I was wrong... the health of the mother is not valid for an abortion.

[Grumblenuts]

Now imagine you are a human with a vagina. No one else can use it without your consent. You have complete control of it. So when "trouble" occurs because of promiscuous use of it, it is ON YOU.

Sorry. It is what it is.

Now imagine you are a human with a dick. No one else can use it without your consent. You have complete control of it. So when "trouble" occurs because of promiscuous use of it, it is ON YOU.

Sorry. It is what it is.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Now imagine you are a human with a uterus. You have complete control of it.

Sorry. It is what it is.

 

[there4eyeM]

Those who believe they are right should seek to educate, not to legislate.

Everyone operates on belief alone, naturally thinks they're right, and seeks "to educate" others into agreeing with them. Given limited space and resources, managing society by this model has proven fruitless since the days of hunter gathering. Thus tyrants, religions, laws. Nothing perfect though some options have worked out decidedly better than others. So far, at least where happiness has been the main goal, whether to have laws or not has never been seriously debated. Like whether a released rock will normally fall or fly away. Contemplating it is that stupid.

Perhaps the quoted post was not specific enough. It meant in the present context of a law based society, specifically contemporary America, where some would impose their belief system when laws already exist that protect choice.

My apologies in that case.

Thanks, but none needed; the post was too vague.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A certified Doctor that has no business associated with abortions.

Why would having "no business associated with abortions" be a better candidate? Why would this person be more trusted by a woman? The doctors in Ireland let a woman die. The loss of her life led to the change of law in Ireland.

An abortion doctor has a vested INTEREST in DOING an abortion you know that I know that and it is a conflict of interest. Most states say 24 weeks is cut off yet we have 11000 to 13000 late term abortions a year. I wonder how many were because an ABORTION doctor claimed something that simply wasn't true.

Not necessarily.

Many are also obstetricians who deliver live babies - abortions are not always an elective procedure, and the procedures of abortion are also many times the same as needed for a miscarriage.

The reality is this: the vast majority of abortions are early.

View attachment 310757

Only 1.3% of all abortions occur after 21 weeks.

Those are facts. Also, from the same source as the graph - abortion rates have been declining (thank you for better birth control) - and as of 2017 were lower than 1973.

Wait, so is it that there's no such thing as a late-term abortion, or they just aren't the most common kind? Make up your mind . . . if you can find it.

you cant find something that doesnt exist,,,

A valid point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, anyone who sincerely felt abortion were murder would confront the situation directly and accept the consequences. Go lie down in front of a clinic where abortions are performed, for example. Those who do not feel that sincerely will not confront the situation and will not accept the consequences of running off at the mouth.
It does not appear true that anyone is for abortion. It is clear that most of us are for education, avoiding unwanted pregnancies, maximum in care for children (such as universal healthcare), not dropping bombs on civilians, not dispensing tiny landmines, ceasing to pollute air, water, soil and, especially, minds.

You're still talking about a topic you said only women should weigh in on.

Your penis-influenced opinion is discounted and ignored based on your own standard. Begone.

It is a woman’s body, life, and risks. Why on earth should a man be allowed to control that?

Ask There4, who loves to mouth the line about "only women should weigh in", but simply cannot stop himself from nevertheless condescendingly spouting off about what's best for women, in his "superior because it's male" opinion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, anyone who sincerely felt abortion were murder would confront the situation directly and accept the consequences. Go lie down in front of a clinic where abortions are performed, for example. Those who do not feel that sincerely will not confront the situation and will not accept the consequences of running off at the mouth.
It does not appear true that anyone is for abortion. It is clear that most of us are for education, avoiding unwanted pregnancies, maximum in care for children (such as universal healthcare), not dropping bombs on civilians, not dispensing tiny landmines, ceasing to pollute air, water, soil and, especially, minds.

You're still talking about a topic you said only women should weigh in on.

Your penis-influenced opinion is discounted and ignored based on your own standard. Begone.

It is a woman’s body, life, and risks. Why on earth should a man be allowed to control that?

because men have always defended the defenseless,,,and its not the womens body shes killing,,,

More likely because men have always felt they had a right to control a woman’s body, whether it is virginity, out of wedlock sex, or wherher or not to have a child.

"More likely, it's because I just KNOW that men suck and are eeeevil!"

Yeah, whatever, hon. Tell it to your therapist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

when you say the host you mean the mother,,right???

did you know the guy that helped write obamacare thinks that you should be able to abort up to 3 yrs old,,so if it was legal would that be OK???

sorry all life has a right to exist no matter what you think,,,

Correct the mother is the host for any child.

No I didnt know that. Just because he has an opinion or something is legal doesnt make it ok. What makes it ok or not is the opinion of the person considering the matter. If you think its OK to dishonor the mothers body by forcing her to have a child to you thats ok. I dont think thats ok.

No life has the right to exist. If it did Raid wouldnt exist nor would people hunt deer for sport.

look up zeke emmanual complete lives system,,,

she dishonored herself by getting pregnant when she didnt want a child,,
science says human life begins at conception,,,case closed

sorry I should have said human life,,,I figured you knew the context of our conversation,,,my bad

And it is wrong to claim human life begins at conception.
A blood cell is alive and has the full DNA of a person, but is not a human being.

You can't change definitions mid sentence. It's still human life.

That is because it has no capability of self awareness.
Neither does a fetus, and it is just tissue.
Only at some point does it grow a brain and later some sort of consciousness.
But we kill all the time, or else we would not have a military and weapons of war, so we have nothing against killing.

Personally I do not support what we do there either.

No, a fetus can not possibly be a human life, not only because it is unconscious and unaware, but because it is not yet complete. If it were complete, then it would not need a womb for survival.

You had better support killing of humans, not only because it is essential in order to defend freedoms, but also because if we allow the population to continue growing, the whole human race will clearly go extinct.

What a load of illogical, scientifically-ignorant nonsense. "It can't be a human life, because of all this shit that doesn't define human life, but keeps it from looking like my ignorant notion of what a human is!" Just a continuation of the sort of primitive thinking that had people believing that blacks couldn't be real people, because they didn't look like white people.

 

[there4eyeM]

Again, anyone who sincerely felt abortion were murder would confront the situation directly and accept the consequences. Go lie down in front of a clinic where abortions are performed, for example. Those who do not feel that sincerely will not confront the situation and will not accept the consequences of running off at the mouth.
It does not appear true that anyone is for abortion. It is clear that most of us are for education, avoiding unwanted pregnancies, maximum in care for children (such as universal healthcare), not dropping bombs on civilians, not dispensing tiny landmines, ceasing to pollute air, water, soil and, especially, minds.

You're still talking about a topic you said only women should weigh in on.

Your penis-influenced opinion is discounted and ignored based on your own standard. Begone.

It is a woman’s body, life, and risks. Why on earth should a man be allowed to control that?

Ask There4, who loves to mouth the line about "only women should weigh in", but simply cannot stop himself from nevertheless condescendingly spouting off about what's best for women, in his "superior because it's male" opinion.

Care to cite where "only women should weigh in" was stated?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, anyone who sincerely felt abortion were murder would confront the situation directly and accept the consequences. Go lie down in front of a clinic where abortions are performed, for example. Those who do not feel that sincerely will not confront the situation and will not accept the consequences of running off at the mouth.
It does not appear true that anyone is for abortion. It is clear that most of us are for education, avoiding unwanted pregnancies, maximum in care for children (such as universal healthcare), not dropping bombs on civilians, not dispensing tiny landmines, ceasing to pollute air, water, soil and, especially, minds.

You're still talking about a topic you said only women should weigh in on.

Your penis-influenced opinion is discounted and ignored based on your own standard. Begone.

You intentionally misquote, thus revealing intellectual failings.

No, I'm quoting exactly what you said. You just don't like being held to your own words.

 

[there4eyeM]

Again, anyone who sincerely felt abortion were murder would confront the situation directly and accept the consequences. Go lie down in front of a clinic where abortions are performed, for example. Those who do not feel that sincerely will not confront the situation and will not accept the consequences of running off at the mouth.
It does not appear true that anyone is for abortion. It is clear that most of us are for education, avoiding unwanted pregnancies, maximum in care for children (such as universal healthcare), not dropping bombs on civilians, not dispensing tiny landmines, ceasing to pollute air, water, soil and, especially, minds.

You're still talking about a topic you said only women should weigh in on.

Your penis-influenced opinion is discounted and ignored based on your own standard. Begone.

You intentionally misquote, thus revealing intellectual failings.

No, I'm quoting exactly what you said. You just don't like being held to your own words.

You mean, being held to your dishonest words.

 

[ChemEngineer]

If somebody has an abortion it’s none of your damn business. Worry about your own life and stay out of others.

If somebody rapes you or your wife or daughter, is that "none of our damn business"?

If we watch a child drowning and do nothing because it was "none of our damn business" are you just fine with that?

Fathers have rights too. Your lies avail you NOTHING.

The Abortion Fraud

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is a woman’s body, life, and risks. Why on earth should a man be allowed to control that?

It's not the woman who dies, when an abortion is performed. It's an innocent child.

If this was just about the woman's body, then she'd be the one who dies from the procedure.

No, when it is about the worman's body, then in defense of her body, someone else can be killed.
Just like you can kill someone who tries to commit rape or a kidnapping.
Freedom is something one can legally kill over.

So you're advocating the killing of innocent people, who aren't actually harming or threatening to harm anyone, on the basis of "your existence is a threat!"?

Okay, in that case, I nominate you to go first.

 

[Cecilie1200]

look up zeke emmanual complete lives system,,,

she dishonored herself by getting pregnant when she didnt want a child,,
science says human life begins at conception,,,case closed

sorry I should have said human life,,,I figured you knew the context of our conversation,,,my bad

And it is wrong to claim human life begins at conception.
A blood cell is alive and has the full DNA of a person, but is not a human being.

You can't change definitions mid sentence. It's still human life.

That is because it has no capability of self awareness.
Neither does a fetus, and it is just tissue.
Only at some point does it grow a brain and later some sort of consciousness.
But we kill all the time, or else we would not have a military and weapons of war, so we have nothing against killing.

Personally I do not support what we do there either.

No, a fetus can not possibly be a human life, not only because it is unconscious and unaware, but because it is not yet complete. If it were complete, then it would not need a womb for survival.

It can be nothing but human life.

You had better support killing of humans, not only because it is essential in order to defend freedoms, but also because if we allow the population to continue growing, the whole human race will clearly go extinct.

I'll accept the risk.

Nonsense.
A human embryo can be defective and produce a body that does not even have a functional brain.
It will never be a human.
When there is brain death, like Terry Schievo, there is no human.
Being a human requires having a functioning brain that is capable of being self aware.

You do not have the right to accept the risk, and it is not a risk but an absolute.
The planet has finite resources, so there is a limit to the population it can support.
Go beyond that and all life on the planet will cease.
That is a proven fact.

What the fuck do rare birth defects have to do with the topic, other than a desperate attempt on your part to drape your sociopathy in a disguise?

And again, if we're killing off those with non-functioning brains on the basis of "the planet has finite resources and someone has to die", I nominate you to go to the head of the line. I can't see that you add anything to humanity as a whole.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, a fetus can not possibly be a human life, not only because it is unconscious and unaware, but because it is not yet complete. If it were complete, then it would not need a womb for survival.

You had better support killing of humans, not only because it is essential in order to defend freedoms, but also because if we allow the population to continue growing, the whole human race will clearly go extinct.

I guess your purpose, in this thread, is to demonstrate that it is, in fact, possible to be both more murderously sociopathic, and more batshit crazy, than Coyote and [B]LIE[/B]-sistrata.

All humans kill all the time, in support of more important things than mere life, like freedom, independence, etc.
If you pretend to not support killing, then you are a hypocrite if you support police, courtrooms, prisons, the military, etc.

Humans have a reproductive rate like rabbits because like rabbits, we did not live long on nature.
Now that we do live long, artificially, we have to reduce reproductive rate, anyway possible,
The planet has limited resource, and if we do not limit populations, then we destroy all life on the whole planet.

So why are you still hanging around?

 

[Coyote]

You're creating a false dichotomy there - if it's not a "moral imperative" then it's "ok". It isn't ok, but it is not the same as taking life.

That's pretty much the definition of a “moral imperative”—the recognition that some conduct is not OK.

There is not a significant difference at all, IF human life is sacred. Either it is (all of it) or it isn't. It's not a cafeteria. And don't forget, innocent people do end up on death row.

I don't base my position on the "sanctity of human life" - you do though. If you pick and choose what human life is sacred, if only some of it is, then you are just as evil as those you decry.

You've be a lot more believable, if you were consistent.

If it's OK to needlessly take the life of the most innocent and defenseless child, then what lives is it not OK to take?

I could (and did) say the same for you. Your position on life is inconsistent.

 

[Coyote]

Yeah I recognize there are clear, objective standards for right and wrong but I dont let hypocrites define them for me. I do that for myself.

That's how you get to thinking that it's OK to kill innocent children in cold blood.

That's also how you get to thinking that stealing and vandalism are OK.

Or abusing children at the border...

 

[Cecilie1200]

If this was just about the woman's body, then she'd be the one who dies from the procedure.

No, when it is about the worman's [sic] body, then in defense of her body, someone else can be killed.
Just like you can kill someone who tries to commit rape or a kidnapping.
Freedom is something one can legally kill over.

So, how does killing an innocent child in cold blood protect freedom?

Usually, when we speak of justifiable homicide, we're talking about killing a violent criminal, or an enemy combatant.

A child costs a huge amount of our time, energy, resource, money, emotional investment, etc.
The fetus is not yet aware, and does not care if it is born or not.
It is at least still asleep and had never been awake, so it does not care, and then neither should we.
In many ways it likely would prefer to be terminated rather than have to deal with the pain of being born, the cold air, being slapped into breathing, having to fight for survival continually, etc.
Life is not just a bed of roses.

Double speak. If it's not aware it can't "in many ways prefer to be terminated".

it is only after self awareness, curiosity, and survival instincts take over, that a child even cares about living.

Violent criminals could be as justified as police who kill them.
Police are following arbitrary rules we created about preserving our selfish material possessions, and often are unethical.

Who we call "enemy combatants" are likely more deserving of life than we are.
For example, we murdered about 3 million Vietnamese and half a million Iraqis, all of whom were totally innocent, and it was we who went to their countries and killed them without provocation or need.

All true but one senseless killing doesn't justify another and I thought you told me that we had to accept the killing to stop over population?

When you are comfortably sleeping and are rudely awakened, do you like it?
Of course not.
So a sleeping fetus is not going to like being born.
You can tell that because they cry.
Would then rather the long sleep known as death?
Most likely.

Yes one killing can and does justify another, depending on the circumstances.
For example, if you kill to prevent over population from causing species extinction, that is more than justified.
It is duty.

You are one creepy, evil sociopath. It's like listening to a Charlie Manson interview or reading about Josef Stalin, I swear to God.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You do not have the right to accept the risk, and it is not a risk but an absolute.
The planet has finite resources, so there is a limit to the population it can support.
Go beyond that and all life on the planet will cease.
That is a proven fact.

I have never encountered anyone making that argument, who is willing to give up his own life for the good of the planet, and for humanity as a whole.

They always want other people to die, but not themselves.

Is there any reason to expect that you are any different?

The fact that he's still hanging around, lecturing about how today is a good day for someone else to die.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I could (and did) say the same for you. Your position on life is inconsistent.

My position is that intentionally taking the life of any human being is an extremely drastic act, only justifiable under extremely drastic circumstances. Where am I being inconsistent?

Your position allows for killing an innocent and defenseless child for no better reason than that his existence is inconvenient to someone else. What other homicides would you allow under similarly frivolous conditions? If you don't think the life of the most innocent and defenseless child is worthy of protection, then how is anyone's life worthy of protection? Why should your own life not be equally subject to being so frivolously taken?

 

[Cecilie1200]

the lengths some go through to justify killing a child are not funny they are sad,,,

If you think an unconscious unborn is somehow aware and therefore valuable, then you would have to believe in something beyond the physical consciousness, which does not exist yet.
And that would have to be something like the soul.
But if you do believe in something like that, then the body becomes even less important.
If you abort one fetus because it is less than ideal, then that soul will get a better chance in a different body.
There is no reason to attach to a body that has not even developed consciousness yet.

no matter your excuses its still a human life,,,

So?
Human life is not sacred.
There are defective humans who rape and kill, and then have to be killed, all the time.
How is human life that kills to eat meat, more valuable than the life of a vegetarian animal like koala bear, that never kills anything?

your excuses are truly sad,,,

Trying to control others, their bodies, their families, etc., is the worst possible thing anyone could ever do.

. . . Says the "man" who's calmly arguing in favor of killing babies as a danger to humanity.