Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

[Hafar1014]

" Cues Missing Clues "

* Nature Versus Nurture Of Sex Versus Gender *

The convention of describing genetic composition of sex codons is sex , and intersex relates the ranges of sex codon compositions which inludes deviations from endosex characteristics in hormones and phenotype .

The nature and nurture in intrapersonal and interpersonal relationships between individuals and environment , and subjective perspectives on social norms , are integrated into the introspection of individuals , while gender dysphoria relates where genetic sex of an individual differs from social roles associated with norms of behavior for male or female sexes .

. Intersex - Wikipedia .
Intersex people are those born with any of several sex characteristics, including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitals that, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies".[1][2] The opposite of intersex is endosex, which describes persons born with sex characteristics that are seen as typically male or female at birth.[3]

. Sex-determination system - Wikipedia .
. XO sex-determination system - Wikipedia .
. Gender dysphoria - Wikipedia .


* No Evidence Of Parthenogenesis Producing Males *

A female student commented in an introduction to philosophy class the parthenogenesis is exclusively female and supposed that were virgin mary to have completed such a feet that jesus would have to have been a female .

Parthenogenesis—asexual reproduction from an unfertilized egg—is almost exclusively a female-driven process. No evidence exists for male mammals, including humans, to naturally produce offspring alone.

These are abnormal secondary sexual development that do not change gender or create a person with both.
Klienfelters Syndrome is an XXY male. Those claiming to be trans have normal sexual development but abnormal psychology
Klinefelter syndrome is a common genetic condition, affecting about 1 in 600 males, where an individual is born with an extra X chromosome ( instead of ). It typically causes low testosterone, resulting in small testes, reduced fertility/infertility, tall stature, and, in some cases, breast development (gynecomastia). While incurable, it is managed with testosterone replacement therapy, and many live healthy, productive lives.

Mayo Clinic
============================================================================
Turner syndrome (TS) is a genetic condition affecting females caused by a missing or partially missing X chromosome, impacting development,, resulting in short stature, ovarian failure, and specific physical traits. Key symptoms include low hairline, webbed neck, heart defects, and infertility. Treatment involves growth hormone and estrogen therapy, allowing most to lead healthy, independent
============================================================================
Swyer syndrome is when a person has XY (male) chromosomes and functional female genitalia (vulva). While XY chromosomes usually result in the development of a penis and scrotum, people with Swyer syndrome develop a vagina, uterus and fallopian tubes.

People with Swyer syndrome don’t have sex glands (ovaries or testicles). Instead, they have functionless scar tissue (called streak gonads). This means they won’t go through puberty unless they have hormone replacement therapy. They also won’t become pregnant naturally but can conceive through egg donation.
These are males this is what the Turkish boxer has

 

[Mr. Friscus]

You don't undo 50 years of precedent because you've stacked the court with Catholic Fanatics.

Then why was Roe allowed to undo almost 200 years of precedent because the SCOTUS had liberal progressive fanatics (RBG anyone?)

So you can.. it’s just only hyperbolic when your opposition does it. 50 years of precedent aint much in the big picture. You need it to be, but it isn’t

Meanwhile, in sensible democracies in Europe, abortion is legal and the government pays for it. Amazing.

.. with the 12 and 14 week cut offs. You in?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

 

[Hafar1014]

View attachment 1220503

Its actually one body and one mind hers. Further its not yours and thats the point

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Its actually one body and one mind hers. Further its not yours and thats the point

No. The baby has different DNA. You’re factually incorrect.

 

[Hafar1014]

No. The baby has different DNA. You’re factually incorrect.

They are connected in a symbiosis and the fetus has no personality or sense of inviduality. Mother and fetus share the same mind and psychology. This is one person. The fetus has potential but hasnt developed. What your cant argue is that its not yours and have no say over what the mother chooses. Sometimes abortion is needed and it will always be legal under strict limits.
DNA doesnt define a person.

 

[Eman623]

You literally just referred to the legal minds of our society as your source. LOL.

I did not. Do you know what a question mark means?

I ASKED if I should take their word or Chuz's word. The answer is neither. I'll form my own opinion.

LOL

 

[Eman623]

Meh, here's the thing.

I actually don't think Roe was a good decision. First, it failed to define when life begins, which Chuzy and his side have a point, it probably should have. (and with some dickery about viability in Roe was immediately rendered moot by the companion decision of Doe v. Bolton, issued on the same day, which allowed abortion at any time based on health reasons.)

The other problem with Roe was that it found a "right to privacy" that simply isn't in the Constitution. If it were, you could throw out all the drug laws and prostitution laws. (These laws should be thrown out, but they are still constitutional, because there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution.)

So why did SCOTUS rule the way it did in Roe? Well, they probably didn't think Roe was any more controversial than Griswold v. Connecticut, where they found that birth control was legal for married couples (later expanded to unmarried couples). They were just legalizing what was common practice.

Dobbs, on the other hand, is a complete clusterfuck. You don't undo 50 years of precedent because you've stacked the court with Catholic Fanatics.

Now, final point. The Democrats could have (and should have) codified Roe during any of the periods they had complete control of Congress and the Presidency. (The first two years of the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations, respectively.) They didn't, because they wanted the threat of Roe being overturned in their back pocket to drive out the women's vote.

Meanwhile, in sensible democracies in Europe, abortion is legal and the government pays for it. Amazing.

In many European countries, abortion is more restricted than in the US.

Dobbs put the abortion issue back where it belongs. With the states.

 

[Eman623]

View attachment 1220409

Another poster who doesn't understand the question mark. See #807

 

[schmidlap]

You are dodging the point.

If "wearing a grey suit" was being considered for being banned, if you opposed that banning - you would be "pro-grey suit."

Within the western hemisphere, we can observe the consequences of repressive regimes that prohibit reproductive freedom, and arrogates control of wombs to the State.

Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador have complete abortion bans.

in El Salvador, women are imprisoned for suspected abortions.

Advanced democratic nations reject such rabid statism.

Those who insist that that the United States should emulate dictatorships like Nicaragua, Honduras, and El Salvador are widely rejected by Americans.

Even the least-educated states - West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas - that have the most repressive reproductive laws in the nation are prevented by the U S Constitution from inflicting absolute statist repression, and cannot prevent their citizens from seeking medical care in a more advanced state.

Abortion is a safe and common medical procedure, about which thoughtful individuals hold diverging, yet equally deeply held and well-considered perspectives. Like all health care decisions, a decision to terminate a pregnancy should be made privately within the relationship of trust between patient and physician in keeping with the patient’s unique values and needs and the physician’s best professional judgment.
The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA permit physicians to perform abortions in keeping with good medical practice

 

[midcan5]

I've known several women who have had abortions and they were all good people. Having a child is a responsibility and a change of life. A living child dies every few seconds in the world due to a lack of care. Do those who condemn women care about them, No. Fake morality is the face of many so called religious etc. Every month a woman carries a potential child and only the devout religious - mom was one - have child after child.

10 Facts About Child Hunger in the World - World Food Program USA

Childhood hunger is one of the biggest - and most preventable - issues of our time. But kids don’t have to face hunger. Here are the ten most important things to know about childhood hunger and what the WFP is doing to fight it.

wfpusa.org

 

[ding]

yet 70% of Zygotes never attach to the uterine wall. Of the ones that do, 40% are miscarried or aborted.

So what?

 

[ding]

I do not believe you. If you really thought that eating animals was immoral enough, then you would go vegan.

Don't believe me. I couldn't care less what others believe. I've resolved my conflict about eating animal flesh by owning my selfishness. You haven't resolved your conflict honestly. That's why you have to use pretzel logic to believe it is less than a "person" so it's ok to kill them.

 

[Eman623]

Don't believe me. I couldn't care less what others believe. I've resolved my conflict about eating animal flesh by owning my selfishness. You haven't resolved your conflict honestly. That's why you have to use pretzel logic to believe it is less than a "person" so it's ok to kill them.

You are projecting your own conflict into me.

I have no conflict here.

 

[ding]

No one ever had their mind changed for them. And no one cares what your truth is.

People change their minds all the time. Usually because they receive new information. I couldn't care less if you accept what I am saying is true. My obligation to truth is satisfied when I present it. What you do with it is up to you. You are free to believe and do whatever you want, but you are not free to avoid suffering the consequences. Normalization of deviance is a real thing and it leads to predictable surprises.

So killing a unique human being should be a misdemeanor? Interesting.

Yes, abortion was historically adjudicated as a misdemeanor in the United States, particularly during the 19th and early 20th centuries. While early American common law often permitted abortion before "quickening" (when movement is felt), by the mid-1800s, many states began passing statutes that categorized abortion—especially pre-quickening—as a criminal offense, often classified as a misdemeanor rather than a felony.

I don't see a newly fertilized egg as a person. That is not dehumanizing it. At best it is "depersoning" it, although I never personized it in the first place.

If it helps, that egg will eventually acquire personhood. And if it is aborted after that occurs, then that is immoral and should be against the law.

That's so that you can feel better about yourself. It's easier to kill it when it when you see it as less than a person.

If I were you, I'd worry about your own incongruity where taking a pre-born human life should be a misdemeanor.

What incongruity do you believe I have? Because your incongruity arises when you see abortion as ending the life of a person. If you believed that would you still support abortion? I say you wouldn't. Surprise me.

 

[ding]

You are projecting your own conflict into me.

I have no conflict here.

I'm not. I'm stating the truth. You have resolved your conflict dishonestly because you are subjectively defining life in the womb as less than a person because you NEED to see it that way to resolve your conflict.

 

[Chuz Life]

Within the western hemisphere, we can observe the consequences of repressive regimes that prohibit reproductive freedom, and arrogates control of wombs to the State.

Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador have complete abortion bans.

in El Salvador, women are imprisoned for suspected abortions.

Advanced democratic nations reject such rabid statism.

Those who insist that that the United States should emulate dictatorships like Nicaragua, Honduras, and El Salvador are widely rejected by Americans.

Even the least-educated states - West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas - that have the most repressive reproductive laws in the nation are prevented by the U S Constitution from inflicting absolute statist repression, and cannot prevent their citizens from seeking medical care in a more advanced state.

Abortion is a safe and common medical procedure, about which thoughtful individuals hold diverging, yet equally deeply held and well-considered perspectives. Like all health care decisions, a decision to terminate a pregnancy should be made privately within the relationship of trust between patient and physician in keeping with the patient’s unique values and needs and the physician’s best professional judgment.
The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA permit physicians to perform abortions in keeping with good medical practice

View attachment 1220533​

And the circular cycle of the discussion debate resets once again.

Do you consider yourself to be a defender of basic human rights?

Even for the most basic human beings of all?

Either you do, or you don't.

 

[Chuz Life]

Another poster who doesn't understand the question mark. See #807

No matter how well you think you cloaked it with "In this case I think the SCOTUS got it right" you have in fact deferred to their ruling and you have embraced it.

Rather than dealing with the constitutional clusterfuck their ruling creates by having something as fundamental as "personhood" vary from one State to another.

 

[schmidlap]

And the circular cycle of the discussion debate rests once again.

Do you consider yourself to be a defender of basic human rights?

Even for the most basic human beings of all?

Either you do, or you don't.

I respect the right of a woman to control her own body.

More to the point, do you prefer the reproductive policies of El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua under which the State prohibits abortion under all circumstances to those of the United States?

Yes or no?

 

[Chuz Life]

I respect the right of a woman to control her own body.

More to the point, do you prefer the reproductive policies of El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua under which the State prohibits abortion under all circumstances to those of the United States?

Yes or no?

Can you tell me why you don't think a woman's right to her body should begin when HER life and body begins?

Edited to add: (Assuming your reporting is correct) I have more respect for those countries on the issue of abortion than I have for the U.S., 100%