Woman Films Her Own Abortion

Woman Films Her Own Abortion for Inspiration and Positivity

MY TAKE​

I find it cool that someone's taking a positive perspective on the whole procedure. Some people may refer to it as disturbing, but I personally find it uplifting for those who may have doubts or think they'll experience regret once they forego the procedure. Below is the video:

[YOUTUBE]OxPUKV-WlKw[/YOUTUBE]​

As you can see, there are plenty of dislikes and of course if the comments section were on, it would be brewing with hate. But you know? There are plenty of women on YouTube who have shared and expressed their abortion stories and not show any sign of regret. They aren't murderers at all. Rather, people who are simply correcting a mistake.

 

Your comment is a bit of a moot point and fairly laughable too. She's existing and that's all nice and dandy. But if you didn't, chances are...we wouldn't be having this conversation, nor you wouldn't care since you too would find it moot.

 

I am completely against the idea of having children for myself, but.... this is disturbing. I don't think people who say they are ok with abortions really understand what it is they are saying yes to. I'm not against all abortions, but I think past the first two months of pregnancy it really starts to get iffy. After the third month (first trimester) its murder in my book. Like the evolution vs. creationism controversy, this is another issue that is polarized black and white when in fact it is very very gray.

 

There's no grey in the creationist aspect. It's all just BS which really started around the whole Scope's Monkey Trial. Also, people play on emotional responses when it comes to abortions. To be honest, I dare say that a lot of people who scream pro-life and want to "save" the fetuses undermines the well-being of the host to the parasite and that right there is when we start hitting a nonsensical position on what constitutes life.

 

Evolutionary theory has a lot of holes in it. And to date no scientist has been able to give the biological spark of life to any chemical soup concocted in a lab, that I am aware of. Some things are still miracles.

Calling a fetus a parasite is really you're just trying to provoke people, lol, so I'm not even going to touch that. In cases where the mother's life is in danger, yes a therapeutic abortion is in order.

 

Then you clearly haven't really paid attention to the Higgs-Boson and that paved the way of a cluster of sparks. There is plenty of evidence to support the Big Bang theory - the expansion of the universe, the background microwave radiation, the abundance of light elements. All of that points to a universe that was much denser and hotter in the past. Plus, the holes are so minuscule, you would personally have to create holes based on insufficient knowledge of your own accord to even determine that evolutionary theory is plagued with problems.

As for "miracles," I'll just simply say that what we lack in information now, we shan't substitute it with supernatural jargon. It's a poor man's way out of understanding the complexities of the human body. What cannot be explained must be considered in a rational way.

I'm not here to provoke since it's virtually something that eats away the nutrients inside you, causing you to suffer, like a virus basically eating away your White T-cells.

 

Are you absolutely sure that everything can be explained, or will eventually be explained, by human brains?

I would love to meander into other tangents such as the "hard problem of consciousness". That of explaining the human brain using the human brain, etc.

But in conclusion... all I want to say is that you place way too much faith in science, as it is conducted today. Science, pure and unadulterated - the kind that admits where the answers end and the questions continue - sure I'll place my faith in that.

Science, today is an industry. I'll place my faith in my own experiences and my own logic any day of the week.

 

Well, god is conceived through the human brain, so why not? The same goes for miracles, afterlife, dualism, spirituality, etc...

We're conceptualized creatures and this isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact through understanding the human mind.

You speak too much on the philosophical and often outdated arguments regarding ideas of faith. I have confidence (which isn't the same as faith) in science since it's been what helped paved the way to make society improved for everyone, whether if its new medicines to cure diseases. Sure, you may consider other aspects on the negative part, but the good outweighs the bad.

Science is still a respectable field and humble. We can admit when things are wrong, but it's often to due to finding better information regarding the universe. We're not blinded by science...because being blind would require something to be considered true without taking the time to understanding it yourself.

 

There is much of science that can be trusted in so much as it can answer various simple "how" questions. There are many more questions that it cannot touch. Science, as we practice it, is helpful in its practical applications, but as an authority on truth it is the biggest joke. For example, based on the rules of how science is conducted we can never prove that animals have emotions, because the single variable of suffering cannot be isolated predictably in a sentient being (in fact a sentient being would be ruled insane if it repeated the same exact reaction every single time) .....yet we see it plain as day, we intuitively know animals suffer when they are slaughtered.

Don't try to tell me that I'm getting too philosophical, on a thread in which you end by saying, "They aren't murderers at all. Rather, people who are simply correcting a mistake."

Whereas you have blind faith that much of what scientists claim they are discovering is true, my complaints about science are based on my own observations simply and using my 5 senses. Empirical science is jack sh** without the use of math, simple logic, and the 5 senses.

 

This is a very laughable response, so I'll do my best to respond concisely with each point.

You claim that science cannot prove that animals have emotions. Well, this is where you're wrong actually. There's a field called neurology which studies the brain and the brain is essentially the main operating system. By that, it's the core as to how we operate on emotions, the trigger mechanisms, how we learn, etc. There are also neuroreceptors in the body, which allows us to feel pain when receiving it.

Why does this happen? It's due to something hitting areas where nerves are present. That's why we wind up saying "ouch" and jerk our hands when we press our hand on a heated stove. Obviously, our bodies cannot take temperatures that are intensely hot because the chemicals in our bodies will respond to them accordingly as a signal to pain.

How does it relate to your animals can experience pain? They all possess neurons of sorts, which allows us them to experience. And then there's the why? Why do we feel empathy when they are slaughtered? Well, that's all dependent on our responses and combined with psychological experiences or observations, we would feel some remorse because ultimately, we would be considerate of others.

See? Nothing mystical about it at all. Just pure scientific reasoning.

And again, I do not have blind faith on anything. Rather, I have an inquiring thought process that requires a little thing called the scientific method and above all, a concrete understanding that for me to substitute things we may not fully grasp with supernatural ideas would make me an disingenuous person and intellectually dishonest. I assume this is true in your final sentence when you claim that empirical science is "jackshit." That is a sign of a lazy, lazy person who contains lazy lazy thinking.

 

I said empirical science is jack sh** without math, logic and the 5 senses. None of which require the "scientific method" to apply. Explain why after 30 years of filming a parrot communicating intelligently with scientists day after day, it still cannot be proven that said parrot is intelligent, based on the strigency of the scientific method. I will die before I allow "scientists" in a lab coat to tell me that a conversation I just had wasn't real. That's some bs, if I've ever seen some.

 

Again, you would be wrong and you're comparing apples to oranges too. In the analysis and research bit, numbers are required to determine numerous factors and have been applied to many theories, like the heliocentric theory, gravitational theory, germ theory, and so forth. Again, all of them require numbers.

As for the parrot, simply mimicking voices and not being able to produce your own words and sapient thinking doesn't make the animal in question intelligent compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, especially when survival instinct is generally less. That's the factual response there.

 

Exactly! So if we are comparing apples to oranges... then maybe we can get some of those scientists to admit that there are some areas of the human experience and natural existence that are out of the bounds of the scientific method, that scientists cannot put every question to the test of the scientific method, and they do no have a monopoly on the truth, or an authority over every area of human life... But I doubt when can get them to admit to anything, if it would mean a decrease of the influence of science-as-dictated in human life. Honestly, Im not even sure which is a worse dogmatic offender today, science or religion?

As far as the parrot... you need to examine this case before you come to that conclusion. I call bs here as well. Especially in light of the fact that children learning how to speak are as well "simply mimicking voices and not being able to produce your own words". Once they learn those words, they are able to apply them independently of mimickry later on, as this parrot too, did. For like 20 to 30 years. On camera.

 

Through science, there are factual information on their side and it's not limited to simple observations, but rather, an entire spectrum on the whole ordeal regarding reaching a conclusion that can help benefit or perhaps improve our understanding of the world or known universe. Scientists never claimed that they know everything. Far from it. But they are perfectly aware that eventually, through technology and other advancements, they'll find the answers. Nothing is out of reach and people should consider it.

Also, revisiting the parrot bit, you're wrong again to call it BS and highly disingenuous. Humans are sapient creatures, which means they are self-aware and the brains are far more complex and complicated compared to the more simplistic bird brain. That's why we're able to conceive concepts regarding spirituality, god, and even create and innovate, whether its technology, writing, and constructing fantasy worlds.

Until we see a parrot visibly construct anything of that nature, let alone be able to learn the entire vocabulary on its own, then I'd suggest you put that argument on a moot point because that's all it is....moot and gravely silly all at once.

 

That's very species-prejudiced of you. A left brain stroke would leave you unable to perform all those left brain functions you mentioned, yet you would still be a sentient being, with the ability to experience pain and emotions. In addition, various species have languages which just because we do not understand them does not mean are not being used very fluently day in and day out, right under our unsuspecting noses. Does a baby have to be able to create his or her own writing system before you deem them worthy of not being murdered? Another question for scientists to put to the test....

 

Now you're acting on emotional impulses, which is very problematic on your end, dear.

I'm not being prejudicial at all. I'm merely stating a collection of facts and not having to resort to emotional attachment or faulty thinking. You'd be correct that animals have their own "cultures" and colonies, but they are more collective based compared to us humans. While we can work on an individual basis and think individually, animals, like say....a drone (ant) has to follow a certain structure to please the Queen. Dogs and cats don't really follow a herd and they tend to go as they please, but all these animals rely on instinct and less on intelligence.

As for the baby bit, once they are out of the vagina, the value will be set based on numerous actions and whether they can function in society. Of course, it'll require teaching...which is something we'll grasp in varying stages in life.

 

Wait, wait, wait... so what you're saying... does that mean that its ok to murder retards?

Emotional impulse? I just made some valid points. Does having emotions make me less intelligent, Morning Star? What is the essential fault of infusing emotion into an intelligent conversation?

 

Now you're acting crazy. It's so mind-boggling. But let me humor you then since you want to be silly.

If genetic deformities are detected in the fetus, then it's perfectly reasonable to abort something that would be a burden, not just to the individual family, but to the greater society where the many fiscal conservatives would be quick to cut back on programs to help them out. So, in that respect, they would suffer dearly and that's worse than not living.

See how easy that is? :smt080

And, by responding in a very emotional way, you didn't really think through your responses all that well. You're not stupid, but the responses tend to be unintelligible.

 

Genetic deformities means its reasonable to terminate a life in the second or third trimester? And specifically which genetic deformities reasonably qualify for this reasonable death sentence? Please expound on what you mean, because I would love to hear what you have to say about this one. Oh, and by the way... what's worse than suffering dearly is not having had a chance to live at all. Why? Because that is my belief, unlike your belief. See how easy that is? Not easy at all.

You cannot isolate emotion from this conversation in a human context. All these scientific theories become meaningless in practical terms, if we cannot apply them in human terms.

I would still love an explanation from the scientific community on how decades of documented intelligent communication with a bird, cannot be proven to be intelligent communication, based on the application of 5 senses, logic and mathematics. F*** their scientific method. Explain it to me in a way that does not insult the intelligence of every human being on earth, who has ever carried on an intelligent conversation with another person. At some point enough has to be enough. Where does the hegemony of science stop? I have many more examples than this as well...

 

Okay, so this post will be easy to respond to after all.

Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to terminate a fetus if there is a detection of some deformity.

By deformities, I'm specifically referring to neurological deformities where they cannot function in society. We're talking those who cannot operate past the infantile or elementary level or their IQ levels remain below 100. And lastly, heavily dependent on others to do everything for them and this is a no-brainer. And this is especially true when dealing with a government that's willing to cut programs for those said individuals, be it state or federal grounds.

And lastly, you're saying that because you don't have much of a response towards my post. That, and the fact that you're overlooking so much into my explanation where, a person who never existed would be a moot point. That's a fact of life.