Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

[JoeB131]

Indeed, there's a predictable path pro-abortion folks take. It's:
1. What about the woman
2. It's just a clump of cells
3. You don't care about living people anyways

All 3 ignore the basics you lay out. The reason is, most people know that killing a near-birth infant is murder. Only the ones desperate enough to stay in complete ideologue-land suppress it, in the name of the cause.

Nobody is killing near-birth infants. Such procedures are beyond rare.

And yes, "It's her body, her choice" means that she can "choose" at ANY portion of the pregnancy to end it. This is followed by the predictable reply of "That never happens", but number one that's false, and two let's talk about if it SHOULD happen. The pro-abortionist doesn't want that conversation, and then they evade. It happens almost every time. Occasionally you'll get some pro-abortionists to fess up to being okay with killing an 8 month old fetus.. and it's shocking every time. But hey, at least they're honest. That's all I ask for, because if pro-abortionists are honest they'll quickly be defeated in society.

The problem is you think that there's some woman out there who is going to go through 8 months of morning sickness and all the other complications of pregnancy to say, "Naw, I changed my mind" and get an abortion in the 8th month.

If a woman is getting an abortion in the 8th month, it's because something has gone horribly wrong with the pregnancy, usually some kind of horrific birth defect.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Well, let's look at that. Let's look at the poverty rate.

View attachment 1210673
Wait, what, the Poverty rate went from 22.4% to a little over 10% today?

That proves my point. When the government exploded with welfare, poverty exploded.

You are comparing recreational sex between consenting adults to mass murder? Really?

You said "because it was fun" as your justification. If you had more considerations, list them. I can't stop you from making broad claims that involve horrible immoralities.

Well, here's a good metric for you. The birth rate didn't drop dramatically after 1973. In fact, it went up by 1975.

U.S. Birth Rate (1950-2025)

Crude birth rate indicates the number of live births occurring during the year, per 1,000 population estimated at midyear. Subtracting the crude death rate from the crude birth rate provides the rate of natural increase, which is equal to the rate of population change in the absence of migration.

www.macrotrends.net

Which tells me that the abortion laws that were still on the books just legalized what was already happening.

You're trying to tie together point A to point D. There's plenty of social/economic influences out there. Of course, I don't expect you to be honorable here.

Exactly my point.

No, exactly my point. you tried to throw abortion doctors under the bus because they couldn't do it legally.. yet, the same doctors did it legally and the results remained.

I know. Your sort would leave the planet an empty hole in the ground sucking out all the resources.

So let's look at Sea Turtles vs. Humans. Out of 1000 Sea Turtle Eggs laid, maybe one reaches adulthood. Even without human intervention, nature picks off most of the "babies". This is why protecting their nesting sites is so important.

Now, let's compare that to humans. A baby human has a 97.5% chance of reaching adulthood globally. In the US, that number is 99.4 (still high among industrialized countries, but your side doesn't think poor people deserve health care, so there's that.)

Simply put, there's no danger of humans becoming extinct other than our own bad management of the world.

Now, it wasn't always this way. The infant mortality rate in the Middle Ages was 30-50%. So people needed to have six kids to just get one or two to make it to adulthood. Today, not so much. There's no compelling reason to protect every last darned zygote through restrictive abortion laws.

LMAO

You put the value of the potential of progression of a sea turtle above the value of potential of progression of a human. Just own it, and society will decide. You know I'll be the one the wins

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Nobody is killing near-birth infants. Such procedures are beyond rare.

Ha! That's not the issue. The issue is should it be allowed. Answer that, directly. You won't, but I'm challenging you to.

Don't back down like a *****

 

[JoeB131]

That proves my point. When the government exploded with welfare, poverty exploded.

All you proven is that you can't read a graph.

Poverty dropped when the government exploded with 'welfare".

Of course, the strongest anti-poverty program is birth control.

You said "because it was fun" as your justification. If you had more considerations, list them. I can't stop you from making broad claims that involve horrible immoralities.

Again, you think recreational sex is horrible? I honestly have to wonder if you are an Incel. You certainly sound like one.

You're trying to tie together point A to point D. There's plenty of social/economic influences out there. Of course, I don't expect you to be honorable here.

Try to focus, buddy. There were just as many babies born in 1972 as there were in 1973, when abortion became legal. so either, there were just as many abortions happening before Roe, or women were getting pregnant just to have abortions...

No, exactly my point. you tried to throw abortion doctors under the bus because they couldn't do it legally.. yet, the same doctors did it legally and the results remained.

Um, I think you are confusing your own argument. The doctors who did it illegally weren't punished unless they fucked up and injured the woman. A bad abortion doctor is still punished if he injures the woman.

LMAO

You put the value of the potential of progression of a sea turtle above the value of potential of progression of a human. Just own it, and society will decide. You know I'll be the one the wins

Actually, I wouldn't bet on that. People like animals more than they like people.. because people kind of suck.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Of course, the strongest anti-poverty program is birth control.

Let's take your claim there:

If poverty is the primary concern.. then a woman who had kids and can't afford them can kill them? If not.. (based on your simple logic).. why not?

Again, you think recreational sex is horrible? I honestly have to wonder if you are an Incel. You certainly sound like one.

Poor baby. Ad hominem attack as usual.

People like animals more than they like people.. because people kind of suck.

Yes. Don't shut up. Keep saying that. Represent the Democrat party and proclaim this. Do it!

 

[JoeB131]

Let's take your claim there:

If poverty is the primary concern.. then a woman who had kids and can't afford them can kill them? If not.. (based on your simple logic).. why not?

well, no, once a child is born, it has rights.

She also has the option of putting it up for adoption or turning it over to the state.

Poor baby. Ad hominem attack as usual.

You really set yourself up saying some truly misogynistic stuff.

Yes. Don't shut up. Keep saying that. Represent the Democrat party and proclaim this. Do it!

There is nearly universal agreement that endangered species should be protected.

There really isn't an anti-Sea Turtle constituency, except a few rich a-holes who want to destroy their habitat for profit.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

well, no, once a child is born, it has rights.

She also has the option of putting it up for adoption or turning it over to the state.

Why would you make any distinction if poverty is the concern? I'll tell you why: Because you tried to make a claim without considering the rammifications.

You really set yourself up saying some truly misogynistic stuff.

Poor baby. Keep tantruming.

There is nearly universal agreement that endangered species should be protected.

There really isn't an anti-Sea Turtle constituency, except a few rich a-holes who want to destroy their habitat for profit.

Keep talking. Get your Democrat reps to trumpet the claim that sea turtle eggs are more important than human fetuses. I beg you.

 

[JoeB131]

Why would you make any distinction if poverty is the concern? I'll tell you why: Because you tried to make a claim without considering the rammifications.

Naw, guy, Fetuses aren't people. Babies are.

That's what makes abortion so awesome. It keeps people from ruining their lives over one little mistake. Pencils have erasers for a reason.

If anyone has failed to consider the ramifications of making Globby the fetus have more rights than the woman he is inside, it's your side.

Do we now treat every miscarriage as a homicide investigation?

Poor baby. Keep tantruming.

You seem to be very upset that women have rights, for some reason.

Did a woman dump you and humiliate you? Get the promotion you think you deserve? It would be interesting to see where all this hostility comes from.

eep talking. Get your Democrat reps to trumpet the claim that sea turtle eggs are more important than human fetuses. I beg you.

Guy, the other day, Laura Loomer was screaming at Trump and Shady Vance to stop talking about abortion in front of the midterms.

This is a loser issue for you guys, so I honestly hope you all keep talking about restricting a woman's right to choose.

 

[DennisPTate]

Ha! That's not the issue. The issue is should it be allowed. Answer that, directly. You won't, but I'm challenging you to.

Don't back down like a *****

Actually late term abortions are permitted here in Canada and about two point five percent of abortions are late term here.

Late-term abortions (after 20 weeks) are rare in Canada, making up less than 2.5% of all procedures, with numbers around 1,300 annually recently (e.g., 1,315 in 2023-2024), often for severe medical reasons, though some data shows over 9,000 annually in later stages (after 12-14 weeks) for various reasons. While most occur early, some services extend to 23 weeks and 6 days, with few providers, leading many to travel to the U.S. for later care, especially beyond 24 weeks
Key Statistics & Trends

• Overall Numbers:
  Total reported abortions in Canada in 2023 were over 100,000, with late-term (after 20 weeks) being a small fraction.
• • Specific Late-Term Data (2023-2024):
    One source citing CIHI data reported 1,315 abortions at 20+ weeks gestation, including 123 live births after abortion.
  • Rarity:
    Abortions after 20 weeks are considered statistically rare (<2.5% of all abortions) but occur for serious medical reasons, notes Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights.
  • Second/Third Trimester:
    One study from Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada suggests terminations after 20 weeks (around 140 days) make up almost 10% of all reported abortions, often for complications.

• • 
    
  • I am of the belief that we humans have almost no understanding at all of the true value of a human life even while we are in the womb. Bill Gates in his lecture "Innovating to zero" links the value of human life to our Carbon Footprint, [which is an astonishingly low valuation on human life].
  • 
    
  • Near death experiencers are telling us that human life has essentially Infinite Value to our Creator and every instant of our lives has been record for our eventual Life Review where every instant of our lives is available to review.
  • 
    

  • [*]
    
    [*]

    3. We Chose Our River and Destiny Before We Were Born​

    A long time ago, I read Betty Eadie‘s book “The Ripple Effect” (see also EmbracedByTheLight.com) and read the best analogy of “life as a river” I have ever read. It concerns how we choose our destinies before our birth and how it is analogous to standing on top of a very high mountain and looking down upon a vast system of rivers and choosing which river to undertake. From the vantage point of being on top of a mountain, we can get a good view all the rivers from their beginning to their end. As in life, each river has a number of forks and branches to choose from. Some rivers are more challenging while others are less challenging. Some rivers are very dangerous and can lead to disaster. But no matter which river of life we choose before our birth, the river will always carry us back to the sea. This means we are all predestined to eventually return to God. But once we begin our journey down the river of our choosing, we have many choices which are not predetermined.
    
    Here is the excerpt from Betty’s book describing the analogy:
    
    “Our life is like a river. The destination is set, but the method of our journeying is up to us. We can cruise down the middle of the river at top speed, or we can hug the shore and spin around in eddies. We can crash over rapids or chart a safer path between obstacles. We can slum along the bottom in the mire and slime of sediment, or we can glide along the sparkling surface where the air is clean. The river is ours from birth to death. How we’ll navigate it is determined by the hundreds of small choices we make each day.
    [*]
    
    [*]Pre-Existence and the Near-Death Experience - Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Naw, guy, Fetuses aren't people. Babies are.

So you agree with killing a fetus in breech position, moments before birth?

That's what makes abortion so awesome. It keeps people from ruining their lives over one little mistake. Pencils have erasers for a reason.

Why can’t they use protection?

If anyone has failed to consider the ramifications of making Globby the fetus have more rights than the woman he is inside, it's your side.

Same rights. The right to not be dehumanized and murdered. As for human gestation, you can write a complaint to human biology and say how unfair it is.. but the rules are the rules. Women get pregnant.. so the effects on the different sexes are not comparable

Do we now treat every miscarriage as a homicide investigation?

Its insane that you’re so unintelligent to try to make this comparison

A miscarriage has no intent to end the life, homicides does. A miscarriage is like a heart attack, and homicide is murder.

Do you even think?

You seem to be very upset that women have rights, for some reason.

Did a woman dump you and humiliate you? Get the promotion you think you deserve? It would be interesting to see where all this hostility comes from.

Ad hom fallacy. Means nothing

Guy, the other day, Laura Loomer was screaming at Trump and Shady Vance to stop talking about abortion in front of the midterms.

Red herring.. this isn’t about what Laura Loomer thinks.

This is a loser issue for you guys, so I honestly hope you all keep talking about restricting a woman's right to choose.

We shall see. But you’re right it’s tougher to get people to exercise and diet to lose weight (act responsibly) than take a diet pill (abortion).

 

[JoeB131]

So you agree with killing a fetus in breech position, moments before birth?

That's like asking if I believe in Hunting Unicorns out of season. Never happens.

Why can’t they use protection?

Well, given you guys keep cutting funds to Planned Parenthood to distribute protection, I don't think you have much room to talk.

Same rights. The right to not be dehumanized and murdered. As for human gestation, you can write a complaint to human biology and say how unfair it is.. but the rules are the rules. Women get pregnant.. so the effects on the different sexes are not comparable

I agree. Women get pregnant.

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she'll find a way to not be pregnant, no matter what the laws are.

And unless you are willing to throw women in jail for having abortions, abortion laws are going to be meaningless.

Its insane that you’re so unintelligent to try to make this comparison

A miscarriage has no intent to end the life, homicides does. A miscarriage is like a heart attack, and homicide is murder.

Do you even think?

But how do you know the miscarriage was "unintentional" unless you have an investigation? Do you take her OB/GYN's word for it? That guy was performing abortions last week.

Just like when someone has a heart attack, they do an autopsy to make sure his wife didn't poison him.

We shall see. But you’re right it’s tougher to get people to exercise and diet to lose weight (act responsibly) than take a diet pill (abortion).

People are flawed. Some people excercise and diet and STILL can't lose weight. Some people use contraception and STILL get pregnant.

 

[Sparker]

On farms, kids are farm workers. In cities, kids were still workers for a while, until the harsher conditions of early industry started the child labor laws. Kids became expenses. With one stay at home parent and one working, parenthood was still feasible for a while, but the urban and suburban families started having fewer kids. Now many couples are both working and still struggling to pay bills. They can't afford daycare or any of the expenses of parenting. The birthrate has dropped a long way down, with probable further decline ahead. The early anti-abortion activists apparently saw that dropping birthrate and discovered an issue that would give their lives meaning and income. Instead of doing anything to make parenting more practical and affordable for struggling urban families, they want on a decades long crusade against female bodily autonomy and sex education, anything that might prevent unintentional pregnancies. That crusade is winding down and losing support as parenting becomes more out of reach.

 

[Churchill]

Of course, this board is ripe with people who spew fallacies as a debate go-to, but I challenge anyone to stay on topic and discuss the issue without becoming hyperbolic, emotional, or political.

My stance is clear, on many fronts (and you can take on any of them:

1. Scientific: We know that once a sperm and egg unite, they create a unique human life with it's own DNA that is separate from the mother. So it has nothing directly to do with the body of the mother. The mother is a nourisher and supporter of the life inside her, and is performing a woman's superpower, something men cannot do.

2. Philosophic: We are trying to determine the value of a human life, when it begins, what a "person" is. The bottom line is that nobody can say for certain. We've seen horrible atrocities occur when human life is devalued by dictators. The creation of a human life is the ultimate value, and the beginning of the process of a unique being's journey towards it's full complete journey through birth, growing as a child, through teens, and into generally a complete adult by age 23-25.

3. Religious: God loves us, and the teachings are clear He does not approve of us deciding to kill his creations in this way.


I've yet to hear a convincing argument from pro-abortionists, as they
1. ignore the proponents I listed
2. attempt to turn it into some sort of battle of the sexes (despite the gigantic bloc of women who oppose abortion), only focusing on the "inconvenience" placed on the mother, and how it's unfair. If a pro-abortionist would like to add more
3. Dehumanize the fetus despite its' scientific realities and it's philosophical capital.

I invite anyone who can handle a low intensity and high content debate to reply. If we get angry pro-abortionists invading with fallacies, I'll simply point them out and move on.

What is your thesis here?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

That's like asking if I believe in Hunting Unicorns out of season. Never happens.

You dodged. Should it be allowed?

Well, given you guys keep cutting funds to Planned Parenthood to distribute protection, I don't think you have much room to talk.

Planned parenthood isn’t required to go to the store and get protection.

I agree. Women get pregnant.

Uh oh, you’re leaving the Democrat plantation saying things like that!

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she'll find a way to not be pregnant, no matter what the laws are.

That’s silly logic. That’s like saying “if someone wants to murder someone, they’ll find a way to do it anyways, so why make laws against murder?”.

And unless you are willing to throw women in jail for having abortions, abortion laws are going to be meaningless.

Cutting legal access would be the goal. The zero sum fallacy doesnt work here.

But how do you know the miscarriage was "unintentional" unless you have an investigation? Do you take her OB/GYN's word for it? That guy was performing abortions last week.

It’d be quite a big risk for a doctor to perform illegal procedures on people. I guess anyone can risk their career for anything they want to… but if they got caught and exposed it would be devastating for their lives, and probably stop most all doctors from even thinking about it.

People are flawed. Some people excercise and diet and STILL can't lose weight. Some people use contraception and STILL get pregnant.

Some people follow all the traffic laws and still get T-boned. It’s the risk of driving a car. Same goes with sex. Whether you like it or not, there’s a risk that the participants create a new human life. It’s biology. You can whine about it, and call it unfair.. that’s fine, but it doesn’t care.

 

[JoeB131]

You dodged. Should it be allowed?

It's a decision that should be left to the woman and her primary care physician, neither of whom would ever do such a thing.

Planned parenthood isn’t required to go to the store and get protection.

Most contraception requires a health care provider to distribute.

Uh oh, you’re leaving the Democrat plantation saying things like that!

Only in your nutty world. Go obsess about trannies some more.

That’s silly logic. That’s like saying “if someone wants to murder someone, they’ll find a way to do it anyways, so why make laws against murder?”.

We've been over this. Most people know murder is wrong. Most people accept abortion under some circumstances, even the fanatics agree it should be allowed to save a woman's life.

Cutting legal access would be the goal. The zero sum fallacy doesnt work here.

Again, you learned nothing from Prohibition.

It’d be quite a big risk for a doctor to perform illegal procedures on people. I guess anyone can risk their career for anything they want to… but if they got caught and exposed it would be devastating for their lives, and probably stop most all doctors from even thinking about it.

How are you going to catch them? We have a little something called HIPAA. Whatever happens in that exam room remains secret.

Some people follow all the traffic laws and still get T-boned. It’s the risk of driving a car. Same goes with sex. Whether you like it or not, there’s a risk that the participants create a new human life. It’s biology. You can whine about it, and call it unfair.. that’s fine, but it doesn’t care.

I agree. And women can go to abortion clinics and tell "Nature" to go pound sand when they send little Globby off to the medical waste container. The Religious Crazies can whine some more.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

It's a decision that should be left to the woman and her primary care physician

Yikes! What if the two of them decide it's in the woman's best interest to murder an abusive husband?

neither of whom would ever do such a thing.

No doctor or woman would ever kill an 8 month fetus? Never ever? First off, you're wrong. And second, the fact that you have to try to add that at the end tells me that you know it's messed up to begin with.

Most contraception requires a health care provider to distribute.

Walmart and 7/11 has condoms.

We've been over this. Most people know murder is wrong. Most people accept abortion under some circumstances, even the fanatics agree it should be allowed to save a woman's life.

Okay, and?

Again, you learned nothing from Prohibition.

By your logic, there's no need to have any laws then. If people are going to do bad things anyways, why stop them.

How are you going to catch them? We have a little something called HIPAA. Whatever happens in that exam room remains secret.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. Doctors and nurses get busted all the time for bad things with patients, even if the patient isn't whistleblowing. The important thing would be the law would be in place, and if a rogue doctor wants to put their life and career on the line to perform illegal procedures, they could try. But if they were caught, they'd be imprisoned. That's why you have punishments for crimes... to dissuade people from doing something wrong and immoral. It doesn't mean the act will never ever happen ever again.. it just makes it very much likely to happen.

You keep making this all-or-nothing "If you can't stop all instances, then any law is pointless" claim. It's foolish, because if that's the case, then we should have no laws. Zero.

I agree. And women can go to abortion clinics and tell "Nature" to go pound sand

They CAN do that.. but also have to face the possible major physical and psychological consequences. Women who get abortions are far more likely to commit suicide.. and that's likely because they come to feel the guilt of betraying their evolutionary biological nature. Woke ideology is a bandaid, not a cure for a wound. Abortions also can have serious physical consequences that are worse than if they had just gone through the natural progression of birth, which is what their body is designed for.

And hey, we know that your people will NOT be there for those that suffer after an abortion. Just like all the de-transitioners out there... these poor people become your mortal enemies. At least there's people on our side that have some compassion and actually care for the long-term outcomes of these people.

 

[JoeB131]

Yikes! What if the two of them decide it's in the woman's best interest to murder an abusive husband?

I'd say the bastard probably had it coming.

No doctor or woman would ever kill an 8 month fetus? Never ever? First off, you're wrong. And second, the fact that you have to try to add that at the end tells me that you know it's messed up to begin with.

You didn't specify an 8 month fetus. You specified a healthy breach fetus.

I'm sure there are deformed fetuses that get terminated at 8 months. Everyone is better off for it, including the fetus.

Walmart and 7/11 has condoms.

You don't know much about the lady parts, do you, Captain Incel? A condom is a contraceptive of last resort. No woman is going to rely on a condom alone, much less getting her partner to wear one in the heat of the moment.

By your logic, there's no need to have any laws then. If people are going to do bad things anyways, why stop them.

No, I'm saying you should ONLY have laws when there is UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT that there should be a law.

Nearly everyone agrees murder should be against the law. Not everyone agrees abortion should be against the law, which is why abortion laws failed before Roe, and will fail again.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. Doctors and nurses get busted all the time for bad things with patients, even if the patient isn't whistleblowing. The important thing would be the law would be in place, and if a rogue doctor wants to put their life and career on the line to perform illegal procedures, they could try. But if they were caught, they'd be imprisoned. That's why you have punishments for crimes... to dissuade people from doing something wrong and immoral. It doesn't mean the act will never ever happen ever again.. it just makes it very much likely to happen.

Good luck getting a conviction when a majority believes abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances.

Look at how much trouble they had convicting Gosnell, who was a truly awful human being and a terrible practitioner. They started out with hundreds of charges of "murder", only to get the jury to agree on three of them in the end. Then they quickly cut a sentencing deal with him so he wouldn't appeal a bullshit sentence.

And the ironic thing was they had him dead to rights on the death of his adult patient and the drug dealing.

You keep making this all-or-nothing "If you can't stop all instances, then any law is pointless" claim. It's foolish, because if that's the case, then we should have no laws. Zero.

Not at all. We should have laws that are sensible and everyone agrees upon. The reason why Prohibition failed was people had no idea what they were actually voting for. They thought they were voting on something to stop the Kaiser, or some such. When they found their booze was being taken away, they came up with all sorts of creative ways to beat prohibition.

They CAN do that.. but also have to face the possible major physical and psychological consequences. Women who get abortions are far more likely to commit suicide..

If you are going to paste utter bullshit, there's no point talking to you.

And hey, we know that your people will NOT be there for those that suffer after an abortion. Just like all the de-transitioners out there... these poor people become your mortal enemies. At least there's people on our side that have some compassion and actually care for the long-term outcomes of these people.

Well, they'd suffer a lot less if the religious fanatics stopped laying guilt trips on them over a glob of tissue.

I'm all for universal mental health care. I don't think you'd be down for it, especially if the rich have to pay for it.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I'd say the bastard probably had it coming.

Pro-murder, at least you're consistent.

You didn't specify an 8 month fetus. You specified a healthy breach fetus.

My question was an ought claim. Should it be allowed. You basically said yes if a woman and doctor thought so. Correct?

I'm sure there are deformed fetuses that get terminated at 8 months. Everyone is better off for it, including the fetus.

I'm sure you can speak for all deformed people and say that they all would have preferred to have not ever been born... LOL. Wow, it takes some sociopathic coldness to say things like that.

You don't know much about the lady parts, do you, Captain Incel? A condom is a contraceptive of last resort. No woman is going to rely on a condom alone, much less getting her partner to wear one in the heat of the moment.

Where are these rules you're making up? Are you wiping them off as you pull them out of your ass? They mean nothing. The human body and biology do not change for human convenience, sorry. You can be mad at it, throw tantrums... but at the end of the day we are wired with organs that function to produce a result. You likely learned about this process in 3rd grade or so. You seem to still not fully understand it..

No, I'm saying you should ONLY have laws when there is UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT that there should be a law.

Nearly everyone agrees murder should be against the law.

You're exposing a major flaw by relying on the mob to dictate morality, and of course there's no way for you to hold that position and then support the radical unpopular trans ideology that you passionately support.

If you were in a room with 9 other people, and 8 of them were from some 3rd world tribe in Africa that doesn't care about human rights and thinks it's okay to murder in the name of food... your logic would dictate that "nearly everyone" agrees that murder should be okay, and you'd have to accept murder. That's not where you want to be at as far as support of your argument.

Not everyone agrees abortion should be against the law, which is why abortion laws failed before Roe, and will fail again.

There are a lot of controversial topics, you seem to still be pouting.

Good luck getting a conviction when a majority believes abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances.

Um, okay. I'm fine with making laws and doing our best to enforce them.

Not at all. We should have laws that are sensible and everyone agrees upon.

1. "Sensible" is subjective (thus irrelevant)
2. How could we have a law that all 350 million Americans agree upon? Do you even think?

The reason why Prohibition failed was people had no idea what they were actually voting for. They thought they were voting on something to stop the Kaiser, or some such. When they found their booze was being taken away, they came up with all sorts of creative ways to beat prohibition.

If you are going to paste utter bullshit, there's no point talking to you.

You sure do like to run from realities that split your claims in half. You ran from all the hard, cold evidence I provided that muslims have very high incest rates, and now you're poisoning the well here.

Massive Italian 2019 study had elevated maternal suicides post-voluntary abortion.

Maternal suicide in Italy - Archives of Women's Mental Health

Suicide has been identified as one of the most common causes of death among women within 1 year after the end of pregnancy in several high-income countries. The aim of this study was to provide the first estimate of the maternal suicide ratio and a description of the characteristics of women who...

link.springer.com

Finnish 1996 Study says the same thing:

gissler suicide bmj - Search Results - PubMed

gissler suicide bmj - Search Results - PubMed

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Massive USA Study in 2002 says the same thing:

Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women - PubMed

Higher death rates associated with abortion persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries. This may be explained by self-destructive tendencies, depression, and other unhealthy behavior aggravated by the abortion experience.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

My guess? You'll run away, again.

 

[JoeB131]

My question was an ought claim. Should it be allowed. You basically said yes if a woman and doctor thought so. Correct?

I think they would be in the best position to determine IF it was appropriate.

Not some religious nutter on a message board.

I'm sure you can speak for all deformed people and say that they all would have preferred to have not ever been born... LOL. Wow, it takes some sociopathic coldness to say things like that.

Just being realistic. 91% of women who get a diagnosis of Down Syndrome choose abortion. Real world. Spina Bifida. Brittle Bone Disease. Taye-Sachs.

Where are these rules you're making up? Are you wiping them off as you pull them out of your ass? They mean nothing. The human body and biology do not change for human convenience, sorry. You can be mad at it, throw tantrums... but at the end of the day we are wired with organs that function to produce a result. You likely learned about this process in 3rd grade or so. You seem to still not fully understand it..

Okay, guess what, you can end a pregnancy without making a baby.

Now, it used to be that 10% of pregnant women died in childbirth, and some whackadoodle probably said, "Well, that's God's Will!"

Now we can prevent maternal deaths, and we are all better off for it.

You're exposing a major flaw by relying on the mob to dictate morality, and of course there's no way for you to hold that position and then support the radical unpopular trans ideology that you passionately support.

Sure there is. Here's the standard.
It's none of your business.

A woman wants to have an abortion? None of your Business
George wants to call herself Georgette? Still None of your Business.

See, perfectly consistent standard.

If you were in a room with 9 other people, and 8 of them were from some 3rd world tribe in Africa that doesn't care about human rights and thinks it's okay to murder in the name of food... your logic would dictate that "nearly everyone" agrees that murder should be okay, and you'd have to accept murder. That's not where you want to be at as far as support of your argument.

Wow, now you really are stretching. So you think it's only people in Africa who practice cannibalism? Racist much?

There are a lot of controversial topics, you seem to still be pouting.

Or just trying to change minds. The progress of humanity is towards liberalism and inclusion, so I'm not worried. I'm 64 years old. When I was born, some "moral scolds" felt that people of different races shouldn't be allowed to marry. Today, I'm happily married to a person of another race.

Um, okay. I'm fine with making laws and doing our best to enforce them.

Um, no. I'm against making stupid laws and wasting resources trying to enforce them.

Again, go back to my standby of Prohibition. Because the moral scolds tried to enforce a law most people didn't really want, organized crime was enabled and still persists to this day because of the boost it got from selling alcohol.

1. "Sensible" is subjective (thus irrelevant)
2. How could we have a law that all 350 million Americans agree upon? Do you even think?

350 million people think that Murder should be against the law.
Abortion, not so much.

You didn't think this through at all.

Here's the thing. Even in KANSAS, the most conservative state in the union, when they put Abortion on the ballot, abortion won. Since then, the Moral Scolds have avoided any more referendums on the issue.

You sure do like to run from realities that split your claims in half. You ran from all the hard, cold evidence I provided that muslims have very high incest rates, and now you're poisoning the well here.

Um, no, actually, I was kind of embarrassed you'd say something so openly racist. But then you added that dumb-ass about African Cannibals? Any other racism you want to get off your chest?

Massive Italian 2019 study had elevated maternal suicides post-voluntary abortion.

Seriously? ITALIAN study? You mean the country where they still take orders from the POPE might have a negative view of Abortion? really and truly?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I think they would be in the best position to determine IF it was appropriate.

So then it doesn't matter if it happens or not. You think a baby in breach position should be allowed to be killed if the mother and doctor agree to it. You're fine to the opinion, but I think most people would say you're really F'd up, and biology would as well, because that baby is quite "viable".

Just being realistic. 91% of women who get a diagnosis of Down Syndrome choose abortion. Real world. Spina Bifida. Brittle Bone Disease. Taye-Sachs.

You're talking about what is, I'm talking about what ought to be. We've gone through some tragic periods in history (lobotomies, eugenics, etc.)... would you advocate for those institutions and procedures then because they were done?

Okay, guess what, you can end a pregnancy without making a baby.

Now, it used to be that 10% of pregnant women died in childbirth, and some whackadoodle probably said, "Well, that's God's Will!"

Now we can prevent maternal deaths, and we are all better off for it.

Sex produces life. Biology 101.

Sure there is. Here's the standard.
It's none of your business.

A woman wants to have an abortion? None of your Business
George wants to call herself Georgette? Still None of your Business.

See, perfectly consistent standard.

You shifted the goal posts. You justified your claim on abortion because "nearly everyone" believes it (supposedly). Now you changed it to "It's none of your business". Man you're bad at this.

Wow, now you really are stretching. So you think it's only people in Africa who practice cannibalism? Racist much?

Nobody said anything like that. And no fake performative outrage saves you. If 9 out of 10 people in a room think it's okay to murder or whatever horrible crime... by your original logic (the one you tried to change), it would mean that "nearly everyone" thinks the crime is okay, so thus, justifiable.. because that's what you're using to justify abortion and denounce murder. You're just determining morality by mob rule, which can get highly immoral.

.

Again, go back to my standby of Prohibition. Because the moral scolds tried to enforce a law most people didn't really want, organized crime was enabled and still persists to this day because of the boost it got from selling alcohol.

Again, your "if you can't stop it, then why make a law to prevent it" means there's no reason to have any laws.

350 million people think that Murder should be against the law.

Source?

Abortion, not so much.

You didn't think this through at all.

Here's the thing. Even in KANSAS, the most conservative state in the union, when they put Abortion on the ballot, abortion won. Since then, the Moral Scolds have avoided any more referendums on the issue.

Any abortion? I think you ought to recheck your sources.

Um, no, actually, I was kind of embarrassed you'd say something so openly racist.

Facts can't be racist. Muslims have high incest rates. Ad homs don't work, they aren't an argument. I'm not effected by your performance outrage virtue signaling. You have to address the content.

Seriously? ITALIAN study? You mean the country where they still take orders from the POPE might have a negative view of Abortion? really and truly?

1. You think the Italian government is run by the Pope? LMAO. Wow.
2. You ignored what the study said.
3. You ignored what the finnish and USA study said as well.

Like I predicted, you ran. You always prove me right.