What is the difference between being in favor of Abortion and being in favor of Death penalty/openly carrying a firearm in public that is the direct cause of thousands of innocent deaths? Both results in the deaths of actual people.

Comparing executing Rapist and Killers to killing babies? Seriously? Oh, and the open carry part is completely false, the majority of shootings take place in "Gun Free" zones, and in the States with the strictest gun control laws. While places that embrace open carry enjoy a nice 23 percent decrease in violent crime this year alone.

^ If we consider abortion as killing babies yes, but it is not universal and even a minority view mainly supported by religious people/people living in zones with few access to information/people with few education or knowledge about the topic, so explain me something : why in almost all of the developed nations do we tolerate "killing babies"?

Because the term "developed nation" doesn't actually apply to anything, it's just used when it's politically useful, like now.

This is a pretty simple argument. If someone kills a live human without moral justification(self-defense), it is murder. A baby is alive. Therefore abortion is murder.

Rapists should be tracked down and put in prison with harsh sentences. But even if a woman is raped, the baby is still a live human. Killing it would be murder.

The only exception is when a mother's life is in danger. Letting a mother die from pregnancy would be morally wrong.

Also let's face it, abortion is not universally recognized as "killing a person". So let's compare things that are comparable and stay accurate.

You're contradicting yourself now. I have you quoted as saying:

Both results in the deaths of actual people.

In reference to Abortion and Guns.

Well for a pernickety person correcting me about those "thousands", you are very imprecise and inexact here: The least when you are giving some stats and details is to explain what exactly are they dealing about and which population is concerned.

You seemed to have no trouble knowing basically instantly that they were about the US:

these stats are only showing US figures

It's not necessary to restate the subject of your conversation if you are reasonably sure that your conversational partner is competent enough to actually remember what you're talking about.

Abortion has no practical uses? For you on religious grounds certainly there is no practical uses at all, but without abortion and uncontrolled births what would happen? Hundred of thousands of unwanted babies = potential orphans (knowing how the US system is wrecked about orphanages, see Disposable Children or rehoming unwanted children at will), potential children raised without love because unwanted. What about the ones discovering they would have babies that would have a horrible life (congenital deseases which make life unbearable).

Abortion has no practical uses. There may be practical benefits resulting from abortions, but abortion will always entail killing a human, which is my point. Guns do have uses that do not entail killing a human, which is why I've worded it the way I dd.

And "this is why it's so easy to accept guns and reject abortion": frankly let me doubt about that, guns are not universally accepted in most of the developed nations (excepted the US and few others), whereas abortion is widely accepted in those developed nations (with the exception of very few country, the only country I heard where it is indeed illegal is Ireland for religious reasons, but I heard that many debates started lately about it even there).

I was not suggesting that these views are widely held, although in the US they pretty much are, which if you'll remember is the topic of our conversation. Rather, I was directly responding to something that you said:

what I find hypocritical here is that some people here are against abortion but still in favor of death penalty/generalization of firearms that also causes many deaths. If you want to be consistent in your views, you should be in favor/against any of them.

Edited 5/26/2016 20:12:30

Another argument is that the mother has the entire decision on whether a baby is considered human or not. In today's society, killing a WANTED baby is murder, while killing an UNWANTED baby is a common surgical procedure. No one should decide whether something is considered human or not.

The pro-abortion argument is the same one used by slave owners in the US in the 1800s: If it's on my property, I can do whatever I want with it. Disgusting

In Medieval Times, abortion was allowed by the church. Early abortions do not hurt anybody as the fetus has no soul.

"developed nation" doesn't actually apply to anything

A developed country, industrialized country, or "more economically developed country" (MEDC), is a sovereign state that has a highly developed economy and advanced technological infrastructure relative to other less industrialized nations. Most commonly, the criteria for evaluating the degree of economic development are gross domestic product (GDP), gross national product (GNP), the per capita income, level of industrialization, amount of widespread infrastructure and general standard of living.

This is a pretty simple argument. If someone kills a live human without moral justification(self-defense), it is murder. A baby is alive. Therefore abortion is murder.

Rapists should be tracked down and put in prison with harsh sentences. But even if a woman is raped, the baby is still a live human. Killing it would be murder.

"Killing babies" is a spurious claim as it can barely be considered as a feticide. Gosh, we do not kill babies at birth, but well many people here (unsurprisingly all Americans from a very particular area) tend to have very biased political claims on this very topic. I truly wonder why.

Some of you here are talking in place of those women that chose abortion, do you honestly believe it is an unconsidered choice for them?
And without abortion as I pointed out earlier, it would lead to situations where millions of children that were unwanted, would potentially be abandoned/raised without love from their parents.

(unsurprisingly all Americans from a very particular area)

Me and my entire family are actually "from" up north, just an FYI.

It makes good workers for factories.

I'm pro-abortion and am against governments attacking it.

Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE aren't pro-abortion, and they're both fairly developed.

In Medieval Times, abortion was allowed by the church. Early abortions do not hurt anybody as the fetus has no soul.

Souls don't exist

In 1978 the company introduced a policy that no fertile women would be allowed to work in its lead pigments department. The company claimed that hazardous chemicals in that department might harm women's reproductive system. Fertile women under age 50 would have to be sterilized or take jobs in other areas of the company, virtually all of which paid less. Men, whose reproductive system might also be damaged by lead, were not subject to restrictions.

Source : http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fetal+Rights


----

Genius way to avoid workplace responsibilities. I am sure that their chemicals do other things than hurt fertility.

Next thing, we'll see cancer and asthma "treatment" to make sure we are not at fault.

Pro-abortion as well. Similar reasons to MGSB.

Soul and psyche are nearly identical concepts.

Soul is used by religion. Psyche by psychoanalysts. It does not matter how it is called.

Although I wouldn't be that rash, saying that souls do not exist.

You're contradicting yourself now

Proving you are not really reading scrupulously what I wrote, I said " there is no universal consensus about it", that's all, I did not contradict myself here since I was not necessarily talking about myself but referring to the general opinion (hence "universally" if you get the meaning of it), not my own opinion.

You seemed to have no trouble knowing basically instantly that they were about the US:

I knew it was from the US because I did a research (always do) when someone give datas without any sources supporting it. But what about other people reading your post? For someone asking others to be very precise, the least you could do is to provide a detailed/precise/consistent answer as well.

Abortion has no practical uses. There may be practical benefits resulting from abortions, but abortion will always entail killing a human, which is my point. Guns do have uses that do not entail killing a human, which is why I've worded it the way I dd.

Do guns excepted killing other people have any "practical uses"? Tell me.

Again you are using a spurious claim about "killing people" whereas it is not universally accepted at all. Your own opinion is clearly biased here. That's why I would strictly consider your points once you show that people universally accept the fact that aborting is indeed killing babies/human beings/persons.

I was not suggesting that these views are widely held, although in the US they pretty much are, which if you'll remember is the topic of our conversation. Rather, I was directly responding to something that you said

Is the title of this thread "My Opinion on Abortion IN THE US?", stop acting like a narrow minded Americanocentrist for once.

And even if we were only talking about "the US", prove me that your views are more widely accepted, as for now if abortion is tolerated in the US, I believe it is for some reasons, and that's certainly because the US have not yet fallen into the hands of anti-abortion obscurantists. Though it could change, we can both agree on this.

Proving you are not really reading scrupulously what I wrote, I said " there is no universal consensus about it", that's all, I did not contradict myself here since I was not necessarily talking about myself but referring to the general opinion (hence "universally" if you get the meaning of it), not my own opinion.

If you agree with what I said, then I have no clue why you want to continue discussing it. The implication of you posting a rebuttal to my post is that there is still disagreement, and therefore something still worth discussing. However, if you're in agreement with my statement that "Abortions kill hundreds of thousands of humans per year", then please say so, as it's really frustrating to argue about nothing.

I knew it was from the US because I did a research (always do) when someone give datas without any sources supporting it. But what about other people reading your post? For someone asking others to be very precise, the least you could do is to provide a detailed/precise/consistent answer as well.

I never asked you to be precise, and I've never claimed that you were not precise. I've only ever said that you made an incorrect statement, which you did.

And generally that's how it works; If you're unable to understand something someone says, normally it's a good idea to go research it a bit. This applies to everyone, and as far as I know everyone does it, not just you.

Do guns excepted killing other people have any "practical uses"? Tell me.

Lol what? I'm not even really sure what you're trying to say, as this is a very poorly constructed sentence, but Guns aren't people, so there is no "Killing other people". And as I've already pointed out, there are several practical uses for guns that do not entail killing humans, such as hunting, self defense, and training yourself to have better hand eye coordination.

Again you are using a spurious claim about "killing people" whereas it is not universally accepted at all. Your own opinion is clearly biased here. That's why I would strictly consider your points once you show that people universally accept the fact that aborting is indeed killing babies/human beings/persons.

Universal or near universal acceptance doesn't mean much of anything, as there will always be minorities with dissenting opinions. For example, most people in the world agree that God exists. However, there is a small minority of around 2-9% that insist that God does not in fact exist and that the other 80-90% of people are wrong and they are right.

Claiming that these ideological minorities are inherently wrong on principle due to them being small is simply a foolish thing to do. You have to actually disprove their opinions with arguments, not simply say that they are wrong because they are a minority.

Not to mention that pro-life people are hardly a small minority. Much of the world has somewhat restrictive abortion laws (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Abortion_Laws.svg/2000px-Abortion_Laws.svg.png), and in the US opinion is pretty much split 50/50 on the issue.

I am not biased, and I would say that you are actually extremely biased due to being from a very left-leaning region of the world that is western europe.

And even if we were only talking about "the US", prove me that your views are more widely accepted, as for now if abortion is tolerated in the US, I believe it is for some reasons, and that's certainly because the US have not yet fallen into the hands of anti-abortion obscurantists. Though it could change, we can both agree on this.

A significant portion of americans (43%) oppose abortion in All or most cases, compared to 51% who say it should be legal, and it's pretty much been trending down, as 60% supported it in 1995.

(http://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/08/public-opinion-on-abortion-2/)

Also, It generally goes the other way around, ie abortion used to be illegal everywhere but a lot of countries have legalized it.

Edited 5/26/2016 22:20:36

The heartbeat begins around 21 days, which is pretty close to when most people find out they're pregnant. Thoughts on that? IF we're trying to decide when a fetus is alive, that's gotta be a pretty good place to start?

In my opinion that does not count as being alive. What counts as being alive is when your brain is developed enough for you to be alive.

i actually agree with smedley butler for once and feel tht the gov should stay out of abortion

If you agree with what I said, then I have no clue why you want to continue discussing it. The implication of you posting a rebuttal to my post is that there is still disagreement, and therefore something still worth discussing. However, if you're in agreement with my statement that "Abortions kill hundreds of thousands of humans per year", then please say so, as it's really frustrating to argue about nothing.

Did I ever say I was agreeing with you? Not at all, I never claimed to agree with you, so please stop putting words I never stated at all.

I never asked you to be precise, and I've never claimed that you were not precise. I've only ever said that you made an incorrect statement, which you did.

And generally that's how it works; If you're unable to understand something someone says, normally it's a good idea to go research it a bit. This applies to everyone, and as far as I know everyone does it, not just you.

You never asked me to be precise? Weren't you the one saying I was not giving the right figures about "thousand" and "hundred thousand"? If this is not asking to be precise what is it? Frankly there is no need to argue about it, you are giving yourself a headache out of nothing.

And normally it is a good idea to build a strong argument supported by sources and anything worth it helping others to get what you want to say, sadly here it wasn't the case since you did not added any important informations such as where were these figures from? (source), and which region were you talking about?

Lol what? I'm not even really sure what you're trying to say, as this is a very poorly constructed sentence, but Guns aren't people, so there is no "Killing other people". And as I've already pointed out, there are several practical uses for guns that do not entail killing humans, such as hunting, self defense, and training yourself to have better hand eye coordination.

"very poorly constructed sentence", when you barely say "abortion is killing babies" or abortion have no "practical uses" (as you still did not explained at all what did you mean by "practical"): this statement was very hypocritical.


As for your "practical uses" for guns:
- hunting, is basically killing other living beings, and many abuses sadly exist about hunting protected species.
- self defense, basically when you have to use your gun against someone for "self-defense" there is a high chance you may kill that person.
- training yourself to ultimately know how to shoot someone sure, what a good point...

Frankly your arguments supporting guns here are very weak: Explain me how guns are something worth for the society in general or helping to make this world a better place?

Universal or near universal acceptance doesn't mean much of anything, as there will always be minorities with dissenting opinions. For example, most people in the world agree that God exists. However, there is a small minority of around 2-9% that insist that God does not in fact exist and that the other 80-90% of people are wrong and they are right.

Claiming that these ideological minorities are inherently wrong on principle due to them being small is simply a foolish thing to do. You have to actually disprove their opinions with arguments, not simply say that they are wrong because they are a minority.

Not to mention that pro-life people are hardly a minority. Much of the world has somewhat restrictive abortion laws (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Abortion_Laws.svg/2000px-Abortion_Laws.svg.png), and in the US opinion is pretty much split 50/50 on the issue.

I am not biased, and I would say that you are actually extremely biased due to being from a very left-leaning region of the world that is western europe.

Ahahah, sure, it doesn't mean anything, particularly when it goes against your own particular opinion right?
I never claimed that these ideological minorities were wrong, I said I respected all opinions and particularly all religions (as long as they also respect my views ans other people's views), I fully understand religious people that are against abortion because of their faith, but as long as they do not force other non religious or pro-abortion people to follow their will, it is all good (unlike in what you could see in the very Catholic Ireland/Poland or Wahhabi Saudi Arabia). The thing is people defending anti-abortion and the suppression of abortion laws want to impose and enforce (as MGSB and Death said) their will and views on others.
Abortion is a choice, people against abortion can actually avoid to abort if they want, it is a personal choice, so you see I do not get that much the need to debate about it and why you folks try to force some liberticide policies. Many people like you here are contradicting very much from what I read elsewhere, since some of you define themselves as "libertarians" with very contradictory and misguided views.

To conclude, I am necessarily against your views here because you are trying to force people that are for aborting to not abort and weaken their rights particularly their right to privacy.
You disrespect other people views and ideologies, this is why anti-abortion is highly condemnable here, because it obviously limits freedom.

And about your stats: people believing in God, I suppose it is another Americancentrist view right? (again you did not provide a source supporting your stats nor explained what population was targeted)
Take China as an example, most of the people are atheist there (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_China), and frankly with 1,4 billion people, I would not be surprised a much higher number of atheists worldwide.
And even about America, according to a 2008 ARIS survey (source here: http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/), belief in God varies considerably by region. The lowest rate is in the West with 59% reporting a belief in God, and the highest rate is in the South at 86%, and what you don't say at all is that some people actually "do not know at all" or do not either say if they believe there "is a God or not", atheists could be 9%¨(people openly saying there is no God) but you have also around 20% of people that are irreligious and do not know at all if there is or not a God (which is my case), and can hardly be considered part of the ones that "openly" say a God exists.

As for the question: I am biased or not? explain me what being pro-abortion has to do with being leftist? In Europe there is indeed a consensus about abortion, socialists, liberals, conservatives and even nationalists are in favor of abortion, there is just a small minority of them being anti-abortion, but this minority can be found not only among conservatives or nationalists but also leftists.
Since you do not know at all our culture nor what's happening in our continent, there are also many social movements in favor of banning abortion, and frankly it is even more powerful in Catholic countries such as France, Italy, Ireland, Poland or Spain. Recently there was a huge demonstration named "La Manif pour Tous" led by traditionalist Catholic lobbies such as Civitas.

Frankly, this is quite surprising to see ab originally "Protestant" Nation such as the US, that used to be way more Liberal and Progressive than the very Conservative Catholic nations, joining these very backward/traditionalist views, that used to be marks of Catholic traditionalists.

You also seem to have a very truncated view of France and Europe in general, but we have many currents and Europe is far from being leftist, most of the countries (excepted notably France since 2013 and before that France was led by Conservatives for 20 years, even more than the US!) are led by rightist coalitions or parties.

A significant portion of americans (43%) oppose abortion in All or most cases, compared to 51% who say it should be legal, and it's pretty much been trending down, as 60% supported it in 1995.

(http://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/08/public-opinion-on-abortion-2/)

As I said, things are changing and obscurantists are more numerous than they used to be, fortunately, the US are not the world, even if the US used to be very ahead of time, that seems to no longer be the case nowadays. And about abortion as I said earlier, people in favor of anti-abortion policies are against freedom and the right of privacy as the issue of bodily privacy is "the core" of the abortion debate.

I do not understand the need of anti-abortion people to force their will on others, you said yourself " there will always be minorities with dissenting opinions" and "Claiming that these ideological minorities are inherently wrong on principle due to them being small is simply a foolish thing to do."

So please stop contradicting yourself everytime, defending anti-abortion is quite useless, as people that are against abortion have the right to not abort, as a personal choice, as for the ones for abortion let them keep this right, even if they become a minority in the future, it is not a reason to start being against people's freedom just on religious/cultural grounds.

Edited 5/27/2016 00:13:58