Once Again, Fighting Abortion

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 206
#181
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Then it will be an easy win for you right?
I feel it’s fair to say we are all looking for the bestconnection to establish justice that will serve the greater common good. The order to stop being given as a play on the liberty of wording of abortion is not serving the common good. It serves a master called criminal law, originally not even written in America it goes back to the birth of English Medicine, religion, and English criminal law.
#182
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5

 Isn't that how wecame up with the issue of abortion in the 1st place. Trying to create the mostperfect connection to established justice, ensured domestic tranquility, providefor the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves andour posterity with one word not a word salad?
#183
Sam_Flynn
Sam_Flynn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 121
0
2
4
Sam_Flynn's avatar
Sam_Flynn
0
2
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

@<<<Sam_Flynn>>>
Cannot because you "lack the requisite education and experience to have this debate/discussion."
Then it will be an easy win for you right?
Any way you twist it, you are just trying to get out of a debate you know you can't win. 

Delusions of grandeur and childish taunting.

I just have an issue with putting forth a lot of time, energy and effort into a sound debate on my part just have you cherry-pick words or phrases to build your strawman arguments; for you to go off on nonsensical tangents with absurd analogies and red herrings as I have read/seen you do with others; and your lack of reading comprehension skills whereby you clearly do not understand that which is being said, because it is over your head, and in a vain attempt to do so, you butcher the entirety of what was cogently put forth. As such, it would be a huge disappointment leading to an utter waste of my time that I would never get back again. 

So, you see, that's my dilemma. Do I really want to put in the time, energy and effort just to be predictably disappointed and lose all that time I will never get back again, or do I just ignore you in any thread/discussion concerning abortion because as it stands now...you've already demonstrated that prediction. Not only with responses to me, but many many others that I have read across the site. 
Topic's author
#184
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Sam_Flynn
I just have an issue with putting forth a lot of time, energy and effort into a sound debate on my part just have you cherry-pick words or phrases to build your strawman arguments; for you to go off on nonsensical tangents with absurd analogies and red herrings as I have read/seen you do with others; and your lack of reading comprehension skills whereby you clearly do not understand that which is being said, because it is over your head, and in a vain attempt to do so, you butcher the entirety of what was cogently put forth. 
Ahh, so you're using the argument of it being a waste of your time, in order to get yourself out of a hole that you dug for yourself. 

Let's be clear sir.
You responded to me first. You wished it upon yourself to intervene in the discussion yourself.
So, you were the one who joined into the discussion with me, but now you are calling it a waste of time, only when I offer a proper debate? 

Wow. 

So, you see, that's my dilemma. Do I really want to put in the time, energy and effort just to be predictably disappointed and lose all that time I will never get back again, or do I just ignore you in any thread/discussion concerning abortion because as it stands now
"...put in the time, energy and effort just to be predictably disappointed and lose all that time I will never get back again..." = Properly debating someone on a topic you are very passionate about and putting "so much energy"(typing on a keyboard) to win. 

"...ignore you in any thread/discussion concerning abortion..." = Hiding from facts and truth. 

Not only with responses to me, but many many others that I have read across the site. 
Examples please, and please tag the person who you are referring to as well as me. I want to see what they have to say about it. 


#185
Sam_Flynn
Sam_Flynn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 121
0
2
4
Sam_Flynn's avatar
Sam_Flynn
0
2
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Thank you for proving my point. To the proverbial "T"! 
Topic's author
#186
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Sam_Flynn
Thank you for proving my point. To the proverbial "T"! 
I think that's an Ad Hominem, but you didn't even give me a reasoning to why I am wrong. 
Like:
You say - I'm wrong
I say - How
You say - You just proved my point. 

Like I don't know how to respond to utter ridiculousness. 
#187
Sam_Flynn
Sam_Flynn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 121
0
2
4
Sam_Flynn's avatar
Sam_Flynn
0
2
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Thank you for proving my point. To the proverbial "T"! 
I think that's an Ad Hominem, 
No one cares what you think. The only thing that matters is what can be affirmed. 

You say - I'm wrong
I say - How
You say - You just proved my point. 

Like I don't know how to respond to utter ridiculousness. 
See. Once again you proved my point eloquently pointed out in #183, which you clearly did not read in its complete entirety.
You did not read it in order to grasp the context, syntax, semantics and crystal-clear point being made. 
You just skipped over it, like skipping a rock across the calm flat lake.
And you prove why it is a waste of anyone's time to get into a formal debate with you.
Topic's author
#188
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Sam_Flynn
See. Once again you proved my point
😂ok buddy. 
#189
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
What can be said YouFound_Lxam, some people are just awesome at proving someone has not point to make an thus becomes afraid of wasting their time. lol
#190
Sam_Flynn
Sam_Flynn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 121
0
2
4
Sam_Flynn's avatar
Sam_Flynn
0
2
4
-->
@John_C_87
Not how it works. 
I've already made a point, and Liam replied with garbage that proves my point about wasting my time with him. 
#191
Sam_Flynn
Sam_Flynn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 121
0
2
4
Sam_Flynn's avatar
Sam_Flynn
0
2
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
See. Once again you proved my point
😂ok buddy. 
Denialism and appeals to mockery =/= evidence of an argument.
#192
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
I've already made a point, and Liam replied with garbage that proves my point about wasting my time with him. 
  Did you get a receipt for this time which you claim is yours and not ours? 

Again, the point is abortion is not an American criminal law it originates from British criminal law where it just so happens American men have a Declaration of Independence which separates them from those bonds. Oddly enough women are not part of that same Declaration of Independence and are not bound together as a United State by a legal non-criminal right such as titles for filing of united consitutional grievance, nor are they given a means to create themselves as women equal before American Courts to all other women.

Denialism and appeals to mockery =/= evidence of an argument.

Wrong kind of argument, denial and mockery are fuel for arguments of neglect not arguments of debate there is no presentation of resolution form dismissal.
#193
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Pro lifers: Ban abortion! 

Me: Why? 

Pro lifers: Because abortion kills an innocent human being! 

Me: But pregnancy is painful for a lot of women. 

Pro lifers: Doesn’t matter!  Pain is temporary; deathis permanent. 

Me: So you believe that 9 months of unwanted pregnancy painis less serious than killing an unborn child? 

Pro lifers: Yes. 

Me: So you believe then that 1 day of unwanted pregnancypain is less serious than killing an unborn child? 

Pro lifers: Yes. 

Me: For gender exclusive pain (male only pain vs female onlypain), can we assume that 1 day of male pain has to be weighted the same as 1day of female pain? 

Pro lifers: Sure. 

Me: Do you guys believe prevention is the best cure? After all, it’s better to prevent the abortion and the 9 months ofunwanted pregnancy than either/or if abortion kills a human being. 

Pro lifers: Sure.  People should wait until marriage tohave sex (even though most of us didn’t do that(whatpercentage of the us waits until marraige? - Search (bing.com))). 

Me: So rather than advocate women go through 9 months ofunwanted pregnancy pain in order to prevent the death of an unborn child(because the goal of pro lifers is not to save life; it’s to prevent death),how about you just advocate that the dude get a vasectomy and endure 1 day ofpain to prevent the death of any unborn kid that would have been producedrather than advocate that the woman endure months of pain (whether from birthcontrol pills or pregnancy) in order to achieve the same result; preventing thedeath of an unborn kid? 

Pro lifers: How will people reproduce? 

Me: Easy; before the vasectomy, every dude stores enough prevasectomy sperm samples in a hospital freezer to reproduce at least 4 kids witha woman who consents to the pregnancy beforehand (and this woman is far lesslikely to abort). The benefits of this idea:
  1. Cheaper than taking care of unplanned pregnancies through welfare.
  2. Less net bodily pain imposed on the genders as an average and median wrt to birth control.
  3. Virtually eliminates abortion, as unplanned pregnencies no longer exist.
  4. Virtually eliminates unwanted pregnancy pain
 I think the idea is a silver bullet.  I believe abortion should be banned from consensual sex because it kills an innocent human being (maybe even for rape victims).  Because of this, I will get avasectomy before I have sex.  I believe every sexually active pro life man that doesn't have a vasectomy is a hypocrite, and the same is true for every sexually active pro life woman that doesn't require a vasectomy before they have sex.


#194
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
 I think the idea is a silver bullet.  I believe abortion should be banned from consensual sex because it kills an innocent human being (maybe even for rape victims).  Because of this, I will get avasectomy before I have sex.  I believe every sexually active pro life man that doesn't have a vasectomy is a hypocrite, and the same is true for every sexually active pro life woman that doesn't require a vasectomy before they have sex.

Are you saying nomother ever dies while in labor due to medical complications? I understand abortion to be just a great lie as criminal law creatd before America was even established, when we abort something, we are simply giving an order to officially stop a pending process which has been seen as officially beginning. Though a pregnancy may begin it doesn’t ensure it is beginning correctly started in the natureal setting and the pending posterity of a nation leaving the pending posterity open for trying to apply lethal force against only its mother, no one else, just the mother. The United States Constitutional Right that has been created but not explained in writing for vote means the states are allowing voters to cast a vote on the application of lethal being only legal for the posterity or some one outside the danger zone of lethal force as mentioned the presumed innocent child for one as so it may kill its mother and allow it to be placed in possibly someone else’s custody. This is a issue of the 13th Amendment as the court is creating a slave of the presumed innocent child.

 The silly fact here is the Supreme court has written an opinion only that does not mention any fact of matter that when a person makes a claim openly in the public they are to officially stop a process like pregnancy, which is untrue as a United State of criminal law to all women, as in many cases it is the pregnancy which is ruler over stopping the pregnancy, this by creating a high level of risk to death. This means the child is attempting to perform a type murder and is simply never held for trial in a criminal court for the crime. The United States Constitutional Right is that the processis not an abortion as said to be but is by facts a female specific amputation or even something else instead. One of the werewolves looking for a sivler bullet as you say in the room is that medical professionals do as a practice of science and medicine perform events which create pregnancies. Literally the scientific community can be the cause of pregnancy of the women as her life is placed in danger by the delivery of posterity, as the medical intervention is to makes attempts to provide a state with the healthiest of contribution to a viable posterity. This however is not the only reason for alarm.

#195
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@John_C_87
Until there is a system of government by referendum, a Supreme Court will never knowingly represent the will of the people.

A Supreme Court just like a Government, is essentially  a bunch of folk elevated to positions of arrogance.
#196
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@John_C_87
Are you saying no mother ever dies while in labor due to medical complications?
No and this is a strawman.  In post Roe America, every state has abortion as legal at least to save the mother's life.


#197
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheUnderdog
Though all states with abortion restrictions include exceptions for the mother’s life, attempts to implement them show they can be ineffective in practice. Doctors say they wrestle with vague laws; it’s often hard to determine whether a patient’s case qualifies as an exception. 
In complicated cases, physicians find themselves weighing patients’ medical conditions against concerns about their own legal liability. The penalties for mistakes are severe: In some states, violating abortion laws is considered a felony, and can be punishable by large fines and between a decade to life in prison.
#198
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
No and this is a strawman.  In post Roe America, every state has abortion as legal at least to save the mother's life.
It is a agument over malpractice of law or proffesional negligence and is in no way a strawman agrument. Either women die during labor while delivering a child of American posterity or they do not.  Which one is it?

As for before Roe Vs Wade States of law did not addess or enforce the order to end life made by the choice of wording and no State had moved forward to establish a state of the union with United States Constitutional Right. An act of criminal law cannot be made legal and abortion was a criminal law imported as a Product of the Courts and English law, most likely by people who had been promoting a religous idea.

When saying abortionwas legal when given as a order to save a pregnant women’s life you are alreadyadmitting it is a crime in the first place. To be direct this abortion issue isjust part of the damages created by the assertion a women can be President ofthe United States of America as a more perfect state of the union then othersthat can be made on their behalf. The word choice sound more like the argumenta couple may have between each other over a pregnancy in the privacy andprotection of intimacy then a United States Constitutional Right all women candescribe and hold. Both by themselves or with a second and third person male orfemale.

The strawmanargument is that abortion is an issue of the courts of law and not impeachmentprocess of officers of politics this would include Senators. There is a strongneed that a woman be removed from bonds of English law and be described towitnesses as being held as a United State of law which is comprised of “Right”not criminal law. Upon this supreme Right a United States Constitutional Rightto govern the establishment of the burdens of posterity can be achieved.

#199
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Until there is a system of government by referendum, a Supreme Court will never knowingly represent the will of the people.
The referendum is alegal negligence when addressing abortion, the word describes a violation ofAmerican Constitutional privacy it is a order to stop? The issue in the courtis a point of having a medical treatment that meets guidelines of United StatesConstitutional Right. Have any voters come forward and gone on record againstabortion filed charges of attempted murder against the child in the Texasabortion case? Doctors as witness have already gone on record stating themother’s life is in danger and not the voters, yet only she may be punished anddie due directly to their vote. This is a civil damage passed down to themwithout clarity, with no disrespect to the court meant. I am unclear of allfacts in the argument of the order to officially stop and describe the processas a female specific amputation instead to help protect myself as I feel theFederal Supreme court and states have failed to protect myself, family, andfriends in the past in relationship to this criminal law imported to Americafrom Britian many decades ago. If not to add insult to injury it comes from thesame place as criminal laws which had supported slavery in America when it was unconstitutional.
#200
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@FLRW
Doctors say they wrestle with vague laws; it’s often hard to determine whether a patient’s case qualifies as an exception. 
Well, if abortion is banned except when the mother might die without one, any pregnancy the woman might die without an abortion; so if you were logically consistent with that, it means legal abortion up until the moment of birth (because any pregnancy can have the mother die even if the odds are 1/1 billion).  This only ceases to be true if abortion is banned except when the mother has an (X%) chance of dying without one (X% should be pre determined by any state that wishes to ban abortion except to save the mother's life).

 In some states, violating abortion laws is considered a felony, and can be punishable by large fines and between a decade to life in prison.
Well, when your state and logical pro life ethos calls for abortion to be treated exactly as murder (which means life imprisonment for the doctor that got the abortion as well as the woman that hired the doctor for the abortion), you can expect that.

If you don't like this fact, maybe don't say stuff like, "Abortion is murder" because that's the logical conclusion; treat it like murder if abortion is indeed murder.


#201
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@John_C_87
 Either women die during labor while delivering a child of American posterity or they do not.  Which one is it?
Hard to tell while she is pregnant, but only those that are pregnant can get abortions.


#202
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@John_C_87
See #195.

The same applies.


Even so, your love of all things constitutional and legal is admirable.
#203
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Until there is a system of government by referendum, a Supreme Court will never knowingly represent the will of the people.
The same applies. Supreme Court will never knowingly represent the will of the people.

The people are topresent a United State law written with instruction of truths describing rightbefore the Supreme Court which comprises the will of the people not crimes tobe used against the people.  The size of the united state of the lawdefines the number of people who are represented. The Courts measure thebalance in weight made by the series of rights between the Bill of Rightwritten and the establishment of justice. All that takes place on a politicalscale is the Bill of Rights is never written to be tested for a perfectconnection or less than perfect connection to establish justice.

The grievance filed by women is for a reprentation of United States Constitutional Right as proof that American declaration of Independence and United States Consitution are not the cause of  descrimination created around the rather large united state of gender. The obstical of descrimination is that a United States Constitutional Right must separate men and women in order to address the alienation which only a women faces lethal force when having sex be it married or not. It is not a love of American Constitution that drives the concerns over abortion and legilsation of criminal law. The reason for immiediate establishment of United States Constitutional right of limiting posterity is based on women who are placed in the Armed Service of all Nations just like America.
#204
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Hard to tell while she is pregnant, but only those that are pregnant can get abortions.
Due to the freedom of speech and freedom of press holding no connection to the 1st Amendment can be used to describe any women or man who is not a medical doctor can perform an abortion. Also, sorry to be the one to break the news but a woman can performan abortion even when pregnant, to abort is not limited by English grammar to only mean one thing a termination of a pregnancy at the cost of life. The meaning to abort is to officially stop an officially started process of somekind, it is when it is connected to a medical process such as delivery of posterity it becomes a harmful self-incrimination. The freedom of speech and press describes that English grammar cannot hold one word with multiple meanings to be magically understood in criminal law.
#205
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@John_C_87
Due to the freedom of speech and freedom of press holding no connection to the 1st Amendment can be used to describe any women or man who is not a medical doctor can perform an abortion. 
The first amendment protects the right to free speech, not freedom of action.

You can under the first amendment, advocate for legalizing drunk driving.  That doesn't give you the freedom to drive drunk.

It is legal to protest for legalized abortion in Texas and every state where it is banned.  It is illegal to get an abortion in these states.

Also, sorry to be the one to break the news but a woman can perform an abortion even when pregnant, to abort is not limited by English grammar to only mean one thing a termination of a pregnancy at the cost of life. The meaning to abort is to officially stop an officially started process of somekind, it is when it is connected to a medical process such as delivery of posterity it becomes a harmful self-incrimination. The freedom of speech and press describes that English grammar cannot hold one word with multiple meanings to be magically understood in criminal law.
You can legally call abortion whatever you want; murder; women's healthcare.  But should you be allowed to perform an abortion or receive one?  That's the disputation.
#206
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
The first amendment protects the right to free speech, not freedom of action.

You can under the first amendment, advocate for legalizing drunk driving.  That doesn't give you the freedom to drive drunk.

It is legal to protest for legalized abortion in Texas and every state where it is banned.  It is illegal to get an abortion in these states.

None of this is true but for the sake of argument it is allowed under the Preamble of United States Constitution not the 1st Amendment though the 1st amendments state of the union is broken by legal council.  Free speech is not a American Constitutional Right it is an international law which is imported into theAmerica justice system, like abortion criminal law, and slavery laws had been. I guess "Buy American Made"  only counts for poor working-class people who work to pay for daily neccesities. The only debate over United States of law is in the term" A legal protest" for it is a declaration of wrong, peaceful assemblies are in no way a protest, and an officer of civil service can be impeached for a violation of this kind. A protest is not a form of peaceful assembly, there are several more perfect words to be used in its place. 

Abortion is a potential source of income to the litigation profession as it is a order to stop. The process of medical treatment named abortion was a game of political musical chairs.

You can legally call abortion whatever you want; murder; women's healthcare.  But should you be allowed to perform an abortion or receive one?  That's the disputation.

Who can order a offical stop is the debate question.
Who can order the Medical Amputation is the whole truth, then why can it be ordered is the question?
The state of the Union is made between women in the Armed Services and women who are Civilians as one American United State.

The debate is to find the most perfect, the largest title of filed grievance between all women connecting them to established Justice. It is important to point out that the argument you are making does not best serve all women such as those who are serving in American Armed Services. Female-specific amputation is a relief of command to the applications on lethal force. Due to obligations of immigration that coincide with pregnancy and risks of pregnancy as a means of attempting to use lethal force against an enlisted, commissioned officer, uncommissioned female officer, and women. There are clearly things that have changed between 1973and 2024 over the United States Constitutional obligations of Right for the burden of posterity a woman holds as a United States of America.