The Argument Against Abortion 

Did you listen to the whole clip? Premise 2 clearly states: Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. You saying that a fetus is a "clump of cells" is you disagreeing with the second premise. So how exactly did Megan misrepresent what the debate was about? From the earliest stages of development, the science of embryology teaches that each of us was a distinct living and whole human being. Philosophically, there’s no essential difference, between the embryo you once were and the adults you are today, that would justify killing you at that earlier stage. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not good reasons for saying you could be killed then, but not now. Bringing up other issues is just a red herring that has nothing to do with the logical syllogism Megan brought up. Fighting poverty and fighting for the unborn are not mutually exclusive.

Clump of cells have life. Its a being. Its a living being. It has life and now i have to prove its a human ik. It has human dna. Sooo?

that is less than 2% of all pregnancies, you cant use an exception as the main source for your argument

also thats the entire reason caesarean sections are preformed. pregnancies dont kill people, like ever.

A full explanation of our view on ectopic pregnancies would be quite lengthy, so we'll point you to our good friend Scott Klusendorf's careful thinking on this issue: prolifetraining.com/answering-difficult-questions-what-about-life-of-the-mother/

How? The argument presented was a logical syllogism, meaning the conclusion MUST follow if the premises are true. 1) It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. 2) Abortion kills an innocent human being. Therefore, Abortion is wrong. Tell me how those premises are strawman or misrepresents a side.

​@MAVENTRUTHGOODNESSBEAUTY humor me, at what point does that clump of cells become a human being in your eyes? And what's stopping me from claiming that individual reproductive cells are innocent human beings too? By the same logic, not getting impregnated every time you ovulate is morally wrong, and so is jerking off, although I somehow doubt that it wasn't already in your view.

@@we_are_MAVEN It's a strawman because the other side would not claim that it is RIGHT to kill innocent human beings 😂 So you are arguing against something which you literally made up. The discourse surrounding abortion isn't about whether it's right to kill innocent human beings.

It is​@@salpy_fish

Thank you!

She's laying out an argument, its a short clip. in her longer talk she actually builds her case for why an embryo is human. Summed up, its basically this: Philosophically, there’s no essential difference, between the embryo you once were and the adults you are today, that would justify killing you at that earlier stage. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not good reasons for saying you could be killed then, but not now.

You're right. Humans give birth to zebras

If it’s not human than how come all of us were one at one point that was a very dumb statement pro choicer, aka the people nobody gives. A crap about because you have ruined society.

Your subjective experience doesn't not disprove the actual data we have to show that social media companies have actively discriminated against a political side. Besides, the claim isn't "Social media never lets any conservative views be shown to anyone". Its that they reduce the amount of visibility a post can have. We don't claim social media has done this to us, but the evidence for other companies is pretty clear.

​@@we_are_MAVENSocial media companies aren't leftist lol, they are neoliberal capitalists who directly benefit from capitalism. Social media companies silence right wing conservative propaganda because it's alienating to a wider portion of audience on those platforms which are young people. Right wingers are irrevocably tied to offensive & "insensitive" takes as well as racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, etc. so these companies don't want to lose money by turning off whole demographics. Instead they try to take a soft headed Democrat or neoliberal approach so they can still benefit off of the systems of capitalism while maintaining the largest possible audience. There's definitely nothing leftist about it. Leftist communist Marxist boogymen are not controlling major corporations lol I mean let's think about this. That's a contradiction in terms... The media leans left for capitalist reasons that still benefit far rights like you by making the polarization & tensions you cause seem attractive & rebellious. And they're rebelling against a problem that you misdirect to minorities & human rights activism instead of capitalist systems, imperialism, & these ideas which are proving not to work & yet we still hold onto, at the will of the bourgeois class benefitting from it. Leftists also fall into similar traps by buying into time wasting small-picture stuff like celebrities culturally appropriating & policing the language of the oftentimes uneducated & disillusioned. But leftists are definitely not controlling the media or any corporation. These corporations benefit from capitalism, not from the true representation of the world.

How? The argument presented was a logical syllogism, meaning the conclusion MUST follow if the premises are true. 1) It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. 2) Abortion kills an innocent human being. Therefore, Abortion is wrong. Tell me how those premises are strawman or misrepresents a side.

Why do so many abortion advocates engage in dialogue and debate in this manner? It's like a hit-and-run strategy...merely make an assertion without any attempt to support it and then run off. I'm going to start calling this the "because-I-said-so" tactic! But this approach clearly does NOTHING to win hearts and minds.