The key to victory in 2024 for the democrats lies in abortion

Author: Vegasgiants
Abortion

Posts

Total: 357
Topic's author
#271
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok now we have something to work with

Childbirth always carries the risk of death for the mother.  She is absolutely justified in saying she does not want to risk her life

We kill the innocent every day in America on purpose.

Then next of kin can authorize the death of a brain dead patient.  Most common method is starvation by removing the feeding tube.  A fetus has the same eeg reading as a brain dead patient and it is risking the life of the mother.  Killing it is perfectly justifiable
#272
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
-->
@sadolite
"It simply means progress is set in motion that may not provide ample opportunity or protection under law."       Isn't that what I just said. 
Sadolite said: I see, you are quoting the constitution and the rule of law. That shit don't exists anymore. I stand by my original comment.
The argument before the people and the Court of law is over a more perfect state of the union to established justice. What is basically said by a democratic majority is it can be to hard or impossible to make a connection between female reproduction and wording in United States Constitution. I sum up the impossibility with probability first by calling the process not pregnancy but immigration. What makes this immigration unique to law as a united state between all women is, “it takes place at state and Federal level at the same moment,” & “it as a direct influence on only the women’s life,” Meaning in combat this immigration can be use dagainst a nation but will only possibly kill her specifically as a weapon.  The women are not a mother, but an ambassador assigned by law of nature until such a time as she is mother after birth as happend. It is conceded that this is not whole truth as there is at some point a condition in that a state of law can describe independent of the ambassador by law.

Making the conclusion that the United States Constitution is not protected, preserved, and defended by everyone is not a sign it has been destroyed, does not exist, or does not have influence of legislation of law and legislators of law. It reflects only in a process of ability as demonstrated by a person to perform the task or claim the task as performed by them. As truth,whole truth, and nothing but truth. To borrow a phrase from band “Pink Floyd, From: Dark side of the Moon, Song name: Us and them. Haven't you heard justice is a battle of words.”.
#273
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@Vegasgiants
All you have are insults.....because you got destroyed in debate.  Lol
As I said before ...

My posts are coherent and on topic; yours are not. Some of your responses seem to be in response to imaginary stimuli.

Review what I have asked you for and produce.....

a dozen valid sources supporting you opinion that there is no scientific heart at 6 weeks

a list of insults that you have perceived to exist

And YOUR position was destroyed in this forum by me and others, by your lack of evidence and your demeanor.


#274
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
Because biological life starts at conception
Biologically as a whole truth life starts in two places and as a political compromise it is instructed to have begun at conception. The reason is that the starting time is not the same duration with women and men and varies as fact. Conception as fact only the place life had been extended, the shivery here is to protect women from nothing but truth, which describes women as killing a baby every time ovulation takes place out of fear of losing her own life during the process of immigration of life into society. Almost all competent woman is aware a life will end when she does not become pregnant every time ovulation happens to her. There is an indication of political compromise that has taken place between religions in this stance of when life in fact begins, and when it life does not begin. This political compromise is to be used in replacement of a united state of truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth. Using just some limited truth and suppression of medical and scientific facts.

"Thank you for your time."
Topic's author
#275
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@prefix
You are dismissed until you agree to refrain from insults 
#276
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@Vegasgiants
"Review what I have asked you for and produce.....

a dozen valid sources supporting you opinion that there is no scientific heart at 6 weeks

a list of insults that you have perceived to exist"

Are the "insults" real or are they yet more manifestations of your response to imaginary stimuli?

Now produce the list of "insults" that you imagine to have existed.

Otherwise form a cogent response the is somehow related to reality.



Topic's author
#277
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@prefix
Ignored
#278
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Vegasgiants
No fetus has ever survived outside the womb at 20 weeks.  
Actually, we have the science to grow a fetus from fertilized egg to person in a lab.


#279
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@Vegasgiants
Did you know that the word "ignore" has a Latin root meaning  "one does not know"

It's from  where the English language gets the term "ignorance"

So perhaps your last comment finally forms a coherent admission as to your situation.

Perhaps you may wish to stop embarrassing yourself.
Topic's author
#280
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Not a human


Ever 
#281
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Vegasgiants
Ok now we have something to work with

Childbirth always carries the risk of death for the mother.  She is absolutely justified in saying she does not want to risk her life

We kill the innocent every day in America on purpose.

Then next of kin can authorize the death of a brain dead patient.  Most common method is starvation by removing the feeding tube.  A fetus has the same eeg reading as a brain dead patient and it is risking the life of the mother.  Killing it is perfectly justifiable
Childbirth does always carry the risk of death for the mother. That is correct.
But in the case that a mother's life is put in jeopardy, there are other ways, and safer ways to save the mothers live, that don't involve aborting the baby.

She is absolutely justified in saying she does not want to risk her life
I agree.
You know what the solution to that is?
Don't get pregnant.
Simple.

Because you even said, pregnancy carries the risk of death, so if you don't want to "risk your life" than don't get pregnant. 
Our decisions have consequences. People need to learn that. 

Then next of kin can authorize the death of a brain dead patient.
Ok, but the what's the difference between a brain-dead patient, and a fetus?
The fetus will continue to grow, and the EEG reading will become more alive and focused.
That's biology. That is literally how the human race exists today. You are saying since the fetus at a certain point in pregnancy has a low EEG rating, that means it is justifiable to kill it? 

If you put all the ingredients to a cake, and put it in the oven, and then 2 minutes later, your friend takes it out and throws it on the ground, you would be mad, because that was your cake. He might argue that it wasn't a cake yet, but you know it was going to be a cake, if you let it sit in the oven for longer. 

The braindead patient doesn't have the same biological developmental process as the fetus; therefore, it is justified to end the suffering of that patient if the next of kin chooses to. And even then, it is a sad thing that happens in life. 
Topic's author
#282
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Great. So no mothers are dying in childbirth?  Oh wait....yes they are.  And everyone of them goes thru pain and hardship.and most have to put their career on hold.  Pregnancy and childbirth are easy....but only for the guy in the waiting room


Don't want to get in a car accident?  Don't get in a car.  I live in the real world with real solutions


So we have something inside the mother that could kill her and it is essentially brain dead at that time. 


Perfectly fine with me if she flushes it.  Her ACTUAL life comes first
#283
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
I agree.
You know what the solution to that is?
Don't get pregnant.
Simple
We are not asking a woman not to get pregnant we are asking that she perform a task of immigration which places only her life at risk. We have knowledge of her pregnancy through illegal invasion of privacy we do not know the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Our decisions have consequences. People need to learn that. 

 I agree, that is why when a female specific amputation is challenged by some one other than the legal ambassador of the immigrant. The person who makes that legal challenge can be punished by the full extent of the law when the practice of law and medical practice both fail. Otherwise, there is no equal protection under the law for both sides. As a bonus the illegal confession used by calling an immigration termination abortion as a name of medical treatment no longer performs legal malpractice of law as united state. With all women.

Ok, but the what's the difference between a brain-dead patient, and a fetus?
According to state law plus Federal law of records the brain-dead patient was a citizen of some country and person before a medical patient then person, and immigrant. We are looking for perfection in established justice not opinion and business as legal and medical opportunities. The equal protection under then law means a associate of a mother acting as abassador's gardian can file the same murder charges as a state filed as grievance agianst her in event of her death.
#284
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Vegasgiants
Great. So no mothers are dying in childbirth?
I never said that. 
I said that there are safer ways other than abortion to save a mother's life through childbirth. 

And everyone of them goes thru pain and hardship.and most have to put their career on hold.
Great point:
Career.

So, you are saying that one of the reasons why a mother is justified in killing the human life that she helped to create, is because she might want a career?
In other words, she is sacrificing that life for a career.
And in more simple words, she is involving herself in child sacrifice? 

 Pregnancy and childbirth are easy....but only for the guy in the waiting room
I don't think you understand. 
Giving birth and being able to bear children is literally a superpower. It is literally a biological superpower that only women have. 
It's not easy, but the result is worth the suffering for the mother. 

Don't want to get in a car accident?  Don't get in a car.  I live in the real world with real solutions
Oh, I love the car example. 

So, think about this:
When you get into your car and start driving it around, you are consenting to the fact that you might get into a crash and die or get extremely hurt. Now if you are a good driver, that most likely won't happen, but it still could. 

Same with having sex.

When you have sex, you are consenting to the fact that you might get pregnant. Now if you are smart and use protection, that most likely won't happen, but it still could. 

So we have something inside the mother that could kill her and it is essentially brain dead at that time. 
But that child inside the mother will continue to grow and will most likely not kill her. 
Biology is pretty sturdy when it comes to survival rates. 
Pregnancy is a biological process. The outcome of the process is life, and no death. That is the intended process.
Now can that process go bad? Yes. Sometimes it can. But does that mean that the whole process should be looked down upon? No. 

Take medicine for an example. Medicine is intended to help you get better. That is the intended process of medicine. 
Now can that process go bad? Yes. Sometimes it can. But does that mean that we should just stop giving out all medicine entirely? No. 
Topic's author
#285
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
That is factually incorrect.  Abortion is always safer than pregnancy.

Perfectly acceptable reason to abort is just convenience.   It's a brain dead organism that also might kill you.  In fact no reason at all is required by law in states that allow abortion

If driving is consent to a accident then it's good that you can have medical procedures for that.  Same for sex.  We can correct mistakes with medicine.

But it might kill her.  You don't get to decide how much of her life she should risk.  It's easy to say she should risk her life.....from the safety of the waiting room
#286
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,166
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@John_C_87
Or in my words the rule of law doesn't exist anymore. The premise exists, yes. Is it enforced no.
#287
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Vegasgiants
That is factually incorrect.  Abortion is always safer than pregnancy.
Nope. That is factually incorrect. 

Perfectly acceptable reason to abort is just convenience.   It's a brain dead organism that also might kill you.
So, you are saying, that if a mother wants to kill a human life just because she feels like it, that is reasonable? 
It is not a brain-dead organism, that might also kill you. 
It is a developing human being that has all of its defining human features already predetermined. 

I mean technically you are dying right now as you get older. You are decaying. And you might also kill me, who knows.
So, does that mean if I feel like it, I have the right to kill you if I wanted to? 

If driving is consent to a accident then it's good that you can have medical procedures for that.  Same for sex.  We can correct mistakes with medicine.
Yes, but it always leaves a scar. 

But it might kill her.  You don't get to decide how much of her life she should risk.
Wait, so you are saying that pregnancy is a risk to her life, therefore she should abort the baby. 
But you're also saying that abortion is a risk to her life, therefore she should be responsible for the risk she chooses to take? 

Am I hearing that right? 


Topic's author
#288
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Cite your evidence that abortion is more dangerous than childbirth.   That is ridiculous 

So, you are saying, that if a mother wants to kill a human life just because she feels like it, that is reasonable?   Yes because 
It is  a brain-dead organism, that might also kill you. 

Wait, so you are saying that pregnancy is a risk to her life, therefore she should abort the baby. 
But you're also saying that abortion is a risk to her life, therefore she should be responsible for the risk she chooses to take? 

Am I hearing that right? 


Yes you heard that right.  The woman should have the right to choose the far safer procedure in order to protect her life


That is abortion 

#289
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
-->
@Vegasgiants
That is factually incorrect.  Abortion is always safer than pregnancy.
The factmight better be said death is a random risk of birth that is by practicesometimes avoidable more often than not. The women is the creator of the risk it is United States Consitutional right  that ensure the furture gedneraions and those who obstruct Consitutional right share that risk of death by law equal with her. The admission made by the word abortion is what holds the judical prejudice to one side of the random chances of death.

YouFound_Lxam said: So, you are saying, that if a mother wants to kill a human life just because she feels like it, that is reasonable? 
Constitutionalright describes a medical treatment to stop a dangerous and certain exposure todeath created by immigration process all women share as united state of law.Not just the one, or few fortunate women who might be displaying the moreobvious signs of danger. All women are being guided to establish a more perfectunion with American Constitutional preamble as it is obvious, they and thosewho may be charging fee and or donating services to do so cannot establish aUnited States Constitutional Right. Over 100 years and untold amounts ofassorted damage to America justifies Constitutional intervention.
#290
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Vegasgiants
Cite your evidence that abortion is more dangerous than childbirth.   That is ridiculous 

 Yes because 
It is  a brain-dead organism, that might also kill you. 
Here is the problem with the brain-dead part of your argument. 

With braindead people, how do we pull the plug on them? We let natural causes take its place, and the person dies. 
That wouldn't work the same if you let natural causes take its place with a fetus. 

Also, the "it could kill you" argument doesn't work, because you could technically kill me too. 
Topic's author
#291
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I prefer scientific evidence 


Results: The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.

Actually no.  The most common way to kill a brain death patient is to remove the feeding tube so they starve to death.  If we did that to anyone else it would be murder

I am no threat to you but if I was trying to kill you you could use lethal force to stop me
#292
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
With braindead people, how do we pull the plug on them? We let natural causes take its place, and the person dies. 

Just want to point out as both fact and truth we are letting illness or damage run its course not nature when it comes to people who are described as medically brain dead. Medically we describe very young children held by nature in the womb, before birth, as incapable of thought or capable of thought. The argument is not addressing United States Constitutional right which is the obstacle set before abortions connection to all women in America.  ( 1 ) We are first to I.D. the how there is no connection to all women as united state. ( 2 )  Then we are to describe with some detail the why " all " such issue even exists. ( 2 )Then we are to address correcting the issue of union between law and women as Constitutional Right.
#293
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 point is the democracy missing the focus point of wrongby United States Constitution. The answer is yes. The why is we are askingwomen and men to admit to a description of murder by writing it as a medical treatmentand as legislated law. Deception is the crime which takes place before any so-calledclaim made by admission as murder. The only way this model is going to changeis we hold the voters legally accountable for their part in this crime. It isthen the voter may become more willing to TESTIFY telling the truth.

 Equality of justice and the more perfect connection toestablished justice never begins with. When you drop the possibility that weare tell a lie to intentionally frame women and men for a crime. Using only theadmission we allow you to make we will think about allowing you liberty andjustice.

The damage caused to Americas democracy was created bythe democracy, for the democracy, not the people.
#294
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Vegasgiants
Actually no.  The most common way to kill a brain death patient is to remove the feeding tube so they starve to death.  
Yea. Their body stops consuming food and they die of natural causes. 

Fetus's left to their natural processes will be born. 
Topic's author
#295
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
That's murder for anyone else.   Stop feeding any person and they die.  No coroner would ever say they died of natural causes
#296
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Vegasgiants
That's murder for anyone else.   Stop feeding any person and they die.  No coroner would ever say they died of natural causes
Ok. So not feeding a brain-dead person is murder.
That would mean ripping apart a braindead baby, would also be murder. 
#297
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
 Ok. So not feeding a brain-dead person is murder.
That would mean ripping apart a braindead baby, would also be murder. 
( 1 )To be medically declared dead a person must be made a citizen of the state of law in which the medical doctor has been licensed. ( 2)  Murder is the unlawful end of life the unratified constitutional right as united state named female-specific amputation is saying a woman is lawfully pushing forward an immigration that is threat that grows with extended time only endangering her life. ( 3 ) Someone who is in favor of abortion in legislation, be it Pro-life,be it pro-choice must prove all women are guilty of murder. Before describing even one woman must confess as united state of law to murder using the name of a so-called medical treatment like pregnancy abortion.

Outside of legislation of law a person being man or women can make an accusation of abortion against a woman. Inside the written legislation of all states of law within a Constitutional union legislature cannot legally perform the task. The reason is it requires perjury to be entered into legislation of law. Inplain language legislators must lie on an official document.  

Topic's author
#298
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
And yet in neither case is it murder.  Both are legal
#299
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
Murder is when a person, or people, man, and womenunlawfully kill using the act of lethal force. The lethal force of the childthough is only directed at the women, yet the cause of death may includeenvironment, events of the mother’s past, events of the contributor of theintervention of death caused by law of nature, both known and unknown to themother or medical science. Type the words Female-specific amputation it isharder to type it is visibly longer and more words. Typing abortion takes 3x aslittle time and deals out the minimal principles of birth and pregnancy usingonly one word abort. A reasonable person can type both abortion and female specificamputation so what is really preventing democracy from even looking at or justwriting female specific amputation?

Though abortion is a juicing part of this debate let’s investigate the issue of democrat and its connection to established justice through American democracy. What does democracy mean to be independent from there public as is suggested by the addition of a two-vote process. The first definition according to Meriam-Webster for a democracy is: government by the people. Especially: rule of the majority.  So, in whole truth we can described democracy as Government by the people held in a majority. How people are to be held in a majority is the focus of all interpretations of voter' s American "United State" Constitutional Right. Question: Does the words united states describe groups of majority?  Problem one: A constitutional grievance can be described as a political run off where two parties working together to establish an unfair advantage by manipulating the idea of majorities by party run off, using primary elections and cost can take place. Thus, obstructing the very nature of a natural majority by reducing the numberof voters to be voted upon during a striaght forward election.
#300
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Vegasgiants
And yet in neither case is it murder.  Both are legal
Ok you are not understanding.

When the next of Kin chooses to pull the plug on a brain-dead patient, this is not murder, because:
1. The patient is brain dead.
2. If you left the patient to its natural processes, then that patient would die, because of the lack of the ability to get up and consume and digest food. 

The reason why aborting a fetus is murder, is because:
 1. The fetus is not brain dead the fetus simply hasn't developed a certain part of its brain. 
2. If you left the fetus to its natural processes, then the fetus wouldn't die, because it would continue to grow into a fully developed baby.