WTF

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

Official messages from Omegle will not be sent with the label 'Stranger:'. Strangers claiming to represent Omegle are lying.

Stranger: hi

You: Hey. :) How do you feel about abortion?

Stranger: pro-choice

You: Why?

Stranger: cuz i feel that if a woman wants to abort, then let her

You: Does that apply through all 9 months?

Stranger: i suppose

You: So if a woman wants to get an abortion and she's past her due date, she should be allowed?

Stranger: if she wants

You: What if she gives birth prematurely? Should she be allowed to kill the newborn?

Stranger: well thats not abortion, now is it?

You: What's the difference? Why does the exact same person have a right to live or not based solely on his or her location?

Stranger: im not saying its right or wrong, im saying technically its not called abortion naymore

Stranger: anymore*

You: Is it right to kill a born baby that was premature?

Stranger: personally, i dont think its either, and weather something's right or wrong is a label created by the individual based on their personal ethics

You: Should she be allowed to kill the premature born baby if she wants to?

Stranger: it wouldnt affect me at all so i dont see why not, but at the same time, it's rather cruel, so i dont see why she would

You: A teen mom a few months ago tried to kill her 4-month-old son to "make life easier".

You: Should she have been allowed to?

Stranger: as unfortunate that might look in the eyes of society, its is rational

You: What if the baby was four years old instead of four months?

Stranger: im talking rational in the sense of removing the child from her life, example through killing, but she aslo could have gave it away, or let her parents or someone she trusts care for it, as another example

Stranger: both examples being justified in that her life is now "easier"

You: Should she have been allowed to kill the baby?

Stranger: theoretically, yes

Stranger: although

Stranger: it would probably be in the best interest of all to go with the latter example

You: If the baby had been 4 years instead of 4 months, should she still have been allowed to kill him?

Stranger: again, yes, but like i just said it would probably be a better idea to let someone else care for it

You: What if he was 14?

Stranger: at that point hes old enough to partly care for himself, and also the mother would probably be both too emotionally attached to him, and could be able to care for him as well

You: Should she be allowed or not?

Stranger: idk why she would, but if she really wanted to

You: What if he wasn't her son, and just some random teen. Should she still be allowed to kill him?

Stranger: now its not even close to abortion where are we going with this

You: I just want to know when you get to have your life protected in the law, since you think she should be allowed to kill her 14-year-old son.

Stranger: well law is just a set of rules created by society to keep order, and by their definition, any form of killing afore

Stranger: afore mentioned here*

Stranger: outside of the womb is illegal

You: But should it be?

Stranger: well that is where you have the conflict between law and personal ethics

Stranger: so the answer is different for everyone

Stranger: to a degree

You: Should the law just let anyone do whatever they want?

Stranger: no, thats exactly what the law fights against, so ensure people just go do whatever they want.

Stranger: just dont go*

You: But you said that she should be allowed to kill her son

Stranger: by my ethics yes,
by law no

You: According to your ethics, when shouldn't she be allowed to kill him?

Stranger: when it becomes impractical to do so

Stranger: meaning

Stranger: when the child is no longer a burden to her

You: So she should be allowed to kill her son as long as he's a burden on her?

Stranger: basically untill she has no justification to do so

You: That's... kinda sick.

Stranger: like if he's 14, he's not going to bare her down, he can do things on his own, she has no need to kill him, but at the same time, as an infant, she is completely dependent on her

Stranger: not saying that 14 is the turning point, of course

Stranger: its a gradual turning point

You: You can't half-kill someone. She can either kill him or he can't.

Stranger: that isnt half killing, its either killing or it isnt, she kills him when he's an infant, or she never kills him

You: At what point can't she kill him?

Stranger: like i said its a gradual turning point

You: There can't be a gradual turning point for a yes or no question.

You: Either she can kill him or she can't. At some point, the answer switches from yes to no.

Stranger: so then tell me, at what exact age does an individual become able to for the most part, do things on their own? not legally, but physically capable of it?

Stranger: whats the exact age?

You: What doe you mean by that?

Stranger: like, take me for example, im 17, i can mostly do stuff without the help of my parents, i cant legally be on my own, but i can physically care for myself for the most part

Stranger: whats the exact age in which someone can do that?

You: It depends on the person.

Stranger: exatcly

Stranger: and thats why the turning point is gradual

You: It varies, but it's not gradual.

Stranger: but its not like one day you wake up with the ability to care for yourself like i described

Stranger: its something you gradually become able to do over time

You: You get better and better at it until the point when you can take care of yourself.

You: But I digress.

You: If the boy is handicapped and can't take care of himself even at 22, can she kill him?

Stranger: and wheres the exact point that someone becomes just a bit better and switches over to the "capable" side?

Stranger: there isnt a specific point

You: What part of "I digress" didn't you understand?

Stranger: oh i didnt see that sorry

Stranger: i was typing

You: That's okay.

You: If the boy is handicapped and can't take care of himself even at 22, can she kill him?

Stranger: theoretically yes, but why would she? at that point she would definitely be too emotionally attached to do so, and by then she would have acquired a job most likely, and just like any other functioning household she can care for him without it being a burden to her

You: That's... pretty disgusting.

You: Can you not see how sick that is?

Stranger: i see how one can view it as such

You: I...

You: No offense, but you're evil.

You have disconnected.

or send us feedback

Was this conversation great? Download the log!

the human form

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

Official messages from Omegle will not be sent with the label 'Stranger:'. Strangers claiming to represent Omegle are lying.

Stranger: Ask a gay guy anything

You: How do you feel about the "gay gene" hypothesis?

Stranger: its an interesting hypothesis but

Stranger: i believe it is that coupled with hormones in the womb that determine your sexuality

Stranger: which is why its not black and white

You: Do you think we should look for the gene and/or hormones that cause homosexuality?

Stranger: idk

Stranger: probably

Stranger: just so we know where it is

Stranger: although

Stranger: it is said it is a mixture of certian genes

Stranger: not just one gene

You: What if people then started aborting babies that showed those genes/hormones?

Stranger: well it would be pretty hard to detect the hormones a they final rush of hormones is quite late in the pregnancy

Stranger: as*

You: Abortions can still be done late in pregnancy.

Stranger: true

Stranger: but in theory, they gay gene would go away i guess

Stranger: but

Stranger: there are some advantages to humanity , to 10% of the population being gay

You: I guess my question is would that be a bad thing, prenatally finding and killing gay people.

Stranger: well yeh

Stranger: think about it if they weren't in the womb

You: Hmm.

You: So how do you feel about abortion in general?

Stranger: im against it tbh, but

Stranger: i have no right to tell others what to do

You: You don't?

Stranger: so if they want one

You: Who told you that?

Stranger: up to them

You: So if I wanted to set fire to my neighbor's house, rape his cat, and kidnap his daughter, you'd have no right to tell me not to do that?

Stranger: well

Stranger: i guess i would try and stop you doing that

You: Why?

Stranger: i guess what i ment

Stranger: i have no right to tell others what to do with their own body*

You: True, I guess.

You: But the child is another body.

You: You can certainly tell someone what not to do to someone else's body.

Stranger: well its not a child, its still a foetus

You: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child

child   
[chahyld] Show IPA
–noun, plural chil·dren.

4.
a human fetus.

You: But whatever, let's use the word fetus.

You: But the fetus is another body.

You: You can certainly tell someone what not to do to someone else's body.

Stranger: the foetus is not a body yet

Stranger: its just a group of cells

You: So are you.

Stranger: possibly with ought a brain

You: Bodies are made of cells.

Stranger: or any understanding of who/what it is

You: So in order to have a body, you need to be self-aware?

Stranger: no, you need to have developed most of the major organs

You: Well, that happens about 8 weeks from conception.

You: So are you saying you oppose abortion of fetuses, but not of embryos?

Stranger: tbh

Stranger: i dont know for sure

Stranger: ive heard both sides of the debate for this

Stranger: and i dont know who's right

You: And why do you need all the major organs to have a body?

You: Why can't you have a body that just happens to not have all the organs yet?

You: But okay, think of it this way.

You: You're saying you don't know if abortion kills a person, right?

Stranger: right

Stranger: well an embyryo

You: Well, what do we do in other such situations?

Stranger: as i have mixed up terms

You: Do we demolish up a building before we know if there are still people in it?

You: If a hunter sees a rustling in a bush, shouldn't he make sure it's a deer and not a fellow hunter before shooting?

Stranger: if its his bush

Stranger: wait no

Stranger: i misread that

You: If you're driving in a car, and see a humanoid shape coming at you, wouldn't you swerve, even if you didn't know if it was a scarecrow, a coat in the wind, or a human being?

You: In any other situation in which human life is at stake, we err on the side of life.

You: Why should abortion be the one exception?

Stranger: So if it has the potential to be human it should be allowed to live?

You: I didn't say that.

You: I said if we don't know if an entity is a person or not, we err on the side of caution.

You: If the embryo isn't a human yet, there's nothing wrong with abortion. But if the embryo is a human, it's immoral to kill said embryo.

Stranger: so if the mother doesn't want the baby we let it be born into a would were it will be unwanted?

You: Would you kill an infant to prevent her from growing up unwanted?

Stranger: that's diferent

You: Why?\

You: It's the same person, just older.

You: Do we become more human as we grow up? Biology tells us an organism can't change species.

Stranger: well

Stranger: when we are a embryo

Stranger: we dont have the human form yet

You: What is "the human form"?

You: We have the form of a human at that age.

You: Humans have different forms at different stages of development.

Stranger: em·bry·o (ĕmˈbrē-ōˌ)
noun pl. embryos em·bry·os
a. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.

You: Recognizable, yes.

You: But notice the word "organism".

You: An organism can't be part of another organism.

You: The embryo is a separate body from the mother, so your "i have no right to tell others what to do with their own body" doesn't apply.

Stranger: well its going to be affecting the mother's body for most of a year

You: Also, "before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form" doesn't mean the embryo isn't human.

You: It just means that the human form at that stage is similar to many other forms.

Stranger: so i think it does

You: So now you can do whatever you want with anything that affects your body? That's a much broader claim than your original one.

Stranger: i dont know tbh

You: And again, what do we do when we don't know if an action could kill someone?

You: We don't do it.

Stranger: which is why if it were up to me, I wouldnt have one

Stranger: all this stemmed from

Stranger: What if people then started aborting babies that showed those (gay) genes/hormones?

You: Yeah, interesting how conversations evolve.

You: So what, in your view, grants a person the right to not be killed, and to have that right protected by law?

Stranger: well

Stranger: i dont think you should kill a fetus

You: Why not?

Stranger: its got significantly more features of a human than an Embryo does

You: What do you mean by "features of a human"? And what about these grant rights?

You: Are you saying just looking human is enough to have rights, and humans that don't "look" human by whatever arbitrary and subjective aesthetic criteria can be killed by the millions?

You: Wouldn't it be more fair and logical just to grant all humans human rights, regardless of their physical appearance?

Stranger: what about the right's of the mother?

You: If the fetus is a person, she has no more right to kill him or her before birth than after birth.

Stranger: i would agree with you there

Stranger: i dont think an embryo is though

You: Why not?

You: Because the embryo doesn't "look" human, based on some arbitrary and subjective aesthetic criteria you decided make someone disposable?

Your conversational partner has disconnected.

or send us feedback

Was this conversation great? Download the log!