Abortion

Oh, I don't know about that. I think that they are far superior to your reading comprehension.

Do you have any understanding as to what the phrase 'every man for himself' means? It's uttered when the shit hits the fan, and everyone is at the very real risk of death. In such a disaster, every individual is perfectly entitled to act in a fashion to preserve their own life.

When the woman is at the very real risk of death due to a pregnancy, then, and only then, should she be allowed to terminate.

Because certain privileges, such as the privilege to drive and vote, would be wasted on a fetus. Note how I'm not denying privileges based on arbitrary justification (eg. the fetus isn't a 'person') but on functional capacity required to engage in the activities required by the privilege.

The fetus should be protected from human experimentation. I'm of the personal opinion that animals should also be protected from experimentation.

No?

Tough shit. My stance isn't a belief, it's a scientific fact. A fetus is alive in every sense of the word.

No. If it were, then a parent could claim that life only really begins at 30, and kill any of their children who step out of line.

Yes.

Don't know, don't care. Please focus on the present instead of obfuscating.

Huh? What on earth are you gabbling about?

Relevance?

Tough shit. Many deadbeat dads don't want Child Welfare's hand in their wallet, and we don't give a shit about their feelings of injustice.

You could apply a similar analogy to a born child and their parents.

However, I have slightly better analogy than your crappy one. What if one day I was driving in a dangerous fashion, and struck a pedestrian who was doing no wrong. When I woke up, I was told by the doctor that in order for the victim to survive, they required frequent rare blood transfusions from me for the next 9 months.

Do I have a moral obligation to help this pedestrian, who was harmed due to my actions? I think so. Should I have legal obligation to help him? Hell yes.

A fetus is conceived through the actions of the mother and father, therefore they owe it a 'duty of care', so to speak.

I know what a born baby has protection, and an unborn baby doesn't. Convenience. I don't agree with such hypocrisy, however.

It is a misrepresentation. And I have corrected it *numerous* times. Please, for the love of all that is holy, read my previous posts before responding.

Why would we do that?

Yes. Surely you can distinguish between allowing someone the right to choose, and regarding a choice as foolish? The mother sacrificed her life for what you consider to be a non-person. The fact that you are being so evasive in directly addressing this conundrum is telling.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hahah, a mouth breathing pro-choicer asking me to 'keep up'. Hilarious. Ooh, careful, don't drool on the floor!

Where else would we start?

I'll try, but I suspect that it will take you three years to develop even a rudimentary understanding of the basic concepts. It will take one year for you to find and read up on the biological definitions of 'life' and 'human' (ie. Homo sapiens). It will take you a second year because you're an idiot. And it will take you a third year because you are a retard.

Both.

A clear explaination as to why the fetus does not fit the biological definitions of 'life' and 'Homo sapien'.

No. I wouldn't force people to believe what I do. But I would force them to act the way I want.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are you kidding? Sometimes I think that individuals such as Tiassa and Bells are on suicide watch, given how carelessly they march to total humiliation and defeat at the hands of their intellectual superiors (ie. pro-lifers).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. But apparently I am for yours...

Not necessarily.

Feel free to also look up the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions.

I'm sorry you can't read, as that's not what I said.

Illegitimate question.
You implied that to be "allowed" necessarily implies a legislative domain. This is incorrect.

In summation, your objection to abortion is supported by nothing but belief, which itself is supported by an unsubstantiated belief in a non-recognizable, ineffable, undetermined something or other. In other words, your position is based upon mere opinion.

 

no offense but, no, not necessarily. thanks though.

or, having experienced mathematical aptitude and instruction, i could just know that mathematics require the application of logic and problem solving skills.

we're all responsible for that. if, then, logic. see?

answer the question. to whom were you referring to?

of course it is. what else would it be based on? an opinion that is founded in my own experience and my perception which is determined by my knowledge. what else would you base it on?

 

i'm a vegetarian, preferably raw, and primarily vegan, and i don't take pharmaceuticals. x-rays aren't good for you either. did you know that a raw whole foods diet virtually eliminates tooth decay? it does, along with a whole host of other diseases.

you know, we could all live much healthier lives than we do, and it would be good for all of us. wouldn't it?

 

oh, and i also eat a primarily organic diet as well. the amount of toxins that we spew into our environment in the name of greed and sloth is disgusting and murderous, and i try to avoid as many in my food as possible. but honestly, in this day and age, no matter where you are or how you live, you're contaminated as fuck. it's global...pandemic.

 

also bells, the question VI posed included the word "should", not "do". we are all cogs in the murder machine. there were a lot of decisions made without my consent, long before i was ever born, that i have to live with every day, and that have an enormous affect on my life. and i didn't always know what i know now, and i'll know more tomorrow. you don't seem to be able to distinguish intent in all of this. are we perpetuating life or extinguishing it? well, both, and in a lot of ways...all of us. but do you distinguish intent? why we're doing what we're doing? does that even matter to you?

you know what my perception is. that an individual human being's rights begin at conception. so what kind of person would i be if i advocated abortion? it's a non-issue to me whether it's legal or not. i just think it's wrong. don't you think that's right given my perception? i've explained the basis of my perception and it's more logical than the crazy shit i've heard from the pro-choicer's here.

 

what you fail to realize is that i have every intention of ensuring the health of my potential child. you know, as opposed to intentionally paying someone to stick a vacuum cleaner up my twat to suck out my baby and kill it because i don't want to bother to try to feed it at all. i know this is real heady shit, but try...

don't you think it's weird that we have to take supplements for optimal health? i would argue that it's the sin in the world that has depleted our soil and virtually nullified the nutritional content of our food.

 

None of you prolifer types have addressed the obvious gap between the centuries of your walk and the last few years of your talk.

On the evidence, and there is a lot of it, you don't believe a three month embryo is a person, a human child, any more than anyone else does. Unless some woman wants to abort, you are content to treat embryos as embryos, not people, just like everyone else treats them and always has.

It's too late to fix all of the history and custom and current practice of every church, hospital, census form, medical statistic, emergency ambulance, government agency, funeral home, cemetery layout, and political deliberative body in the country for the past few centuries. It's time, instead, to shelve the bogus "its a child, not a choice" rhetorical bull, and come up with an honest basis for discussion.

The one being asserted so far is not respectable any more.

 

I heard about that a long time ago, yet fruits and vegetables still grow, look and taste exactly like they always did.

doesnt that tell you the theory is wrong?

 

You love watching me repeatedly respond to the same misrepresentations, over and over again? Clearly you are not interested in a genuine discussion.

She can abort if it is necessary to avert her death. I've stated this many times, but you continue to repeat the same tired old questions, worded in a slightly different manner. Do you think so little of my time?

No, not at all. I suggest that you actually present a valid argument, instead of just squealing 'hypocrisy' after you have misrepresented another's views.

Clearly not.

No. When it's life vs life, then anything goes. When it's life vs convenience, then I err on the side of life. I've explained this many times, and you continue to repeat the same tired old bullshit. Stop wasting my time.

I've explained this many times, and you continue to repeat the same tired old bullshit. Stop wasting my time.

Don't care. We are talking about abortion. Stick to the subject.

I've already explained that viability outside the womb has no bearing on whether an organism is considered alive and human. Yet you continue to trot out the same shit.

Where? I could swear that I said that it is illegal to hate a late-term *abortion*, not miscarriage.

Why not? One must use their body to perform labour in order to obtain money.

I know. I don't agree with that.

 

By the way, I just received a warning:

Civil questions? I was belittled and labelled as slow.

Here is the response I sent back to James:

It should be interesting to see whether pro-choice fucks can take honest criticism.

 

do you think by disagreeing you are vouching for a superior POV?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In one sense, the marvels of scientific advancement is like a person becoming an entertainer because they can bark like a dog on stage ... despite there already being thousands of dogs barking on the street.

For instance there are thousands of people being conceived everyday, yet the notion of conceiving one artificially (for a less than average result with a greater expenditure of time, money and energy, mind you) is seen as marvelous.

IOW my point is that even if you want to talk of cloning, there is still no question of generating life from anything but life, or any question of mortals allocating a particular body to a particular individual

 

Sorry to hear that you have no comprehension or experience of a culture that treats three month embreyos as people

whenever you want to drop out of the comfort zone of your third class culture, drop me a line

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So if her health was at stake but not actually her life, tough shit, she has to suck it up and suffer damage for that little lump of gelatine?

Tell me, what if she's severely epileptic? Should she be denied the proper antiseizure drugs in case they harm her fetus that she doesn't want??

Alive yes, in that their cells are dividing, they metabolize, etc. They're not people.

That person did nothing to you.

A fetus is living inside your body therefore getting rid of it would be more akin to self defence.

Wrong. Born babies are not convenient. They scream, and poop, and pee, and need feeding, and mess up your routines and deprive you of sleep.

Nope, but they can give them up for adoption if they want to.

It's kinda hard to do that when the so-called 'child' is still inside you.