

“A charmed life is so rare that for every one such life there are millions of wretched lives. Some know that their baby will be among the unfortunate. Nobody knows, however, that their baby will be one of the allegedly lucky few. Great suffering could await any person that is brought into existence. Even the most privileged people could give birth to a child that will suffer unbearably, be raped, assaulted, or be murdered brutally. The optimist surely bears the burden of justifying this procreational Russian roulette. Given that there are no real advantages over never existing for those who are brought into existence, it is hard to see how the significant risk of serious harm could be justified. If we count not only the unusually severe harms that anybody could endure, but also the quite routine ones of ordinary human life, then we find that matters are still worse for cheery procreators. It shows that they play Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun—aimed, of course, not at their own heads, but at those of their future offspring.”

― David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence