Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You say you won't find what you won't search for LOL. It's there

No, it isn't.

 

[Chuz Life]

No I won't.

I won't find anyone who supports that, unless under very special circumstances where the child is not viable and keeping it to term endangers the mother.

Not a single one.

You keep piling up the lies, and I will keep squashing them.

But, if youre feeling froggy, tell me how abortion is murder, except when the fetus is from incest or rape.

Your game isn't smart or complicated. Anyone can play it.

isn't this what I asked for in the beginning :Make a short list of groups that explicitly oppose all abortion restrictions:

Shared via Copilot

copilot.microsoft.com

 

[Mr. Friscus]

View attachment 1221067

isn't this what I asked for in the beginning :Make a short list of groups that explicitly oppose all abortion restrictions:

Shared via Copilot

copilot.microsoft.com

Hey now. Fort Fun Indiana says those things that exist don't exist.

 

[Chuz Life]

Hey now. Fort Fun Indiana says those things that exist don't exist.

Imagine that.

I'm so surprised.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

This does not address the raped woman's right to defend herself against an ongoing threat that was forced on her in a criminal act.

You'd have to explain how one is above the other. We triage all the time. Men can get drafted in the USA and sent over to die in trenches at the age of 22, against his consent.

A horrible crime happened to the woman, but if the human life is a human life, then you can't decrease it because of circumstances. It's not like childbirth is a significant risk whatsoever. Maternal mortality rate in the USA is around 23-25 deaths per 100,000 births. The Fatality rate in automobiles is roughly 18 deaths per 100,000 drivers. We don't view driving somewhere as some risk that would be some threat forced on the driver (like driving to a courthouse because the government says you have to be there)

Then we should agree that the longer a woman waits to report a rape (assuming she isn't confined and restrained somewhere). . . the more of an implied consent argument can be made.

If a woman doesn't immediately report a rape, she should just be questioned as to why. And when women come out years later and make claims on some rich, famous person? That should be assumed to be false.

If I got beat up by a group of women... it would be embarrassing. However, it would be on me to report it. If I decided the embarrassment was too much and I waited 5 years before I reported it, in my opinion I shouldn't be allowed to, or the burden should have to be much higher.. since now we don't have access to immediate evidence.

 

[initforme]

Dont want a kid then dont get pregnant or just simply give it away to the foster system. Its not a huge deal to give it up for foster care.

 

[Chuz Life]

Deeper we delve.

You'd have to explain how one is above the other.

I don't agree that one has to be "above the other" in this situation (or any situation for that matter)

(e.g. my Vietnam example)

We triage all the time. Men can get drafted in the USA and sent over to die in trenches at the age of 22, against his consent.

Maybe so, but I don't think it is Constitutional to require (by law) that a rape victim has to carry a pregnancy that was forced on her in a criminal act - to term. If it is unconstitutional to force her to "quarter troops" (3rd Amendment), it certainly can't be Constitutional to force her to gestate the child of her rapist that was forced on her in a criminal act.

I doubt she even has a moral obligation to do that.

A horrible crime happened to the woman, but if the human life is a human life, then you can't decrease it because of circumstances.

My position is based (primarily) on her right to defend herself.

It has nothing to do with the "value" of the life she is defending herself against. (e.g. the Vietnam example I shared earlier)

It's not like childbirth is a significant risk whatsoever. Maternal mortality rate in the USA is around 23-25 deaths per 100,000 births.

That may be true. . . but it dismisses the fact that she was forced into this situation in a criminal act.

She can't be forced to accept her situation and just tough it out with a "law."

Not Constitutionally, anyway.

Now, should she be given all the information, including the fact that it's not the child's fault? Maybe so.

She would be a saint of sorts for deciding to keep the pregnancy and bring the child to term.

I just can't see how it would be Constitutional to force her to do so, after she was already raped before..

The Fatality rate in automobiles is roughly 18 deaths per 100,000 drivers. We don't view driving somewhere as some risk that would be some threat forced on the driver (like driving to a courthouse because the government says you have to be there)

And this is the same as that - to You?

There exists in law a thing called special pleading and if anything exemplifies a case for "special pleading" this would be one.

If a woman doesn't immediately report a rape, she should just be questioned as to why. And when women come out years later and make claims on some rich, famous person? That should be assumed to be false.

No disagreement here in that.

If I got beat up by a group of women... it would be embarrassing. However, it would be on me to report it. If I decided the embarrassment was too much and I waited 5 years before I reported it, in my opinion I shouldn't be allowed to, or the burden should have to be much higher.. since now we don't have access to immediate evidence.

Send them my way. . . it's been awhile. LOL

Seriously, I don't disagree on the importance of reporting in a reasonable timeframe.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Nature Does Not Care About Preposterous Idealism "

* Arrogant Freak Farmer Fanatics Dictate None Of Their Dirty Ape Damned Business *

Dont want a kid then dont get pregnant or just simply give it away to the foster system. Its not a huge deal to give it up for foster care.

You carry it to term .

You deliver it out your hole .

You keep it for life .

Lethal Developmental Defects: An Overview

About 3% of all conceptions are associated with major congenital malformations, many of them are lethal developmental defect and genetic in origin or teratogenic (adverse effects of the environment during gametogenesis or early embryogenesis). Genetics with or without adverse environment has...

scirp.org

About 3% of all conceptions are associated with major congenital malformations, many of them are lethal developmental defect and genetic in origin or teratogenic (adverse effects of the envi-ronment during gametogenesis or early embryogenesis).

What the data says about abortion in the U.S.

The U.S. abortion rate has generally declined since the 1980s, but there have been slight upticks in the late 2010s and early 2020s.

pewresearch.org

In 2020, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – that is, at or before 13 weeks of gestation, according to the CDC. An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation.

 

[JoeB131]

So the government paying for it changes your moral stance? LOL I guess I shouldn't have expected anything else I suppose.

ONce the government pays for them, it stops being an issue.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Transmutation Of Soles And Spirits Of Humor From Physical Form "

* Heinous Dictates From Anthropocentric Psychosis *

A horrible crime happened to the woman, but if the human life is a human life, then you can't decrease it because of circumstances.

The literal meaning of an afterlife is genetic continuance and dictating a reward to a rapist for an afterlife , for a chance of eternal life , that includes conscripted expenditures of natural resources by the mother and others , is illegitimate aggression against self ownership within principles of individualism .

A subjective altruism of an ego is that its introspection should exist in perpetuity , while evidence in nature is that not every instance of an ego must exist in perpetuity to satisfy a subjective altruism of an ego .

Contemporary allusions to natural law theory posit inalienable rites , however any rite that can be alienated can not also be inalienable and possibility is not congruent with assurance .

 

[Chuz Life]

Poo flinging monkeytard calling others dirty apes

* Arrogant Freak Farmer Fanatics Dictate None Of Their Dirty Ape Damned Business *

You carry it to term .

You deliver it out your hole .

You keep it for life .

Lethal Developmental Defects: An Overview

About 3% of all conceptions are associated with major congenital malformations, many of them are lethal developmental defect and genetic in origin or teratogenic (adverse effects of the environment during gametogenesis or early embryogenesis). Genetics with or without adverse environment has...

scirp.org

About 3% of all conceptions are associated with major congenital malformations, many of them are lethal developmental defect and genetic in origin or teratogenic (adverse effects of the envi-ronment during gametogenesis or early embryogenesis).

What the data says about abortion in the U.S.

The U.S. abortion rate has generally declined since the 1980s, but there have been slight upticks in the late 2010s and early 2020s.

pewresearch.org

In 2020, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – that is, at or before 13 weeks of gestation, according to the CDC. An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation.

So, let's let this sink in. . .

Some (monkey pox-infected) chimpanzee-minded individuals want to use the statistical anticipations for tragic and severe birth defects in one portion of the totality of children "born" to deny basic human rights, personhood, and equal protections to all the other children (in the womb) of that group, and anyone who disagrees with this plan is the "dirty ape."

We proud "dirty apes" will consider the source.

 

[Chuz Life]

Deeper we delve.

I don't agree that one has to be "above the other" in this situation (or any situation for that matter)

(e.g. my Vietnam example)


Maybe so, but I don't think it is Constitutional to require (by law) that a rape victim has to carry a pregnancy that was forced on her in a criminal act - to term. If it is unconstitutional to force her to "quarter troops" (3rd Amendment), it certainly can't be Constitutional to force her to gestate the child of her rapist that was forced on her in a criminal act.

I doubt she even has a moral obligation to do that.


My position is based (primarily) on her right to defend herself.

It has nothing to do with the "value" of the life she is defending herself against. (e.g. the Vietnam example I shared earlier)


That may be true. . . but it dismisses the fact that she was forced into this situation in a criminal act.

She can't be forced to accept her situation and just tough it out with a "law."

Not Constitutionally, anyway.

Now, should she be given all the information, including the fact that it's not the child's fault? Maybe so.

She would be a saint of sorts for deciding to keep the pregnancy and bring the child to term.

I just can't see how it would be Constitutional to force her to do so, after she was already raped before..


And this is the same as that - to You?

There exists in law a thing called special pleading and if anything exemplifies a case for "special pleading" this would be one.


No disagreement here in that.


Send them my way. . . it's been awhile. LOL

Seriously, I don't disagree on the importance of reporting in a reasonable timeframe.

P.S. Great exchange Mr. Friscus.

Thanks for keeping it civil.

 

[JoeB131]

Maybe so, but I don't think it is Constitutional to require (by law) that a rape victim has to carry a pregnancy that was forced on her in a criminal act - to term. If it is unconstitutional to force her to "quarter troops" (3rd Amendment), it certainly can't be Constitutional to force her to gestate the child of her rapist that was forced on her in a criminal act.

I doubt she even has a moral obligation to do that.

Hold on, now. You and Frisky have been arguing for 46 pages that Globby is a real boy, and he should have all the rights of a person.

We don't execute children (as you keep calling Embryos and Fetuses) for the crimes of their parents. (Of course, in Trump's America, you can't count on that being the case forever.)

That may be true. . . but it dismisses the fact that she was forced into this situation in a criminal act.

She can't be forced to accept her situation and just tough it out with a "law."

Not Constitutionally, anyway.

Now, should she be given all the information, including the fact that it's not the child's fault? Maybe so.

She would be a saint of sorts for deciding to keep the pregnancy and bring the child to term.

I just can't see how it would be Constitutional to force her to do so, after she was already raped before..

Um, you guys argued it's up to the states to decide, and eight states do not have rape exemptions for their attempted abortion bans.

Policy Tracker: Exceptions to State Abortion Bans and Early Gestational Limits | KFF

This policy tracker documents exceptions in each state’s most restrictive gestational limit or total ban.

www.kff.org

As a practical matter, one you allow a rape exemption, every last woman who wants to get an abortion will just claim she was raped.

Imagine the time wasted by police determining which cases are true in that situation.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Deeper we delve.

I don't agree that one has to be "above the other" in this situation (or any situation for that matter)

(e.g. my Vietnam example)


Maybe so, but I don't think it is Constitutional to require (by law) that a rape victim has to carry a pregnancy that was forced on her in a criminal act - to term. If it is unconstitutional to force her to "quarter troops" (3rd Amendment), it certainly can't be Constitutional to force her to gestate the child of her rapist that was forced on her in a criminal act.

I doubt she even has a moral obligation to do that.


My position is based (primarily) on her right to defend herself.

It has nothing to do with the "value" of the life she is defending herself against. (e.g. the Vietnam example I shared earlier)


That may be true. . . but it dismisses the fact that she was forced into this situation in a criminal act.

She can't be forced to accept her situation and just tough it out with a "law."

Not Constitutionally, anyway.

Now, should she be given all the information, including the fact that it's not the child's fault? Maybe so.

You're saying generally a few central points that I'll just address in this one portion of writing

1. You're assigning intent to life, thus you'd be supporting some aspects of pro-abortion doctrine. Pro-abortion doctorine seems to proudly declare that there's a right to sexual pleasure without the responsibility or possibility of conception. That's of course against natural law and biological realities of our bodies. Progressives waive their fist in the air that it's unfair, but it's the truth. And as we know, sex affects men and women much differently, physically and psychologically. It would be like saying it's unfair that we die, or we have to breathe air or drink water. Our bodies are programmed this way, and that includes that our genetalia is designed to reproduce.

2. To further the first sentence of my previous point, you're slathering the former horrible action and invasion onto the latter, when these are 2 separate issues. First, a horrible crime happened. Second, a child was conceived. Aborting that child doesn't stop the initial crime, although pro-abortionists try to say it somehow does. It's like a woman who sees a baby in a basket that's flowing towards a waterfall. There would be naturally biological instinct for that woman to save the baby and care for it. Now, that naturally instinct could be overpowered by progressive ideology as a social contagion, but that doesn't change the fact that the instinct is there. Also, if there's no parents, nobody to take care of it (and imagine for a second if there wasn't a government safety net), she'd have to either leave it by the road and die, or take it on as their own, the woman (without modern welfare systems) would likely do the latter. It wasn't hers, it was biologically imposed onto her (her natural nurturing instinct), yet, she'd do it... far moreso than men would. A man would likely be more prone to save it, and either adopt into his already-formed nuclear family, or seek out a woman who can either do a better job or start their own family with.

3. Thus, from the pro-life viewpoint, the only constitutional force on the innocent child conceived would be a force that allowed outsiders to intervene and destroy the natural, healthy progression of childbirth. In the first amendment, Life is listed first for a reason, and if a doctor has 2 patients, he will address the one who will die vs. the one who will be physically, emotionally, and psychologically scarred. There is a heirarchy of value here. The life is more important than the woman's non-life threatening issues, even though they might be almost as serious and bad.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Um, you guys argued it's up to the states to decide, and eight states do not have rape exemptions for their attempted abortion bans.

I never said that, I'll speak for myself here. You probably assumed it (as nearly all of your arguments are based on your own internal assumptions or anecdotes), but that's not my stance.

 

[Chuz Life]

You're saying generally a few central points that I'll just address in this one portion of writing

1. You're assigning intent to life, thus you'd be supporting some aspects of pro-abortion doctrine. Pro-abortion doctorine seems to proudly declare that there's a right to sexual pleasure without the responsibility or possibility of conception. That's of course against natural law and biological realities of our bodies. Progressives waive their fist in the air that it's unfair, but it's the truth. And as we know, sex affects men and women much differently, physically and psychologically. It would be like saying it's unfair that we die, or we have to breathe air or drink water. Our bodies are programmed this way, and that includes that our genetalia is designed to reproduce.

2. To further the first sentence of my previous point, you're slathering the former horrible action and invasion onto the latter, when these are 2 separate issues. First, a horrible crime happened. Second, a child was conceived. Aborting that child doesn't stop the initial crime, although pro-abortionists try to say it somehow does. It's like a woman who sees a baby in a basket that's flowing towards a waterfall. There would be naturally biological instinct for that woman to save the baby and care for it. Now, that naturally instinct could be overpowered by progressive ideology as a social contagion, but that doesn't change the fact that the instinct is there. Also, if there's no parents, nobody to take care of it (and imagine for a second if there wasn't a government safety net), she'd have to either leave it by the road and die, or take it on as their own, the woman (without modern welfare systems) would likely do the latter. It wasn't hers, it was biologically imposed onto her (her natural nurturing instinct), yet, she'd do it... far moreso than men would. A man would likely be more prone to save it, and either adopt into his already-formed nuclear family, or seek out a woman who can either do a better job or start their own family with.

3. Thus, from the pro-life viewpoint, the only constitutional force on the innocent child conceived would be a force that allowed outsiders to intervene and destroy the natural, healthy progression of childbirth. In the first amendment, Life is listed first for a reason, and if a doctor has 2 patients, he will address the one who will die vs. the one who will be physically, emotionally, and psychologically scarred. There is a heirarchy of value here. The life is more important than the woman's non-life threatening issues, even though they might be almost as serious and bad.

Wow, I don't know if I can untangle all of that.

Maybe later.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Illegitimate Application Of Vernacular "

* Lexicon Of Banal Ad Nausea *

You're saying generally a few central points that I'll just address in this one portion of writing

1. You're assigning intent to life, thus you'd be supporting some aspects of pro-abortion doctrine. Pro-abortion doctorine seems to proudly declare that there's a right to sexual pleasure without the responsibility or possibility of conception. That's of course against natural law and biological realities of our bodies. Progressives waive their fist in the air that it's unfair, but it's the truth. And as we know, sex affects men and women much differently, physically and psychologically. It would be like saying it's unfair that we die, or we have to breathe air or drink water. Our bodies are programmed this way, and that includes that our genetalia is designed to reproduce.

2. To further the first sentence of my previous point, you're slathering the former horrible action and invasion onto the latter, when these are 2 separate issues. First, a horrible crime happened. Second, a child was conceived. Aborting that child doesn't stop the initial crime, although pro-abortionists try to say it somehow does. It's like a woman who sees a baby in a basket that's flowing towards a waterfall. There would be naturally biological instinct for that woman to save the baby and care for it. Now, that naturally instinct could be overpowered by progressive ideology as a social contagion, but that doesn't change the fact that the instinct is there. Also, if there's no parents, nobody to take care of it (and imagine for a second if there wasn't a government safety net), she'd have to either leave it by the road and die, or take it on as their own, the woman (without modern welfare systems) would likely do the latter. It wasn't hers, it was biologically imposed onto her (her natural nurturing instinct), yet, she'd do it... far moreso than men would. A man would likely be more prone to save it, and either adopt into his already-formed nuclear family, or seek out a woman who can either do a better job or start their own family with.

3. Thus, from the pro-life viewpoint, the only constitutional force on the innocent child conceived would be a force that allowed outsiders to intervene and destroy the natural, healthy progression of childbirth. In the first amendment, Life is listed first for a reason, and if a doctor has 2 patients, he will address the one who will die vs. the one who will be physically, emotionally, and psychologically scarred. There is a heirarchy of value here. The life is more important than the woman's non-life threatening issues, even though they might be almost as serious and bad.

A pro-abortion doctrine would be defined by illegitimate aggression that seeks to force abortion against the will of an individual .

The pro-life doctrine is long on utopia for anthropocentric psychosis and short on realism for natural order .

There are abortion choice and abortion anti-choice .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" AI Engines Understand My Content As Intriguing "

* More On Intuition *

Poo flinging monkeytard calling others dirty apes

So, let's let this sink in. . .
Some (monkey pox-infected) chimpanzee-minded individuals want to use the statistical anticipations for tragic and severe birth defects in one portion of the totality of children "born" to deny basic human rights, personhood, and equal protections to all the other children (in the womb) of that group, and anyone who disagrees with this plan is the "dirty ape."
We proud "dirty apes" will consider the source.

* Best Response To Yearn Own Comments *

Wow, I don't know if I can untangle all of that.
Maybe later.