Once Again, Fighting Abortion

Debates: 0

Posts: 287

11.13.2023 12:54AM

-->

@hey-yo

There are no "rights," no bodily autonomy, etc. no sympathy. No ease to stress or what ever because there is no meaning to anyone's life.
making abortion illegal is ok.

Abortion was politically legislated as a crime. Politically legislating a criminal act as the right thing to do lacks leadership and legal wisdom not knowledge. We legislate criminal acts as the wrong thing to do that is leadership basics. We the people legislate United States of Constitutional Right as the right thing to do. It is not a matter of a person’s common sense, it is self-evident truth which then can be held by the people, for the people.

Topic's author

#62

Debates: 32

Posts: 2,182

11.16.2023 04:12AM

-->

@ludofl3x

As a pro-life guy, who doesn't want anyone to get abortions, then, what is your solution to unwanted pregnancy?

Don't have sex.

I presume you're not big on social programs like food stamps and welfare and housing assistance as it is today. Would I be wrong that you'd be against expanding these programs to support the number of unintended babies that lack of abortion must inevitably lead to?

Your presumption is false. I believe that solution to unwanted pregnancies is to stay away from an act that will cause pregnancy. However, humans are human, and will not always make the right decision. Therefore, I think social programs like food stamps, welfare, and housing are beneficial to unintended pregnancies, that was caused by the ignorance of the person having sex.

I don't mean just increasing the amount of government funding that goes into these programs, but you'd also need to invent new programs. Like 100% subsidized day care for the children of parents who can't afford it, let's say. Nothing luxurious, but proper preschools for kids whose single parent has to go to work. Would you vote for that?

Yes, indeed I would.

What about 100% government funded medical care for the child for its first five years of life, when a child absolutely needs professional medical supervision in the early stages of development?

Two things before I make my statement.

1. I am not a healthcare professional.

2. I am not an economic genius.

All I know is that about 23% of all healthcare, is child health care. And the idea your proposing would make that even less of a percentage given that it would be 0-5 years after birth.

So, I think that yes, I would agree with you in a sense. I think that all children without parental guardians, or suitable parental guardians should be given free healthcare from ages (let's say) 0-7 years after birth.

First, you'd have to support a completely medically accurate and fulsome curriculum of sex education, from about 10 years old. Why there? Because puberty and all those Satanic urges are right around the corner for almost all children. They ought to go into the battle well armed, right? Doesn't seem so bad, right? Well, unfortunately, many of these kids are going to start experimenting sexually early on. Are you willing to put taxpayer funded condoms in every school nurse's office, which children can take without telling their parents?

I think sex education is a crucial factor, when it comes to education, but not that early on.

I would say around high school years is when we should be providing information on what sex is, how it can change your life, and how to prevent it, if indeed some kids decide to act unresponsible with their body's.

Would this completely solve the problem? No. But it's the best solution I can think up for our current situation.

Humans will always fight law, and order. As well as societal norms and good guidelines. All we can do in most cases is warn and provide legal penalties for such actions.

Would you offer government subsidy for IUD's regardless of income status and age provided you're at the age of reprodution? So any female who's had her first period can say "Just to be safe, I'm going to get an IUD because I don't want to have a child."

Would you offer government subsidy for IUD's regardless of income status and age provided you're at the age of reprodution? So any female who's had her first period can say "Just to be safe, I'm going to get an IUD because I don't want to have a child." And the government pays for it? They're inexpensive compared to welfare for 18 years, right?

Well, if there inexpensive, then why don't more people use them?

I mean, you have the freedom to use them.

And they are inexpensive, so.... yeah.

Problem solved.

If you're saying we should provide them without cost, then no, because again:

Thats not how economics works.

Topic's author

#63

Debates: 32

Posts: 2,182

11.16.2023 04:19AM

-->

@ebuc

Agreed that is well documented fact. So what? ? ? Keep your nose out of pregnant womans bodily business.

If the business involves a completely separate human, that is not biologically part of the mother's body in any way shape or form, then yes, it is my business to care about innocent lives being taken.

The egg and sperm are both live sex cells before fertilization of the egg. Another well documented fact.

But they are not independent living organisms.

This is nutter talk. Do I really have to go through the list of well documented facts as well as rather simple, logic, common sense truths that fetus is part of pregnant woman ergo and organism of the pregnant woman for the duration of gestation and until ublicord is cut and the fetus/baby has taken its firt inspiriting breath of air? ? ?

Be my guest. Test me.

Just because the child is affected by the environment it is in for a short period of time, doesn't mean it is intrinsically part of the woman's body.

Abortion is the right of the pregnant woman who was given the gift of sperm from a male donor.

Ok, but if it is never medically necessary, even in life threatening situations, then why should it be a right?

Ha, easier said than done fellow human. After thirst food and maybe shelter, is does there exist any stronger genetic drive/desire then orgasm an human connection on intimate levels. And these days it is easy to take a pill to prevent or abort soon after. And I bet you and other nutters oppose these pills also. Can you answer truthfully? ? ?

May I suggest self-control?

Abortion is just the excuse for women who have no self-control and have no accountability.

#64

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,717

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/15274-benefits-of-breastfeeding

11.16.2023 01:45PM

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

If the business involves a completely separate human, that is not biologically part of the mother's body in any way shape or form, then yes, it is my business to care about innocent lives being taken.

False. You and others like you need to cease and desist your perverted, immoral actions of sticking your friggin nose into all pregnant womans bodily business and learn what the words bodily autonomy means specifically.

But they are not independent living organisms.

That s correct. The live egg is integral part of womans systemic integrity and live spermozao is integral part of mans systemic system, that, is gifted to the woman, and that spermazoas life span is now dependent on the womans systemic integrity.

Just as the fertilized egg is an integral part of pregnant womans bodily autonomy that you others like you whose peverted and immoral actions violate. Please cease and desist immediately unless she gives your consent.

A child breaths air and remains a child until legal adulthood.

Be my guest. Test me.

The facts are above as stated.

Just because the child is affected by the environment it is in for a short period of time, doesn't mean it is intrinsically part of the woman's body.

The fetus/baby --not yet a child that has taken its first inspirited breath--- is is sustained by pregnants woman systemic integrity from the time the man gifts the woman with his sperm and you seem to be ignorant of these obvious facts and look create a false narrative to false validate your and others perverted and immoral actions and against a pregnant womans bodily autonomy unless she gives you consent

Ok, but if it is never medically necessary, even in life threatening situations, then why should it be a right?

Your still playing your perverted and immoral, { I'm ignorant } sick-n-head false narrative card. Keep your friggin nose out of pregnant womans --and all other humans--- bodily autonomy, unless you have been given consent. Do you understand the above words coming off my finger tips?

May I suggest self-control?

You an your immoral perverted types are the ones who need to practice self control y keeping your friggin nose out pregnants womams bodily business, unless she gives consent.

8+ > billion people on Earth, and they all have strong genetic drives as Ive laid out clearly and you pretend ignorance, or irrelevancy.

1} air to breath ergo oxygen,

2} hydration, and nutrition ex suckling breast for immune building

..." Breastfeeding has many benefits for you and your baby. It helps build your baby’s immune system and offers the perfect nutrition. Some of the health benefits to you include a lower risk of breast and ovarian cancer. "...

3} shelter ex warmth, cooling for circumstances.

Abortion is just the excuse for women who have no self-control and have no accountability.

Nature aborts fetus/baby and a pregnant. woman is a part of nature who makes all bodily autonomy decisions, unless she gives consent for others to stick their nose into your her bodily business. Nature has allowed for invention of abortion, that included pills is least intrusive process that also can be used as a prevention method an allows for female and male to fulfill their genetic drive to have sex.

My guess is that it is immoral conservative and resultant perverted actions like you, that, have fought against pills or other to prevent fertilization since...

Ex immoral perverted action..." 1873 Congress passes the Comstock Act, which criminalizes using the U.S. Postal Service to mail any obscenity, contraceptives, abortifacients, or sex toys and authorizes the postal service to confiscate birth control sold through the mail. The law’s chief proponent and namesake Anthony Comstock becomes a special agent for the U.S. Postal Service to enforce the law. Many states pass similar laws in the following years.

.....1950 While in her 80s, Sanger organizes support for research to create the first birth control pill.

.....1960 The first oral contraceptive, Enovid, a mix of the hormones progesterone and estrogen, is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It quickly became known simply as “the Pill.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

..."Around 3000 BCE Ancient societies, including Crete and Egypt, begin developing condoms made from animal and fish bladders or intestines and linen sheaths.

...1619-1870 Black women draw upon African folk remedies to create medicines that are shared and spread among enslaved populations to resist coerced reproduction by white men.

...1855 The first rubber condom is produced.

And there is much more ---at the above URL--- that those such as yourself who continue to force your immoral perverted actions onto pregnant women without their consent.

https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/a-brief-history-of-birth-control/

#65

Debates: 0

Posts: 287

11.17.2023 03:20AM

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

May I suggest self-control?

Yes...you can..

Self-control versus United States Constitutional Right.

Women are not entitled to United States Constitutioinal Right for it can be repalced with self-control.

But they are not independent living organisms.

Declaration of Independence. "All women are created equal by their creator. Presadera." They are now.

Abortion is just the excuse for women who have no self-control and have no accountability.

No abortion is a criminal act of legislation made in justone style of American law that specializes in profits of the licensed state practiceis law.

#66

Debates: 0

Posts: 287

11.17.2023 02:01PM

Abortion is just the excuse for women who have no self-control and have no accountability.

Sorry typing mistake. No abortion is a criminal act of legislation made in just one style of American law that specializes in profits of the licensed state practice of law. I understand completly that a desire to go back to the argument of the written crime is popular for it is a public accusation to a potential crime and great opritunity for the people to act as there own attorney's at law. The fight over abortion is it's state as a United States Consitutional Right not if a person can be or not be found guilty by claiming they have aborted a specific pregnancy, in a specific way.

The facts are the debate topic states fighting abortion and what we are doing is to be fighting crime asabortion has already been described as a criminal act by legislation. The legislation of United States Constitutional Right is the writing of a law that holds no crime and describes a termination of immigration of posterity according to American Constitution. I understand that some countries hold their own Constitution and do not describe them as United States between crime and right. The overall types of nationalities and race of these nations have no impact on the creation of the united state of all women. We know this as fact as I have stated all women are created equal by their creator who is in one-word Presadera.

The argument is whether legal negligence is gross or accidental or if the legal malice is intentional?

Have I caught you or others off guard? Do you need time to build a defense on something you need and should be helping with if you are American?

What precisely is the hold up, a criminal act of abortion will still be in writing when the United States Constitutional right has been written?

10 days later

#67

Debates: 3

Posts: 5,020

11.28.2023 01:18PM

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

If an individual is scared of the possibility of getting pregnant, then they shouldn’t involve themselves in sexual relations, because no matter how much protection you give yourself, having sexual relations is by definition is consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. Just as you would get into your car, but you don’t want to crash, when you enter that car, you are consenting to the possibility of getting into a wreck.

Then when a doctor has to choose between treating a patient who walks in with the flu vs a patient who arrives in a stretcher in critical condition resulting from a car accident, the doctor should ignore the critical patient. After all, it was their choice to get in that car, so why should the flu patient have to pay for that choice?

#68

buttmaggot15

Debates: 3

Posts: 11

buttmaggot15

11.28.2023 05:33PM

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

Human life begins at conception and should be treated as such. Anyone who denies that claim, even after hearing the substantial amount of research and evidence, cannot, and should not be taken seriously on the subject matter

Prenatal life has no sentience.

#69

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,193

11.29.2023 05:23PM

-->

@buttmaggot15

Well stated.

Topic's author

#70

Debates: 32

Posts: 2,182

11.29.2023 06:50PM

-->

@Double_R

Then when a doctor has to choose between treating a patient who walks in with the flu vs a patient who arrives in a stretcher in critical condition resulting from a car accident, the doctor should ignore the critical patient. After all, it was their choice to get in that car, so why should the flu patient have to pay for that choice?

This doesn't correlate at all to my example.

This is in fact a red herring.

Topic's author

#71

Debates: 32

Posts: 2,182

11.29.2023 06:52PM

-->

@buttmaggot15

Prenatal life has no sentience.

It actually arises about 24-28 weeks of gestation.

So wrong.

#72

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,193

11.29.2023 09:14PM

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

Are we sentient or self-aware in the womb? No. Infants in utero are not self-aware. They respond to stimuli on a very basic level, but in humans, the brain continues to develop after birth for some time.

#73

Debates: 4

Posts: 25,161

11.29.2023 09:32PM

-->

@FLRW

Sentience (the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity) is not the same as self-awareness (being aware of oneself as an individual).

By your criteria, we should be free to kill 1 year olds.

Par for a Biden supporter I guess....

#74

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,193

11.29.2023 10:34PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Low-effort trolling won't stop abortions.

The view that embryos are persons also has some implausible implications in real life. More than 50% of embryos die within eight weeks of conception—a phenomenon known as spontaneous abortion (Leridon, 1977; Boklage, 1990). On the basis of this evidence, it has been estimated that there are more than 220 million natural embryo deaths worldwide each year (Ord, 2008). God loves abortions.

#75

Debates: 0

Posts: 287

11.30.2023 01:19AM

-->

@FLRW

The view that embryos are persons also has some implausible implications in real life. More than 50% of embryos die within eight weeks of conception—a phenomenon known as spontaneous abortion (Leridon, 1977; Boklage, 1990). On the basis of this evidence, it has been estimated that there are more than 220 million natural embryo deaths worldwide each year (Ord, 2008). God loves abortions.

It is more likely GOD just calls abortion something else. Abortion is self-incriminating.... It describes planned death and has legislation in America as only a criminal law and is not written as a United States Constitutional Right. The argument is possible reasons why all men might want to hold themselves as created equal by their creator by declaration of Independence from English law.

#76

Debates: 4

Posts: 25,161

11.30.2023 04:48AM

Are we sentient or self-aware in the womb? No. Infants in utero are not self-aware.

Low-effort trolling doesn't refute the fact you declared infants that are not self-aware should be killed. That includes infants under 2 that can't recognize themselves in a mirror. Par for a Democrat.

#77

Debates: 4

Posts: 25,161

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

11.30.2023 11:39AM

-->

@John_C_87

The argument is possible reasons why all men might want to hold themselves as created equal by their creator by declaration of Independence from English law.

You should finish the sentence. It states "all men are created equal" in that all men have a creator endowed right to live, because we naturally wish to live as observed as a natural born instinct. An instinct observed also in utero, as a baby will recoil from a bright light or recoil from a prick. Starting around 7 weeks.

Before that Declaration, it was the King who decided on the convenience of who was fit to live. Today, it's a woman.

Topic's author

#78

Debates: 32

Posts: 2,182

11.30.2023 12:55PM

-->

@FLRW

Are we sentient or self-aware in the womb? No. Infants in utero are not self-aware. They respond to stimuli on a very basic level, but in humans, the brain continues to develop after birth for some time.

Does the brain develop inside the womb:

Yes

Does the brain develop outside the womb:

Yes

Whats your point. Children are self aware in the womb.

I mean technically speaking your also just responding to stimuli, just at a more advanced level.

#79

Debates: 3

Posts: 5,020

12.01.2023 03:35PM

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

This doesn't correlate at all to my example.

This is in fact a red herring.

It correlates exactly. Your argument is that a girl who gets pregnant has agreed to the "possibility" of getting pregnant, therefore she is no longer entitled to the right to her own body so long as it interferes with the rights of the fetus.

That's the exact same point I used to draw my conclusion. If someone gets into a car accident, well they too are guilty of agreeing to the possibility that put them in the situation they were in now needing medical attention, and because of that they don't have the right to trample over someone else.

Same exact argument.

#80

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,193

12.01.2023 04:03PM

You can see why the USA ranks 29th in the World in IQ.

#81

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,717

12.01.2023 04:37PM

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

Whats your point. Children are self aware in the womb.

To call a fetus a child 2nds after fertilization is a exaggeration in my book.

A fetus/baby is not child til it has taken its first inspiration of oxygenated air and the umbilical cord is severed, is how I judge a viable independent individual human.

Prior to that, it is organsim of pregnant woman, and that is nourished and fed oxgen by the woman. Pregnant woman becomes mother when the above conditions are met, and the child is given the option to suckle teat.

All else is based historically patriarchal relgions that have a history of fanaticism in various regards, without due consideration of women in so many ways. A woman could not vote and should remain silent on so many issues, for how many thousands of years. At least in patriarchal Biblical times of three primary biblical religions.

Republican conservatives have too many of these nutter types amongest them to this day.. Sad :--( sic-n-head )--:

#82

Debates: 0

Posts: 121

12.02.2023 01:44AM

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

Human life begins at conception

All life begins at "conception," but cellular life is NOT actual life (i.e., the actual 'being').

Topic's author

#83

Debates: 32

Posts: 2,182

12.02.2023 05:00PM

-->

@Double_R

It correlates exactly. Your argument is that a girl who gets pregnant has agreed to the "possibility" of getting pregnant, therefore she is no longer entitled to the right to her own body so long as it interferes with the rights of the fetus.

Nope.

My argument is that a girl who involves herself in sex, has agreed to the possibility of getting pregnant. Therefore, it is still her body/her choice, because she can choose whether to have sex or not.

Topic's author

#84

Debates: 32

Posts: 2,182

The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins - PubMed (nih.gov)

12.02.2023 05:10PM

-->

@ebuc

To call a fetus a child 2nds after fertilization is a exaggeration in my book.

What is conception in humans.

Well conception is the starting point of life:

"Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view."

So, conception is where life begins, but what type of life is it?

Well considering we are talking about human beings, then I would assume using logic that it is a human life.

Now what is the definition of abortion?

the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus:
a
: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation compare MISCARRIAGE
b
: induced expulsion of a human fetus
c
: expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy compare CONTAGIOUS ABORTION

Abortion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

So, by definition, abortion in humans is literally defined as the induced expulsion of a human life, if abortion is done from conception or further.

A fetus/baby is not child til it has taken its first inspiration of oxygenated air and the umbilical cord is severed, is how I judge a viable independent individual human.

If you define life as being able to breath oxygen, then what about humans who are either A. allergic to oxygen, or B. hooked up to machines to survive because they can't breathe properly?

Prior to that, it is organsim of pregnant woman

Not necessarily.

The origin of the organism is actually of both the woman and the man.

Topic's author

#85

Debates: 32

Posts: 2,182

12.02.2023 05:12PM

-->

@Sam_Flynn

Human life begins at conception

All life begins at "conception," but cellular life is NOT actual life

It is. Lol.

You just said:

"It is life, but it's not actually life."

It is life from conception, and what makes it valuable is that it is human.

#86

HistoryBuff

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,141

HistoryBuff

12.02.2023 05:47PM

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

It is life from conception, and what makes it valuable is that it is human.

So is a cancer cell. It is a living cell and it is human. But it isn't a person. A cluster of human cells isn't a person.

#87

Debates: 0

Posts: 121

12.03.2023 02:42AM

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

I forgot to say "...but cellular life is NOT actual ([a]) human life."

HistoryBuff understood the point I was making. It's not that hard.

#88

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,717

12.03.2023 03:04AM

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

Well conception is the starting point of life:

The egg and spermazoa are already alive. Old news

To call a fetus a child seconds after fertilization is a exaggeration.

So, conception is where life begins, but what type of life is it?

Human begets human. Old news

To call a fetus a baby seconds of fertilization is an exaggeration. To call fetus/baby a child ---much less a being born out-- and has taken its first inspiration of air/oxygen and not had chord severed is another exaggeration on your part.

So, by definition, abortion in humans is literally defined as the induced expulsion of a human life, if abortion is done from conception or further.

Abortion is old news ----since dawn of humankind--- irrespective if induced by nature other than pregnant woman or choice to have others induce the abortion.

If you define life as being able to breath oxygen, then what about humans who are either A. allergic to oxygen, or B. hooked up to machines to survive because they can't breathe properly?

Egg cell and spermazoa are alive. Old news. A new human life begins a conception. Old news.

There is no known origin of life of Earth or elsewhere. Old news

Not necessarily.

Yes, egg and fertilised egg is orgnaism of woman who becomes pregnant woman. Old news

The origin of the organism is actually of both the woman and the man.

The spermazoa is a gift to the woman to do with as she so chooses with her bodily organisms. Old news.

Unless they have a prearranged contract otherwise the above is truth and fact of the mater. All is an false narrative.

For others to stick their nose into a pregnants womans bodily business without her consent is virtual rape. Please keep your nose out unless pregnant woman asks you for assistance.

#89

Debates: 0

Posts: 121

12.03.2023 03:36AM

-->

@ebuc

To call a fetus a child seconds after fertilization is a exaggeration.

Seconds after fertilization when the spermatozoa fertilizes the egg, it becomes a zygote. Not a fetus. The stage of fetus is much later in the pregnancy cycle.

Each stage of a pregnancy is ascribed scientific labels for a reason. They define the stage of development along the 9-month process of said pregnancy.

The only reality/issue of a pregnancy is fetal viability. Anything prior to it is immaterial, and it is precisely why over 89-95% of ALL abortions have been historically before 14 weeks gestation, with the majority of those being before 6 weeks. Less tha1.2% are after fetal viability and they're for dire situations.

Topic's author

#90

Debates: 32

Posts: 2,182