What conditions would you accept an abortion, if any?

It's not my tax dollar's job to fund a pregnancy.

Anyway, the dems would just make a grift stream out of adopting.
Consider it respecting the rights and life of a future citizen.

Is it your tax dollar's job to fund killing of innocents ???

Anyone might make a "grift stream" if it's not managed correctly.

I'm pitching an alternative to the extremes of both sides on this issue.
 
Consider it respecting the rights and life of a future citizen.

Is it your tax dollar's job to fund killing of innocents ???

Anyone might make a "grift stream" if it's not managed correctly.

I'm pitching an alternative to the extremes of both sides on this issue.
It's not an issue to me. I support the utility of abortion because we live in a retarded society and it isn't getting any better.....We certainly don't need even more of the "disadvantaged" sucking us dry.

Margaret Sanger....Some heroes don't wear capes. ;)
 


But if you are for abortions with no restrictions, what if you knew they would be trans or gay and you could abort them? Would that be Ok?

Or better yet, what if you could abort them based on their political views?

Abortions are homicides.

I can only support homicides when they can be Constitutionally justified to save the life or lives of others (as in an act of self-defense, for example)

And no, you can't create a hostile situation against yourself and then claim the right to kill another, by claiming you were only defending yourself.
 


But if you are for abortions with no restrictions, what if you knew they would be trans or gay and you could abort them? Would that be Ok?

Or better yet, what if you could abort them based on their political views?

Abortion is Murder.

If it is to be stopped, then bring back the America, where Morality was Biblically Oriented.

U Wanna "MAGA!",......Then Truthfully return to what once made America, not only the Greatest Nation on Earth, that was Truly Blessed by The Almighty GOD, but also a Nation that was Greatly Envied, & Feared by the Nations of the World.

And one more thing check out what HEK293 is made of, for it is placed in Processed Foods, Vaccines, & Cosmetics.

 
It's not my tax dollar's job to fund a pregnancy.

Anyway, the dems would just make a grift stream out of adopting.
You are not funding "her" pregnancy ...
You are funding It's (His/Her) gestation and birth into a path as a future Citizen.

In theory, all children, Unborn through birth ~etc., are future citizens who are to be afforded the rights and benefits of any citizens.

If the biological parents are not fit/able to provide a full, healthy, and developmentally growth and maturity to the genetically related offspring they have produced, then the State~Citizens/Taxpayers have an obligation to provide for the care and proper/full raising of this future citizen.

Once conceived, that "fetus" is actually a future citizen in the making and therefore entitled to all the Rights and Protections afforded to adult, franchised citizens. Thing is that such is in a development stage and while not capable of performing all the duties and obligations of an adult citizen, still has the right to the full range of protections and opportunities of mature citizens.

The Fetus isn't a blob of protoplasm, but a future citizen in the process of shaping~being and can not be legally and ethically denied it Citizenship Rights.
 
Abortion is Murder.

If it is to be stopped, then bring back the America, where Morality was Biblically Oriented.
Talking about "Biblically Oriented". Why don't you want to study what Bible (specifically Exodus 21:22-24) say about abortion? Losing a fruit without harm to woman is just a question of "property damage". And what was opinion of the Fathers of Church? And can an embio without blood posses even an "animal spirit"?

Say nothing about differences in translations and interpretations.

 
Last edited:
You are not funding "her" pregnancy ...
You are funding It's (His/Her) gestation and birth into a path as a future Citizen.

In theory, all children, Unborn through birth ~etc., are future citizens who are to be afforded the rights and benefits of any citizens.

If the biological parents are not fit/able to provide a full, healthy, and developmentally growth and maturity to the genetically related offspring they have produced, then the State~Citizens/Taxpayers have an obligation to provide for the care and proper/full raising of this future citizen.

Once conceived, that "fetus" is actually a future citizen in the making and therefore entitled to all the Rights and Protections afforded to adult, franchised citizens. Thing is that such is in a development stage and while not capable of performing all the duties and obligations of an adult citizen, still has the right to the full range of protections and opportunities of mature citizens.

The Fetus isn't a blob of protoplasm, but a future citizen in the process of shaping~being and can not be legally and ethically denied it Citizenship Rights.
C'mon. You can denie "Citizenship Rights" even to already born and even adult citizens. Say nothing, that illegal migrants are also "future citizens in the process of shaping".
 
C'mon. You can denie "Citizenship Rights" even to already born and even adult citizens. Say nothing, that illegal migrants are also "future citizens in the process of shaping".
Off to a bad start by breaking a law to become a criminal isn't a good foundation for future citizenship by illegal immigrants/aliens.

Adults have capability to take in knowledge/data and make informed decisions, theoretically. Children, including unborn in formative stage, have no such capability, or legal right that adults have.

Illegal immigrants/aliens have made conscious choice to travel hundreds to thousands of miles to come to our borders and then break the laws by entering without permission.* Even if good workers and otherwise not breaking laws afterward still not an acceptable choice compared to those who have come here legally and then go through the five year plus process to become a USA citizen.

*Traveling to the USA from another country, most are from outside Mexico in origin, is not a single afternoon stroll. Someone is paying for the transportation, meals, lodging, etc. along the way, travel path, of that illegal entrant. Further underscores the less than honorable intend/purpose that many illegals may have.

If someone were to break into your home, help themselves to your food and property, maybe even clean up after themselves, would you be willing to make them a member of your family and a permanent resident of your household ???
 
Off to a bad start by breaking a law to become a criminal isn't a good foundation for future citizenship by illegal immigrants/aliens.

Adults have capability to take in knowledge/data and make informed decisions, theoretically. Children, including unborn in formative stage, have no such capability, or legal right that adults have.

Illegal immigrants/aliens have made conscious choice to travel hundreds to thousands of miles to come to our borders and then break the laws by entering without permission.* Even if good workers and otherwise not breaking laws afterward still not an acceptable choice compared to those who have come here legally and then go through the five year plus process to become a USA citizen.

*Traveling to the USA from another country, most are from outside Mexico in origin, is not a single afternoon stroll. Someone is paying for the transportation, meals, lodging, etc. along the way, travel path, of that illegal entrant. Further underscores the less than honorable intend/purpose that many illegals may have.

If someone were to break into your home, help themselves to your food and property, maybe even clean up after themselves, would you be willing to make them a member of your family and a permanent resident of your household ???
So, what is the moral (not legal) difference between a human person who came in America against the will of authorities and a human person going to come in America against the will of his/her parents?

If you say "we welcome everyone to became an American citizen" why you can't actually welcome "everyone"? You know, authorities can decide - "we can't afford more future citizens" and parents can decide "we can't afford more children".
 
When we humanoids are on the Endangered Species List and facing extinction and need repopulate.
 
So, what is the moral (not legal) difference between a human person who came in America against the will of authorities and a human person going to come in America against the will of his/her parents?

If you say "we welcome everyone to became an American citizen" why you can't actually welcome "everyone"? You know, authorities can decide - "we can't afford more future citizens" and parents can decide "we can't afford more children".
If you don't see the moral difference, than I doubt any effort on my part will help.

Anyway, my position on abortion is global, not just for my nation. My point is that the fetus isn't consulted on the options.
Often the father has no say also. Two out of three parties involved are denied their right to influence the choice.

There is also the matter that if a woman is willing to abort the baby, was does that suggest about her qualities a as mother ?

As for the illegal immigrants/aliens, they start out with a crime, entering illegally. Citizenship is a process that takes about five years to complete and their start here breaking our laws to enter suggests they may not be the best material for citizenship.

Besides, we have ways to enter LEGALLY and a right to regulate how many we wish to add.
 
If you don't see the moral difference, than I doubt any effort on my part will help.

Anyway, my position on abortion is global, not just for my nation. My point is that the fetus isn't consulted on the options.
Often the father has no say also. Two out of three parties involved are denied their right to influence the choice.

There is also the matter that if a woman is willing to abort the baby, was does that suggest about her qualities a as mother ?

As for the illegal immigrants/aliens, they start out with a crime, entering illegally. Citizenship is a process that takes about five years to complete and their start here breaking our laws to enter suggests they may not be the best material for citizenship.

Besides, we have ways to enter LEGALLY and a right to regulate how many we wish to add.
If you say, that government has right to decide, what biological object can become a citizen of the USA, and what can't thats already your moral position. Fetus doesn't understand what is right and what is wrong, what is legal and what is illegal in the United States of America. But so are most prinitive and undeveloped foreigners.
Say, in Russia there is a nice law about migrants - if you don't have enough of legal income to feed your family (including your children) you have no right to bring them in the state. If your children don't speak Russian, they won't be allowed in a Russian school, and if they are not allowed in a Russian school, both you and your children should be deported back in your country.

If a family doesn't have income enough to raise children - their children, quite likely, will be parasites and not decent citizens of the USA. Won't they?
 
15th post
We've been over this before.

No, being transgender is not considered a mental disorder by major medical and psychological organizations. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) have updated their guidelines to reflect this understanding.

Current Official Classifications
  • World Health Organization (WHO): The WHO removed "gender identity disorder" from the mental and behavioral disorders chapter in its International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), effective in 2022. It is now classified as "gender incongruence" under a chapter on sexual health, a move intended to reduce stigma while ensuring access to medical care.
  • American Psychiatric Association (APA):The APA explicitly states that "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder". In its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR), the diagnosis of "gender identity disorder" was replaced with
    "gender dysphoria"
The Distinction: Transgender Identity vs. Gender Dysphoria
It is important to differentiate between simply being transgender and experiencing gender dysphoria.
  • Being Transgender: This term refers to a person whose internal psychological sense of gender (gender identity) does not align with the sex they were assigned at birth. It is a natural variation of human experience and identity, not a pathology.
  • Gender Dysphoria: This is a diagnostic term used to describe the clinically significant distress or impairment that some transgender people experience due to the incongruence between their assigned sex and their gender identity. The diagnosis exists to ensure individuals can access necessary medical treatments and support, such as hormone therapy or surgery, which often alleviate this distress.

Mental health challenges like anxiety and depression are found at higher rates in the transgender community; however, studies show these issues are primarily the result of experiences with discrimination, stigma, and social exclusion (transphobia), rather than being inherent to transgender identity itself.
Gender dysphoria is a PC way of saying Mental Illness. Badging it under a different name doesn't cut the mustard.
 
If so, what can you say about Exodus 21:22-25?
What about it?

Exo 21:22 “If men fight and hurt a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely, and yet no harm follows, he shall be surely fined as much as the woman’s husband demands and the judges allow.
Exo 21:23 But if any harm follows, then you must take life for life,
Exo 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:25 burning for burning, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise.
 
What about it?

Exo 21:22 “If men fight and hurt a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely, and yet no harm follows, he shall be surely fined as much as the woman’s husband demands and the judges allow.
Exo 21:23 But if any harm follows, then you must take life for life,
Exo 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:25 burning for burning, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise.
Most of Jewish and Early Christian commentators saw it is a harm to the woman, not to the fruit of the womb. Back in the time "premature birth" (especially very premature) usually meant that the fruit of the womb would not survive. Actually, even already born children were often traditionally more seen as a property of the father, rather than "rightful citizen". And in other translations it was not about "harm" but "appearance".
 
Back
Top Bottom