->most big hospitals dont approve much of the doctors who refuse to do the work.
There is other work for anti abortion doctors to do.
I noticed how the Overton window shifted on abortion. It's no longer, "Should a pro-choice doctor be allowed to perform an abortion on a consenting woman?", it's, "Should a pro-life doctor be allowed to refuse to perform an abortion on a consenting woman?" This question implies a pro-choice doctor is allowed to do it, which if this were the national goalpost, then abortion would be legal in all 50 states if a pro-choice woman is getting an abortion by a pro-choice doctor, not that abortion isn't victimless due to the unborn child dying as a result. Although, unlike the former goalposts, religious reasons can be used as a cop-out since it only affects the pro-life doctor.
->USA has similar suicide rate as it did 1950, so what are you saying?
This I'm not sure about.
->Not always. Most criminals and people who committed suicide had some severe traumas. It did not make them better. It just hurt them.
Those people had too much trauma. There is such a thing as too much trauma. But there is also such a thing as too little trauma. If you never get stressed out in your life, then you never are truly grateful for anything
->There is plenty of mocking based on looks in modern countries, probably more than anywhere else. It does not lower suicide rates.
It was much more common back in the day.
The harder your life is, the more resilient you are to stimuli X compared to someone who endures Stimuli X who never had it as tough as you did.
Lets say there are 2 students; one of them is Student A; Straight A student and works very hard in school; the other is Student B; someone that works just as hard as Student A but gets grades ranging from 60 to 90. They take the SAT and they both get 1100. Student A is way more upset at their score and is more likely to turn suicidal than Person B.
I know this 1st hand; when I was in HS, my math grades were always 93 or better. I get a bunch of very bad math grades in college for HW assignments, and it initially lowered my self esteem. But then I got used to it and now I can get a 50 on a HW assignment and it doesn't ruin my self esteem like it would have if I was getting 100s on all my HW assignments consistently.
Trauma makes you a better person. Sometimes you can get too much trauma (rape victims), but if you work hard and fail a bunch of times, then you are more grateful when you actually do well compared to if you always do well.
I believe an overwhelming majority of people, even among pro choice people, are fine with a doctor refusing to perform an abortion. The woman can get it done somewhere else, usually in the same building. There are 10 doctors there; if 6 of them are pro choice (60% of Americans are pro choice), then one of the pro choice doctors can perform the abortion.
->Or they would develop depression from being mocked.
Then tell them to not be depressed about it.
->Modern countries have lots of mocking based on looks, and lots of suicides as well.
And Modern countries have thinner skins than the 20th century. There was actual racism during the days of segregation and few blacks committed suicide. Now there is significantly less common racism (if there is anything significant) and blacks are suiciding themselves much more often. Thin skins produce suicide; not society being rude.
Like, I'm LGBT with a brother that knows and he has made fun of me for it. If I was sensitive about it, then I might have ended my life. But I have a thick skin, so I used it to toughen me up.
->And how would you telling them that and calling them ugly make them less suicidal?
They would then look better, go to the gym, do pushups instead of take medical pills, and be much more confident with themselves.
->People arent going to magically become tough just because you tell them to and call them ugly.
True, but people will be tougher if you try to install thick skin values in our kids.
Our coddling public school system should stop saying, "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything." and the alternative message, "Sticks and stones break bones, but words don't harm you."
Thick skins allow liberty to flourish. Thin skins cause feelings and snowflakes to flourish.
People argue that YOU violate the "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything." clause by advocating for pedophilia, which society views as being very mean to kids (whether you agree with this or not; might makes right and society has the might). YOU, the pedophille supporter, have a vested interest in thinking the skin up in our society so society is less willing to censor you for your extremely unpopular pro-pedophillia opinions.
Suicide is really a last resort. Usually, people would try and improve their situation before they do that. You want less suicide? Then tell people to grow thick skins. The Suburbs are where snowflakes go to melt!
You tell an ugly person they are beautiful, they never change. You tell an ugly person they are ugly, they might change.
I am a blunt person and I like it when people are blunt with me; I care more about the truth than what feels good. Thick skins develop a free society; thin skins and the concern for feelings make people censor people that support pedophillia like yourself.
YOU have a vested interest in wanting people to have thick skins.
I don't care about being agreeable; I care about honesty. It's why I trash every party; if I wanted to appease just conservatives or just liberals, then I would exclusively roast the other side. I prefer the painful truth to a feel good lie.
That's grifting, something understandable if you have an opinion you know pretty much everyone hates (like you do with being pro pedophillia). But when you know a lot of people agree with you, then I think it's immoral to grift.
Lets say there is Jimmy. 18 years old. Jimmy is a transwoman and Jimmy transitions to become Jennifer.
Jennifer believes they are a woman.
Should society be legally forced under legal prosecution to refer to Jennifer as she, or is society allowed to believe that Jennifer is a man (an opinion btw that is majoritarian in this country)?
->Here's a link to a science article explaining this written by a neither pro-life or pro-choice source. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/if-a-fetus-isnt-a-human-being-what-is-it/
Scientists can't even define what a woman is. I don't trust the experts when they easily can be wrong, I use common sense.
->So I would say that there would have to be a greater than 0.02% chance of death and a greater than 0.797% chance of severe maternal morbidity to call it self-defense.
It's a small chance, but can you name any other time when you are legally forced to endure a .8% chance of death or severe maternal morbidity that we all agree is acceptable for the government to force someone to do under punishment of legal prosecution?
-> If you consent to having sex, you consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant, even if you took contraception/birth control to prevent that.
You may believe this and I can understand this as well as the opposite belief, but this is not a universal belief.
->C-sections and vaginal births pose risks to the mother but so do abortions - however, we don't have enough conclusive evidence to prove that abortion is safer than childbirth.
C sections aren't legally forced upon risks. If you don't want a c section, then don't get one. Child birth isn't mandatory either and nobody thinks childbirth should be mandatory (in the even that there was no pregnancy to begin with). Child birthing and c sections are risky and possibly riskier than abortion, but they are risks where the person undergoing the risk consented to it. If abortion was mandatory, then that would be horrible.
Russian Roulette is more of a risk to your life than stating pregnant if you already were pregnant, but nobody is forcing you to play Russian Roulette, so the risk is consensual. If you are pregnant, then you are forced to stay pregnant, so the risk at that point is non-consensual once you become pregnant.
I disagree with you, but I did vote for you because I think you earned it.
I have a principled stance against socialism merely because if we have the rule, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", then in the long run, people won't want to develop their abilities due to the work that it requires presently and the future if there is no financial compensation for it because their needs will stay about the same regardless of if they work or not, thereby discouraging productivity and decreasing good production, leading to more starvation than what the homeless currently endure.
From the AUP position, it is better than 600,000 homeless people go hungry in the US than to have 330 million people in the US go hungry from food simply not being produced.
If you think the 9-5 job is slavery, then I am pro-slavery because I don't know of a good alternative to it. I'm not scared of negative labels like most people are.
->But if the fetus is recognized as a valuable person whose life we are interested in protecting, then we should consider when to kill the fetus very very very seriously.
The fetus might be a human, but the woman certainly is.
What is the minimum risk you are willing to impose on a woman for her life in order to let her get an abortion? If a pregnancy no matter what you did produced a 45% chance of death for the person with the pregnancy, then should she be allowed to get an abortion (any man that gets pregnant just wants attention)?
->You're proposing that it be legal to kill somebody who doesn't even pose a significant enough threat to life because you don't believe in their moral value.
Well, what is the alternative? The alternative is imposing a minimum risk of death that you would force on a woman to save a zygote. That isn't pro life as much as it is pro zygote.
-> we recognize that it is pregnancy that is the aggressor which puts a mother's life at risk, not the unborn child, who is only a threat. Going back to the last premise of our revised argument:
If there is no pregnancy, then there is no fetus. The fetus and the pregnancy are a package deal.
->Even if pregnancy poses a risk of death, we can lower this risk of death without having to kill a fetus.
You can lower it; but you can't eliminate it.
-> In this scenario, we can end the pregnancy (kind of like killing the actual flu virus) without harming a fetus.
Only post viability pregnancies is this true for. Even then, it's possible that the risk of death is higher with a c section than the risk of death from abortion (cutting stomachs open isn't a safe thing to do).
Lincoln the republican freed the slaves in a war that was actually about slavery.
Anyone that believes Lincoln would have been republican today for freeing the slaves can't fly the Confederate flag claiming the civil war was about slavery.
I believe the civil war was about slavery, that the confederate flag was racist, and Lincoln is too different from both major parties today to be called a republican or democrat. Like, he wanted to deport blacks back to Africa and he didn't want women to be allowed to vote. Now, it was a product of his time, so I don't hate Lincoln over it, but society hasn't really conserved too much of what we had in 1870 with regards to voting rights for women and equal treatment for non whites (I don't like using the term people of color because white people are people of color too because white is a color).
->Yes, but don't doctors take an oath to do what is best for their patient?
Yes, but they also realize that many patients want kids and they respect the right of the patients to have kids even if there is a risk of death.
->A better argument would be:
Premise 1: Killing the actual flu virus should be legal if the flu carries a risk of death, to prevent the flu from being transmitted to others.
Premise 2: The flu always carries a risk of death (even if the risk of death is .0001%).
Conclusion 1: Because every flu carries a risk of death, (even if the risk of death is .0001%), killing the actual flu virus should be legal in all cases.
Yes; like unironically; it is ok to kill the flu virus.
->But your parallel argument mistakes the source of death to be the fetus rather than pregnancy, and so you're proposing that we kill the fetus rather than treat pregnancy symptoms.
The fetus is often the source of death for the woman; as the fetus is the reason why the pregnancy exists.
->There's a difference between a threat and an aggressor: aggressors directly put people in danger, whilst threats put others in danger indirectly by proximity. Pregnancy adds complications and risks to the mother, but the fetus never directly causes harm.
The fetus does in fact directly causes the risk of death to the mother whether it's conscious or not.
->None of us decided that we were going to grow and develop in utero, this is just the biological process that occurs, decided by nature.
What is the relevance? My mother decided that the risk of death she endured by birthing me was worth it. Not every female should be expected to make the sacrifice for her pregnancy.
->Pregnancy can cause a host of side effects but the majority of these can be treated with non-violent means. For example, morning sickness can be treated using anti-nausea medication, and heartburn can be treated using antacids. The anti-abortion side supports the use of nonviolent means to treat pregnancy symptoms.
It is possible for a pregnancy to be a risk to the mother's life in a way that no existing medication can treat.
There needs to be a process for me to call trans females females. I made the spreadsheet, probably posted it a dozen times. I'll end it to you if you want, but it's just gotten too repetitive on my end.
->From a logical viewpoint, how can pregnancy be a disease/serious medical ailment if women's bodies actively prepare for it (menstruation) and have an organ that does not serve any purpose to women but is built to serve someone else (a uterus). That doesn't add up.
I'm not arguing pregnancy is a disease; I'm merely arguing it's a risk to the mother's life.
-> If this was the case, why don't doctors prescribe abortion every time a woman is pregnant???
Some women want to have kids and have to produce a pregnancy to make that happen.
Your revised argument:
->Premise 1: Killing somebody who has been infected with the flu should be legal if the flu carries a risk of death, to prevent the flu from being transmitted to others. Premise 2: The flu always carries a risk of death (even if the risk of death is .0001%). Conclusion 1: Because every flu carries a risk of death, (even if the risk of death is .0001%), killing those infected with the flu should be legal in all cases, even when doctors can treat the flu with medication without killing the person who is infected.
This is not the same because the source of death isn't the person with the flu, it's the flu (plus the flu is contagious; pregnancy is not). A better premise/conclusion argument would be:
->Premise 1: Killing the actual flu virus should be legal if the flu carries a risk of death, to prevent the flu from being transmitted to others. Premise 2: The flu always carries a risk of death (even if the risk of death is .0001%). Conclusion 1: Because every flu carries a risk of death, (even if the risk of death is .0001%), killing the actual flu virus should be legal in all cases.
Sometimes the doctor can save you, other times they cannot. All a woman has to do is threaten to commit suicide if she isn't allowed an abortion and the pregnancy is a risk to her life that might actually be plausible. You are advocating leaving the decision to abort up to the woman and her doctor (the left wing position). The MAGA world wants to not let the woman or the doctor have any say; they want to ban it because they see killing a zygote as murder.
The autistic do endure a level of discrimination, but this doesn't always translate into being more likely to vote for democrats. Like in the 1950s, blacks were discriminated against by southern democrats; most black voters in the days of the 1950s voted for the southern democrats.
You are a conservative according to your bio. Your comment was very blunt (which I'm fine with as I'm pro free speech just like the stereotypical American). You proved my point.
I have autism. I've noticed pretty much every autistic person is very conservative or libertarian. They like bluntness (like Trump), they lean in on stereotypes that apply to them (so for US autistics; it's American stereotypes), they like black and white thinking. Not empathetic (the left is more empathetic). Maybe a socialist who is blunt and black and white as well. But mostly conservative/libetarian. It's a surprise the left cares for us so much.
I can read what you said, but then I would make a very big comment that I'm sure you wouldn't want to respond to IN ADDITION to Wylted's response (and the other debates you have going on).
I'll see what happens though; I can't make it too long because I'm in comment mode.
Compare me to others who disagree with you on this. FishChaser called those who support child marriages, "degenerate". Even mods use barfing symbols which is code for them thinking you are degenerate. I have not done any of these things, and I easily could in order to score points among the majority. I have not; because I wrestle with the question and try to come up with something that makes sense instead of falling to peer pressure.
But you just dismissing me sassily is making my patience wear thin.
Are you sure you want to pay for other people's kids in foster care? It seems kind of socialist don't you think?
But the best way to reduce the abortion rate is to encourage sexually active men to get a vasectomy. I'm anti abortion (not pro life; but anti-abortion) and I will get a vasectomy before I have sex.
If 8 year olds are mentally capable enough to consent to sex and marraige, then are they mentally capable enough to consume alcohol? I'm pretty sure sex and marraige is the more serious thing (I support lowering the drinking age to 16).
I don't want prisoners getting free stuff in prison paid for by the taxpayers while our teachers are underpaid.
Teachers before terrorists.
But in all honestly, I would want to get rid of prisons.
Type C crimes (weed, being undocumented, any victimless crime) should be legal.
Type B crimes (DUI) should be punishable with whippings.
Type A crimes (murder, rape) should be punished with death with the blood and organs being used to save the lives of American Patriots, many of whom are non-white.
High slope criminal punishment system (defined below) is based.
->most big hospitals dont approve much of the doctors who refuse to do the work.
There is other work for anti abortion doctors to do.
I noticed how the Overton window shifted on abortion. It's no longer, "Should a pro-choice doctor be allowed to perform an abortion on a consenting woman?", it's, "Should a pro-life doctor be allowed to refuse to perform an abortion on a consenting woman?" This question implies a pro-choice doctor is allowed to do it, which if this were the national goalpost, then abortion would be legal in all 50 states if a pro-choice woman is getting an abortion by a pro-choice doctor, not that abortion isn't victimless due to the unborn child dying as a result. Although, unlike the former goalposts, religious reasons can be used as a cop-out since it only affects the pro-life doctor.
The rape exception at least is backed by 85% or so of Americans. It will be easy to find a doctor who would abort.
Like what?
->USA has similar suicide rate as it did 1950, so what are you saying?
This I'm not sure about.
->Not always. Most criminals and people who committed suicide had some severe traumas. It did not make them better. It just hurt them.
Those people had too much trauma. There is such a thing as too much trauma. But there is also such a thing as too little trauma. If you never get stressed out in your life, then you never are truly grateful for anything
->There is plenty of mocking based on looks in modern countries, probably more than anywhere else. It does not lower suicide rates.
It was much more common back in the day.
The harder your life is, the more resilient you are to stimuli X compared to someone who endures Stimuli X who never had it as tough as you did.
Lets say there are 2 students; one of them is Student A; Straight A student and works very hard in school; the other is Student B; someone that works just as hard as Student A but gets grades ranging from 60 to 90. They take the SAT and they both get 1100. Student A is way more upset at their score and is more likely to turn suicidal than Person B.
I know this 1st hand; when I was in HS, my math grades were always 93 or better. I get a bunch of very bad math grades in college for HW assignments, and it initially lowered my self esteem. But then I got used to it and now I can get a 50 on a HW assignment and it doesn't ruin my self esteem like it would have if I was getting 100s on all my HW assignments consistently.
Trauma makes you a better person. Sometimes you can get too much trauma (rape victims), but if you work hard and fail a bunch of times, then you are more grateful when you actually do well compared to if you always do well.
I believe an overwhelming majority of people, even among pro choice people, are fine with a doctor refusing to perform an abortion. The woman can get it done somewhere else, usually in the same building. There are 10 doctors there; if 6 of them are pro choice (60% of Americans are pro choice), then one of the pro choice doctors can perform the abortion.
->Or they would develop depression from being mocked.
Then tell them to not be depressed about it.
->Modern countries have lots of mocking based on looks, and lots of suicides as well.
And Modern countries have thinner skins than the 20th century. There was actual racism during the days of segregation and few blacks committed suicide. Now there is significantly less common racism (if there is anything significant) and blacks are suiciding themselves much more often. Thin skins produce suicide; not society being rude.
Like, I'm LGBT with a brother that knows and he has made fun of me for it. If I was sensitive about it, then I might have ended my life. But I have a thick skin, so I used it to toughen me up.
->And how would you telling them that and calling them ugly make them less suicidal?
They would then look better, go to the gym, do pushups instead of take medical pills, and be much more confident with themselves.
->People arent going to magically become tough just because you tell them to and call them ugly.
True, but people will be tougher if you try to install thick skin values in our kids.
Our coddling public school system should stop saying, "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything." and the alternative message, "Sticks and stones break bones, but words don't harm you."
Thick skins allow liberty to flourish. Thin skins cause feelings and snowflakes to flourish.
People argue that YOU violate the "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything." clause by advocating for pedophilia, which society views as being very mean to kids (whether you agree with this or not; might makes right and society has the might). YOU, the pedophille supporter, have a vested interest in thinking the skin up in our society so society is less willing to censor you for your extremely unpopular pro-pedophillia opinions.
Suicide is really a last resort. Usually, people would try and improve their situation before they do that. You want less suicide? Then tell people to grow thick skins. The Suburbs are where snowflakes go to melt!
Calling someone ugly (if it's genuine) could encourage them to work on their appearance, making them look better.
If you want me to tell a generic homeless guy that he's handsome, then I would refuse.
Short term pain is acceptable for long term gain.
You tell an ugly person they are beautiful, they never change. You tell an ugly person they are ugly, they might change.
I am a blunt person and I like it when people are blunt with me; I care more about the truth than what feels good. Thick skins develop a free society; thin skins and the concern for feelings make people censor people that support pedophillia like yourself.
YOU have a vested interest in wanting people to have thick skins.
I don't care about being agreeable; I care about honesty. It's why I trash every party; if I wanted to appease just conservatives or just liberals, then I would exclusively roast the other side. I prefer the painful truth to a feel good lie.
But if I see an ugly person and they tell me, "Please tell me I am beautiful.", then I would tell them, "No; you are not."
I would rather not bring up their looks.
That's grifting, something understandable if you have an opinion you know pretty much everyone hates (like you do with being pro pedophillia). But when you know a lot of people agree with you, then I think it's immoral to grift.
How can you believe Jennifer is a man and refer to Jennifer as, "she"?
Lets say there is Jimmy. 18 years old. Jimmy is a transwoman and Jimmy transitions to become Jennifer.
Jennifer believes they are a woman.
Should society be legally forced under legal prosecution to refer to Jennifer as she, or is society allowed to believe that Jennifer is a man (an opinion btw that is majoritarian in this country)?
Banning abortion requires a punishment as all illegal activities do. How would you punish abortion?
->Here's a link to a science article explaining this written by a neither pro-life or pro-choice source. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/if-a-fetus-isnt-a-human-being-what-is-it/
Scientists can't even define what a woman is. I don't trust the experts when they easily can be wrong, I use common sense.
->So I would say that there would have to be a greater than 0.02% chance of death and a greater than 0.797% chance of severe maternal morbidity to call it self-defense.
It's a small chance, but can you name any other time when you are legally forced to endure a .8% chance of death or severe maternal morbidity that we all agree is acceptable for the government to force someone to do under punishment of legal prosecution?
-> If you consent to having sex, you consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant, even if you took contraception/birth control to prevent that.
You may believe this and I can understand this as well as the opposite belief, but this is not a universal belief.
->C-sections and vaginal births pose risks to the mother but so do abortions - however, we don't have enough conclusive evidence to prove that abortion is safer than childbirth.
C sections aren't legally forced upon risks. If you don't want a c section, then don't get one. Child birth isn't mandatory either and nobody thinks childbirth should be mandatory (in the even that there was no pregnancy to begin with). Child birthing and c sections are risky and possibly riskier than abortion, but they are risks where the person undergoing the risk consented to it. If abortion was mandatory, then that would be horrible.
Russian Roulette is more of a risk to your life than stating pregnant if you already were pregnant, but nobody is forcing you to play Russian Roulette, so the risk is consensual. If you are pregnant, then you are forced to stay pregnant, so the risk at that point is non-consensual once you become pregnant.
I disagree with you, but I did vote for you because I think you earned it.
I have a principled stance against socialism merely because if we have the rule, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", then in the long run, people won't want to develop their abilities due to the work that it requires presently and the future if there is no financial compensation for it because their needs will stay about the same regardless of if they work or not, thereby discouraging productivity and decreasing good production, leading to more starvation than what the homeless currently endure.
From the AUP position, it is better than 600,000 homeless people go hungry in the US than to have 330 million people in the US go hungry from food simply not being produced.
If you think the 9-5 job is slavery, then I am pro-slavery because I don't know of a good alternative to it. I'm not scared of negative labels like most people are.
->But if the fetus is recognized as a valuable person whose life we are interested in protecting, then we should consider when to kill the fetus very very very seriously.
The fetus might be a human, but the woman certainly is.
What is the minimum risk you are willing to impose on a woman for her life in order to let her get an abortion? If a pregnancy no matter what you did produced a 45% chance of death for the person with the pregnancy, then should she be allowed to get an abortion (any man that gets pregnant just wants attention)?
->You're proposing that it be legal to kill somebody who doesn't even pose a significant enough threat to life because you don't believe in their moral value.
Well, what is the alternative? The alternative is imposing a minimum risk of death that you would force on a woman to save a zygote. That isn't pro life as much as it is pro zygote.
-> we recognize that it is pregnancy that is the aggressor which puts a mother's life at risk, not the unborn child, who is only a threat. Going back to the last premise of our revised argument:
If there is no pregnancy, then there is no fetus. The fetus and the pregnancy are a package deal.
->Even if pregnancy poses a risk of death, we can lower this risk of death without having to kill a fetus.
You can lower it; but you can't eliminate it.
-> In this scenario, we can end the pregnancy (kind of like killing the actual flu virus) without harming a fetus.
Only post viability pregnancies is this true for. Even then, it's possible that the risk of death is higher with a c section than the risk of death from abortion (cutting stomachs open isn't a safe thing to do).
Lincoln the republican freed the slaves in a war that was actually about slavery.
Anyone that believes Lincoln would have been republican today for freeing the slaves can't fly the Confederate flag claiming the civil war was about slavery.
I believe the civil war was about slavery, that the confederate flag was racist, and Lincoln is too different from both major parties today to be called a republican or democrat. Like, he wanted to deport blacks back to Africa and he didn't want women to be allowed to vote. Now, it was a product of his time, so I don't hate Lincoln over it, but society hasn't really conserved too much of what we had in 1870 with regards to voting rights for women and equal treatment for non whites (I don't like using the term people of color because white people are people of color too because white is a color).
->Yes, but don't doctors take an oath to do what is best for their patient?
Yes, but they also realize that many patients want kids and they respect the right of the patients to have kids even if there is a risk of death.
->A better argument would be:
Premise 1: Killing the actual flu virus should be legal if the flu carries a risk of death, to prevent the flu from being transmitted to others.
Premise 2: The flu always carries a risk of death (even if the risk of death is .0001%).
Conclusion 1: Because every flu carries a risk of death, (even if the risk of death is .0001%), killing the actual flu virus should be legal in all cases.
Yes; like unironically; it is ok to kill the flu virus.
->But your parallel argument mistakes the source of death to be the fetus rather than pregnancy, and so you're proposing that we kill the fetus rather than treat pregnancy symptoms.
The fetus is often the source of death for the woman; as the fetus is the reason why the pregnancy exists.
->There's a difference between a threat and an aggressor: aggressors directly put people in danger, whilst threats put others in danger indirectly by proximity. Pregnancy adds complications and risks to the mother, but the fetus never directly causes harm.
The fetus does in fact directly causes the risk of death to the mother whether it's conscious or not.
->None of us decided that we were going to grow and develop in utero, this is just the biological process that occurs, decided by nature.
What is the relevance? My mother decided that the risk of death she endured by birthing me was worth it. Not every female should be expected to make the sacrifice for her pregnancy.
->Pregnancy can cause a host of side effects but the majority of these can be treated with non-violent means. For example, morning sickness can be treated using anti-nausea medication, and heartburn can be treated using antacids. The anti-abortion side supports the use of nonviolent means to treat pregnancy symptoms.
It is possible for a pregnancy to be a risk to the mother's life in a way that no existing medication can treat.
There needs to be a process for me to call trans females females. I made the spreadsheet, probably posted it a dozen times. I'll end it to you if you want, but it's just gotten too repetitive on my end.
->From a logical viewpoint, how can pregnancy be a disease/serious medical ailment if women's bodies actively prepare for it (menstruation) and have an organ that does not serve any purpose to women but is built to serve someone else (a uterus). That doesn't add up.
I'm not arguing pregnancy is a disease; I'm merely arguing it's a risk to the mother's life.
-> If this was the case, why don't doctors prescribe abortion every time a woman is pregnant???
Some women want to have kids and have to produce a pregnancy to make that happen.
Your revised argument:
->Premise 1: Killing somebody who has been infected with the flu should be legal if the flu carries a risk of death, to prevent the flu from being transmitted to others. Premise 2: The flu always carries a risk of death (even if the risk of death is .0001%). Conclusion 1: Because every flu carries a risk of death, (even if the risk of death is .0001%), killing those infected with the flu should be legal in all cases, even when doctors can treat the flu with medication without killing the person who is infected.
This is not the same because the source of death isn't the person with the flu, it's the flu (plus the flu is contagious; pregnancy is not). A better premise/conclusion argument would be:
->Premise 1: Killing the actual flu virus should be legal if the flu carries a risk of death, to prevent the flu from being transmitted to others. Premise 2: The flu always carries a risk of death (even if the risk of death is .0001%). Conclusion 1: Because every flu carries a risk of death, (even if the risk of death is .0001%), killing the actual flu virus should be legal in all cases.
Sometimes the doctor can save you, other times they cannot. All a woman has to do is threaten to commit suicide if she isn't allowed an abortion and the pregnancy is a risk to her life that might actually be plausible. You are advocating leaving the decision to abort up to the woman and her doctor (the left wing position). The MAGA world wants to not let the woman or the doctor have any say; they want to ban it because they see killing a zygote as murder.
Premise 1: Abortion should be legal at least if the pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life.
Premise 2: Every single pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life (even if the risk of death is .0001%).
Conclusion 1: Because every pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life, abortion should be unconditionally legal all the way until the moment of birth.
The autistic do endure a level of discrimination, but this doesn't always translate into being more likely to vote for democrats. Like in the 1950s, blacks were discriminated against by southern democrats; most black voters in the days of the 1950s voted for the southern democrats.
Does this include extra ciriculars?
2 Canadians debating this. In America, our left wingers are like Canadian right wingers on guns. Our right wingers are stacked up on FREEDOM!
If you want to ban HW, then you would take the pro side of this debate, not the con side.
I'd rather they make the penny with something cheaper.
It wasn't really cherry picking as much as I just skimmed the arguments and found some random claim that I thought was stupid.
Autistics think in binaries, black and white, blunt, and accidentally unempathetic. Just like Trump.
Lincoln the Republican freed the slaves in a war that was actually about slavery. The confederate flag should be burned.
Con believes the confederacy was fighting over, "States Rights" or something like that.
You are a conservative according to your bio. Your comment was very blunt (which I'm fine with as I'm pro free speech just like the stereotypical American). You proved my point.
I have autism. I've noticed pretty much every autistic person is very conservative or libertarian. They like bluntness (like Trump), they lean in on stereotypes that apply to them (so for US autistics; it's American stereotypes), they like black and white thinking. Not empathetic (the left is more empathetic). Maybe a socialist who is blunt and black and white as well. But mostly conservative/libetarian. It's a surprise the left cares for us so much.
Ye West absolutely said horrible things about, "def com 3". But words are different than actions. Saying is different than doing.
->nor is every addictive activity same.
Why isn't it?
->If you are interested, follow the debate.
I can read what you said, but then I would make a very big comment that I'm sure you wouldn't want to respond to IN ADDITION to Wylted's response (and the other debates you have going on).
I'll see what happens though; I can't make it too long because I'm in comment mode.
Compare me to others who disagree with you on this. FishChaser called those who support child marriages, "degenerate". Even mods use barfing symbols which is code for them thinking you are degenerate. I have not done any of these things, and I easily could in order to score points among the majority. I have not; because I wrestle with the question and try to come up with something that makes sense instead of falling to peer pressure.
But you just dismissing me sassily is making my patience wear thin.
Are you sure you want to pay for other people's kids in foster care? It seems kind of socialist don't you think?
But the best way to reduce the abortion rate is to encourage sexually active men to get a vasectomy. I'm anti abortion (not pro life; but anti-abortion) and I will get a vasectomy before I have sex.
->If you cant tell the difference between alcohol and sex, then there is nothing for us to talk about.
Well I'm a virgin that never consumed alcohol in my life.
-> This is not a debate about beer or alcohol.
But the theme is, "Should there be age restrictions on trying addictive activities?" (Whether that activity is sex, drugs, or other).
Young kids need levels of protection.
->Alcohol is different from sex
How? They are both mind-altering and prone to addiction.
->I dont exactly support alcohol ban either.
If 8 year olds were allowed to drink beer, then it would damage probably the majority of their minds significantly.
If 8 year olds are mentally capable enough to consent to sex and marraige, then are they mentally capable enough to consume alcohol? I'm pretty sure sex and marraige is the more serious thing (I support lowering the drinking age to 16).
What is in that collection? I would argue my spreadsheet definition is better.
I did that.
I believe the vast majority of transwomen are women, but not all of them.
My definition is outlined below:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sncaylvtrCdKka8msjCnhjegprJmUE3JX7Zkz1TgWgI/edit#gid=0
"A political ideology that generally advocates for social equality."
The left is not consistent with this. Otherwise, they would want equality for the unborn and the unvaccinated.
The left is anti-unwanted pain.
You said, "blacks shouldn't be allowed to say (5 letter controversial word where you say the entire word except for one letter)".
It's not hypocrisy, but you are skating on thin ice man.
If there are prisoners, then it is slavery.
And that's GOOD.
I don't want prisoners getting free stuff in prison paid for by the taxpayers while our teachers are underpaid.
Teachers before terrorists.
But in all honestly, I would want to get rid of prisons.
Type C crimes (weed, being undocumented, any victimless crime) should be legal.
Type B crimes (DUI) should be punishable with whippings.
Type A crimes (murder, rape) should be punished with death with the blood and organs being used to save the lives of American Patriots, many of whom are non-white.
High slope criminal punishment system (defined below) is based.
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1nLC3GBCOkqiYhhNAP-wv8EsiSKVPklIhHcr9Rmz6we4/edit
So you stick to the debate title, let your opponent veer off, and win.