-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Well miscarriage isn't abortion.
🤦♂️
Yea it is. It’s a “natural” abortion. The females bodily defensive mechanism to keep her safe from potential death.
Abortion is morally wrong, no exceptions.
Posts
Total:
181
Pro-choice up to 22 weeks gestation.
So, you believe that it is ok to kill before this timeframe.
Ok well let's look at the facts:
"Twenty-two weeks into your pregnancy, or 20 weeks after conception, your baby's eyebrows and hair are visible. Brown fat also is forming, the site of heat production.
For boys, the testes have begun to descend.
By now your baby might be 7 1/2 inches (190 millimeters) long from crown to rump and weigh about 1 pound (460 grams)."
For boys, the testes have begun to descend.
By now your baby might be 7 1/2 inches (190 millimeters) long from crown to rump and weigh about 1 pound (460 grams)."
Thats 22 weeks. And by then the baby has a heart, different blood type, bone structure, urine, brain function, hair, movement, apparent sex organs have been created, thick strong healthy skin, already past 3 pounds, it has ears, its eyes have opened, and it is halfway to birth.
Now you really want to see babies who have all of that aborted, just because people feel like it, no.
You really want to see what a 22-week-old, aborted baby looks like, here:
Or how about the process in which they abort babies.
"Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): between 13 to 24 weeks after LMP
This surgical abortion is done during the second trimester of pregnancy. At this point in pregnancy, the fetus is too large to be broken up by suction alone and will not pass through the suction tubing. In this procedure, the cervix must be opened wider than in a first trimester abortion. This is done by inserting numerous thin rods made of seaweed a day or two before the abortion. Once the cervix is stretched open the doctor pulls out the fetal parts with forceps. The fetus’ skull is crushed to ease removal. A sharp tool (called a curette) is also used to scrape out the contents of the uterus, removing any remaining tissue."
THAT is what they do to them. So, if you really think that THAT is ok, then your morals are not in line pal.
And I DONT CARE IF YOU THINK THE TERM BABIES IS TOO EMOTIONAL.
Without emotions, then humanity wouldn't exist. WE WOULD ALL JUST BE KILLING EACH OTHER.
IT IS AND HAS BEEN CALLED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, A BABY.
Without emotions, then humanity wouldn't exist. WE WOULD ALL JUST BE KILLING EACH OTHER.
IT IS AND HAS BEEN CALLED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, A BABY.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Truth be told, you seriously lack the requisite knowledge of this subject to even be having this discussion. You prove exactly why emotion has no place here where scientific (eg, psychology, biology, physiology) and legal facts and logic are concerned.
Moreover, you clearly do not understand let alone appreciate the special yet delicate nature of “fetal viability.”
Eyebrows, hair, testicles or ovaries forming, and/or an immature but albeit functioning underdeveloped organ does NOT = fetal viability.
Every time you say “baby” or “a living human” you are confusing cellular life with personhood. They are not one in the same.
And I don’t care what the abortion process is. It’s irrelevant to the autonomous god given right of liberty and choice that a girl or woman must possess and retain at all costs.
As I said in post #3 (that you continue to conveniently ignore), the only reason(s) for late term abortions (less than 1.3% of ALL abortion) are for extenuating circumstances and not for convenience.
Morality doesn’t confer fetal viability either. Morality is a human concept that is entirely subjective. Your morality doesn’t begin where you claim another’s ends.
And the 1,000 year appeal to ad populum argument is a patently asinine use of a logical fallacy in this debate/discussion.
Like I said, your unbridled ignorant emotions on this subject clouds any ability to be logical about it in order to see the fact based truth of abortion where human procreation and sustainability of human society let alone the planet due to overpopulation is concerned.
Now go sit down, have a Coke and smile. Think, ponder and reflect on all that I’ve posted to date before contemplating your next reply.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, are you pro-life or just selectively pro-life?
Is your moral concern for living matter absolute?
Or are you happy to make exceptions, like most pro-lifers do?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Some abortions are necessary to preserve the life of the mother.
If you believe it's a baby from the moment of conception, then your stance is even against aborting ectopic pregnancies.
Pro life is just a thesis that murder, or what would be regarded as the unjust killing of innocent entities ought to be illegal. Seeing the people engage in semantic debating hurts my head.
I generally know how it feels to talk to people who are not following for some reason, so I end up tapping out when they dodge questions. So, YouFound_Lxam, if they dodge the question, just repeat it a few times then...whatever.
-->
@Barney
If you believe it's a baby from the moment of conception, then your stance is even against aborting ectopic pregnancies.
- I have no idea why you would say that. There is no necessary entailment or reason that a view that affirms proposition x: "an unborn child is a baby from the moment of conception," must be against ectopic pregnancies. If you believe this is logically impossible, please derive the contradiction.
-->
@Novice_II
From the title of this thread: “no exceptions.“
I’ve merely listed the most common time an exception is needed to not kill the mother.
-->
@Barney
You need to ask him what he means by the words he is using.
Within the medical, it can disputed whether an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion, similar to within a given set of legal provisions. Some people may even define miscarriages as some subset of abortion, so if an analytic claim is being made, there needs be clarity the exact set of concepts being referring to.
Now otherwise, are you agreeing that there is no necessary entailment or reason that any view that affirms proposition x: "an unborn child is a baby from the moment of conception," must be against ectopic pregnancies?
And I don’t care what the abortion process is. It’s irrelevant to the autonomous god given right of liberty and choice that a girl or woman must possess and retain at all costs.
It's not a god given right to dismember babies.
As I said in post #3 (that you continue to conveniently ignore), the only reason(s) for late term abortions (less than 1.3% of ALL abortion) are for extenuating circumstances and not for convenience.
I actually did in post #23, by stating," But how many cases of that happening happen a year? Maybe a couple. But we should not make abortion legal, just because there are two cases where it has to be done. Because a lot of people will just use that as an excuse to get rid of the child.
But that means that an abortion should only happen if the mother has already had an examination before getting pregnant, finds out that if she gives birth, then she will 100% die, and there is no alternative at all.
And if you take all of those facts to law, then that means that there would only be about 1 maybe two abortions per year."
A lump of coal isn’t [a] Diamond.An acorn is not an oak tree.A block of wood isn’t charcoal (burnt wood).So on and so forth.
Same could be said about sperm, or the female's egg, but when natural processes occur, then all of these transformations can happen.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
And as far as bad sexual decisions, there are very cheap and easy ways to use protection while having sex.Condoms are a big example of this.
Christians/Pro-lifers oppose birth control all the fucking time.
God kills a guy for not cumming in his brother's wife. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+38%3A8-10&version=ESV
The Hobby Lobby case was about whether 'Christian values' of the company owner should affect healthcare policies on birth control for their employees.
-->
@Novice_II
Seeing the people engage in semantic debating hurts my head.I generally know how it feels to talk to people who are not following for some reason, so I end up tapping out when they dodge questions.
No, people do not dodge your questions. They answer them in ways that you just do not like and ignore their answer(s) claiming they dodged your question. I know this for a fact because you have done that to me.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
And I don’t care what the abortion process is. It’s irrelevant to the autonomous god given right of liberty and choice that a girl or woman must possess and retain at all costs.It's not a god given right to dismember babies.
Again, what's with you and your obvious lack of reading comprehensions skills!?!
It is an affirmed FACT that 89-94% of ALL abortions are done BEFORE 14 weeks gestation, the MAJORITY of those being done BEFORE 6 weeks gestation. NO FUCKING "BABIES" INVOLVED!!!
Less than 1.3% of ALL abortions are done AFTER 22-24 weeks gestation for very specific legit reasons (stillborn, severely diseased fetus, danger to the life of the girl/woman) and NOT on a mere whim.
So yeah, it is very much a god given right to have autonomy over their own body and their very life/existence.
As I said in post #3 (that you continue to conveniently ignore), the only reason(s) for late term abortions (less than 1.3% of ALL abortion) are for extenuating circumstances and not for convenience.I actually did in post #23, by stating," But how many cases of that happening happen a year? Maybe a couple. But we should not make abortion legal, just because there are two cases where it has to be done. Because a lot of people will just use that as an excuse to get rid of the child.
Redundantly: Less than 1.3% of ALL abortions are done AFTER 22-24 weeks gestation for very specific legit reasons (stillborn, severely diseased fetus, danger to the life of the girl/woman) and NOT on a mere whim.
But that means that an abortion should only happen if the mother has already had an examination before getting pregnant, finds out that if she gives birth, then she will 100% die, and there is no alternative at all.
That's not how it works, genius! FFS! You have absolutely NO requisite knowledge of this subject to even be engaged in it. In other words, you are an uneducated fool arguing as though you think/believe what you're arguing is truth whereas everyone else is false. That makes you the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
A lump of coal isn’t [a] Diamond.An acorn is not an oak tree.A block of wood isn’t charcoal (burnt wood).So on and so forth.Same could be said about sperm, or the female's egg, but when natural processes occur, then all of these transformations can happen.
No shit sherlock. But you are still missing the obvious salient fact of reality in each of those statements of FACT:
POTENTIALITY =/= ACTUALITY!!!
Never has. Never will!!!
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
-->@YouFound_LxamAnd as far as bad sexual decisions, there are very cheap and easy ways to use protection while having sex.Condoms are a big example of this.
No protection from sexual activities is 100% effective. Hence another reason why abortion should remain a girl/woman's autonomous right to privacy to choose what happens to and/or inside her body.
NO FUCKING "BABIES" INVOLVED!!!
Yes F***ing babies involved.
Ok let's go back to when you said you think that 22 weeks should be the cutoff point for abortion.
What happens at 22 weeks that makes you believe that that should be the cutoff point?
Easy question just answers that, and we can move on from there.
-->
@TWS1405
I'm not going to go through all of your arguments, and point them out, because then I would straw away from the topic at hand.
Just answer this question so we can move on from their.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
NO FUCKING "BABIES" INVOLVED!!!Yes F***ing babies involved.
Quoting out of Context FALLACY!
This is what was stated:
It is an affirmed FACT that 89-94% of ALL abortions are done BEFORE 14 weeks gestation, the MAJORITY of those being done BEFORE 6 weeks gestation. NO FUCKING "BABIES" INVOLVED!!!
No, NO FUCKING "BABIES" INVOLVED!!!
Ok let's go back to when you said you think that 22 weeks should be the cutoff point for abortion.What happens at 22 weeks that makes you believe that that should be the cutoff point?Easy question just answers that, and we can move on from there.
I already have. Once again you demonstrate your fucking lack of obvious reading compression skills.
I'm not going to go through all of your arguments, and point them out, because then I would straw away from the topic at hand.Just answer this question so we can move on from their.
Well folks, and there you have it. This clown was never serious about wanting to know what others think on the subject he put forth with unsubstantiated subjective claims.
Do NOT use logical fallacies you do not understand and incorrectly put forth.
I have done more than answer your questions. The answers have already been given before you even asked the question. Which PROVES you did not read anything I wrote OR once again, just did not comprehend that which what was written.
Quite while you are behind. That is, unless you enjoy making an absolute ignorant ass of yourself on the subject at hand!!
-->
@TWS1405
Ok I'm going to politely ask one more time this question. If you decide to dodge it, then that's on you.
You said that 22 weeks should be the cutoff point in your opinion.
The question is:
What defining thing, happens at 22 weeks of pregnancy for it to be that cutoff point.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok thank you.
So, you stated, and I quote," Less than 1.3% of ALL abortions any given year are after 22-24 weeks gestation, the point of sustainable fetal viability. Those are for cause and not on a whim."
So, your reason, for that cutoff point is fetal viability.
So, taking that into consideration, let me ask you this:
If a human adult was in an accident, and they weren't able to survive without multiple machines helping them survive 24/7, and it has been confirmed that the person will recover, and get off of those machines in a matter of months, then do you think it would be morally ok to kill that person?
Again, let me rephrase.
You are "saying", A human is in the womb, and they aren't able to survive without the help of the mother, and you know that the baby will be able to in a matter of months, then it is morally ok to kill that human.
I am saying, if a human adult was in an accident, and they weren't able to survive without multiple machines helping them survive 24/7, and it has been confirmed that the person will recover, and get off of those machines in a matter of months, then do you think it would be morally ok to kill that person?
-->
@TWS1405
Well, as I see you have removed me from your friends list, I can only assume that you didn't like those facts.
I would assume with all of the knowledge that you have on this topic, then you would be able to at least make some counter argument.
But no. You are so immature, that you are going to go into a fit about it, and remove me from your friends list?
Wow.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You’re an idiot.
Fetal viability has absolutely nothing to do with a birthed individual at any stage of their Maturation. It’s a patently false equivalency fallacy to compared a pregnancy at the point of fetal viability and that of a born person.
Dare I repeat myself once again, you are I’ll-equipped to even be engaged in this debate/discussion.
You lack logic and are full of bullshit emotive ignorance.
Your ignorance on this subject ans the Bible is why o removed you, not because of your emotive fictional 💩!
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Your delusions of grandeur proceed your penchant for the Dunning Kruger effect.
Also, your psychological projection is amusing.
Fetal viability has absolutely nothing to do with a birthed individual at any stage of their Maturation. It’s a patently false equivalency fallacy to compared a pregnancy at the point of fetal viability and that of a born person.
Ok well I ask you this, what is your definition of born person?
Fetal viability has absolutely nothing to do with a birthed individual at any stage of their Maturation
The definition does if you look at it logically.
Dare I repeat myself once again, you are I’ll-equipped to even be engaged in this debate/discussion.You lack logic and are full of bullshit emotive ignorance.Your ignorance on this subject ans the Bible is why o removed you, not because of your emotive fictional 💩
And name calling is not an argument and will not get you anywhere.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Fetal viability has absolutely nothing to do with a birthed individual at any stage of their Maturation. It’s a patently false equivalency fallacy to compare a pregnancy at the point of fetal viability and that of a born person.Ok well I ask you this, what is your definition of born person?
Does stupid come naturally, or do you have to work at it...just a little bit?
Did you even read what you just wrote? Do you not know/understand/comprehend what the term born means?
FFS kid. Wake up!!!
Fetal viability has absolutely nothing to do with a birthed individual at any stage of their MaturationThe definition does if you look at it logically.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
A birthed person is no longer a fetus you dumbass!!!!!!
Dare I repeat myself once again, you are I’ll-equipped to even be engaged in this debate/discussion.You lack logic and are full of bullshit emotive ignorance.Your ignorance on this subject ans the Bible is why o removed you, not because of your emotive fictional 💩And name calling is not an argument and will not get you anywhere.
Hypocrite. You're one to talk about "name calling."
PS. Adjectives =/= nouns. Hence, it's not "name calling."
A birthed person is no longer a fetus you dumbass!!!!!!
If you're going by the definition of birthed, then you will agree with this definition:
Birth: "give birth to (a baby or other young)."
Now you used the past tense of birth, birthed.
Now let's just say that was a mistake, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
The technical meaning of birth, is," birth, also called childbirth or parturition, process of bringing forth a child from the uterus, or womb."
Ok so now let me ask you a third question.
Does the vigina of a woman, magically make the baby a non-fetus?
Hypocrite. You're one to talk about "name calling."
Yes, I am terribly sorry, go ahead keep name calling, it is really supporting your argument.