Hypocrisy on Abortion?

[o_O.Q]

tsogud said:

o_O.Q said:

"You didn't answer my question, why do you think that way?"

i said i agreed with you that mothers should be able to murder their unborn children

" There's no reason in a civilized society that multi-billionaires, whose profit comes at the expense of the people, should be treated better and be able to get huge tax cuts and breaks while the very same people that they profited off of die "

so resources should be channeled from people who have more to people who have less

the developing child in the womb needs resources from the mother to survive, why in this case where the person in question is much more vulnerable and in far more need do you renege on your position and go in the opposite direction?

and the mothers also profit from society btw as every single person does

"so far the wealthiest have just been taking"

how do you think people become wealthy?

Again, this is the second time you dodged my question. I didn't ask if you agreed with me of not because frankly I don't care if you do. I asked why do you think that way, why do you think mother's should be able to have abortions. And I'm going to add if you are pro-choice why make a thread that's obviously skewed and flawed from the start, anybody who has any simple concept of science would realize this and not even post such a flawed comparison.

I don't renege at all. You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of conception and what is a group of cells or an actual child and you conflate the latter two and think it's one and the same but it's not. A group of cells isn't life, it isn't a person. A miscarriage up to 8 weeks of pregnancy is indistinguishable to a heavy period. Even our natural body knows that it isn't life. The "person" you think is a person isn't actually one according to scientific evidence and facts. You just feel it's a person but that doesn't make it one. You only think I'm reneging because you think a group of cells is a person and your factually wrong about that and so your argument is wrong and your comparison is wrong. 

People become wealthy by the people, we give them extreme wealth so in return they should give a portion back to us so we all can have a better life. Their wealth isn't being taken away, just a portion would be redistributed to the population to help society. Keep in mind we're hypothetically talking about multi-billionaires here, that is an incredible amount of money for one individual or family, odds are losing even 10 million of their 2 billion won't effect them. They probably won't even notice because they're still making incredible amounts of money.

"I asked why do you think that way, why do you think mother's should be able to have abortions."

you didn't ask me this initially, but regardless i believe people should be as free in societies as we can possibly make them, that goes for both men and women

i don't like the idea of unborn children being killed but i accept that its not my right to police other people's behavior

" And I'm going to add if you are pro-choice why make a thread that's obviously skewed and flawed from the start, anybody who has any simple concept of science would realize this and not even post such a flawed comparison."

can you explain to me rationally how anything i've said is unscientific?

"A group of cells isn't life, it isn't a person. A miscarriage up to 8 weeks of pregnancy is indistinguishable to a heavy period."

bacteria are life and a culture of bacteria is even less significant in appearance to a period... do you at least have a fleeting understanding of why this is an incredibly stupid argument?

"The "person" you think is a person isn't actually one according to scientific evidence and facts."

it would be awesome if you actually started posting some lol

"People become wealthy by the people"

so why aren't you and all the other people demanding that other people give you free stuff rich?

"we give them extreme wealth so in return they should give a portion back to us so we all can have a better life."

you gave who wealth? are you talking about paying for products? or paying for entertainment? you understand of course that these are transactions right?

as in you are not "giving", the other person is offering something you perceive to have a sufficient value for you to exchange a certain amount of money for

but regardless you do understand of course that most of the products you use come from the labour of much poorer people in inda, china, africa etc right? how much of your wealth have you donated to improving conditions in those countries?

or do your principles only apply to other people and not you?

if you are living in america and have time to be a video games enthusiast then you really shouldn't be making an argument as if you are part of "the poor"

" Their wealth isn't being taken away, just a portion would be redistributed to the population to help society."

if they have an obligation to give some of their resources to people who are less fortunate than they are why does this not also apply with pregnant women in your view? unborn babies will literally die if mothers refuse to share some of their resources with them

its kind of inconsistent to argue "well these people over here need to give their resources to these other people because otherwise they'll die" but then say "well these people over here don't need to give their resources to these other people and we'll just let those people die"

"Keep in mind we're hypothetically talking about multi-billionaires here"

with regards to what? taxation? so you don't want to pay taxes?