gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Lack of a complete set of DNA.
Lack of a heartbeat.
Abortion
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Lack of a heartbeat.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Abortion is the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a customer who is a pregnant woman who wishes to place a hit on her own child while he is still in the womb.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
It is, and they did.
Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
I agree on citizens united. totally fucked decision.Under U.S. law, they are now considered to be legal people. I suspect it's why the term "natural person" came about to begin with, to differentiate between what I consider to be -actual- people and corporate "people". From the article I referenced in the post you're responding to:
**
The term “natural person” refers to a living human being, with certain rights and responsibilities under the law. By contrast, a “legal person,” or an “artificial person,” is a group of people that is considered by law to be acting as a single individual. Both natural and legal persons are entitled to sue other parties and sign contracts. They can also both be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.
**
I suspect what you -really- want to know is whether I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FED. I don't. Like you, I think that decision should be overturned. For anyone who hasn't heard of this decision, here's Wikipedia's entry on it:
Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
A quote from the article that I think is pretty good:
**
The Supreme Court's 5–4 ruling in favor of Citizens United sparked significant controversy, with some viewing it as a defense of American principles of free speech and a safeguard against government overreach, and others criticizing it for reaffirming the longstanding principle of corporate personhood, and for allowing large corporations to wield disproportionate political power.
**
I was really getting at how "not actual people", like a corporation, is considered more of person than an in utero real individual actual human by many.
like a pro-abortion libertarian corporatist perhaps?
the worst.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Anyone can be EVASIVE.
I asked you MANY questions that you refuse to answer.
Anytime you want to answer my questions, I'll be standing by. EVADING isn't doing your credibility any favours.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
I mean "contracted killings" (as 'induced abortions' are a subset of contracted killings). Also, I realize that my moniker makes no indication to my gender, but I am actually a he.
I came up with the 100 million die each year number from both the World Health Organization (~73 million 'abortions' per year) and from an international study that was published in The Lancet (and shared on the Planned Parenthood website) (~23 million 'miscarriages' per year). 73+23 = 96 million, then I rounded up to 100 million.
Remember that abortion isn't the only manner in which death occurs between conception and birth.
I admit that these are essentially "random numbers" and that reality could be much less or much more than 100 million per year.
Have you considered how many more -elder- adults there would be who would die over the age of 65 if a significant proportion of those X million deaths between the ages of 0-64 didn't occur?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
This is precisely why I avoid the word "person" and instead use "living human".
More like those fascist globalist libertarian corporate-government bureaucracy elitest pro-abortion Nazis ... they're absolutely the worst.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Last edited:
IBDaMann
Well-known member
The two types of risk are 1. systematic risk and 2. non-systematic risk.
One is rewarded for systematic risk. The phrase "the greater the risk, the greater the reward" only applies to systematic risk.
One is not rewarded for non-systematic risk. One, is not rewarded for gambling at a casino, for example, or for doing something unnecessarily dangerous, etc,
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Are you demanding answers while you are yourself being thoroughly EVASIVE?
Ask me a coherent question .. and answer my questions.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You should work for Grammarly.
Yakuda
Verified User
If you expect mutual consent then mutual control is the only just option. The woman cant claim unilateral control over making the man pay support if he has no say in whether she has a abortion or not. The devil's in the details chumUnless we're talking about marriage, prenuptual agreements or birth surrogacy, I think there are few people signing anything before sex. We are talking about consensual sex, which means that both parties agree to have sex. That's generally the only contract before having sex and it's a verbal one.
Fine, but then you should have to have her sign an agreement -prior- to her having sex. Or, at least, that's what I thought could work. Looks like I'm wrong, at the very least in Wisconsin:
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/505lpy/can_i_have_a_girl_sign_a_contract_that_either/
I don't agree with the judge's decision. I definitely believe that one -should- be able to make such a contract. Since this apparently isn't possible, it looks like the best you can do is make a contract anyway and hope she doesn't take you to court to force you to pay child support anyway, at least in Wisconsin.
I think it should be obvious, but just in case it isn't, I also don't think that women should be able to get a man to pay child support if something in the "forced fatherhood" category is done by the woman:
**
Forced fatherhood or imposed paternity, occurs when a man becomes a father against his will or without his consent. It can include deception by a partner about her ability to get pregnant or use of contraceptives, birth control sabotage, paternity fraud and sexual assaults of males that result in pregnancy.
"Sperm theft" (also known as "unauthorized use of sperm", "spermjacking" or "spurgling" (a portmanteau of sperm and burgling)), refers to a specific form of forced fatherhood in which a man's semen is used to impregnate a woman without his consent.
**
Source:
Forced fatherhood - Wikipedia
Yakuda
Verified User
I didn't say child I said life. It's a life.A sperm and an egg is hardly sufficient to create a child. They are both just -part- of what's required. You're forgetting the most important part of all- the female's body that houses them both. That's the real heavy lifter in creating a baby. This becomes abundantly clear when it comes to birth surrogacy- note that while the sperm and the egg can be from various sources, the one constant is the gestational carrier:
**
Surrogacy
Surrogacy (also known as host or full surrogacy was first achieved in April 1986. It takes place when an embryo created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology is transferred to a gestational carrier. Surrogacy has several forms, and in each form, the resulting child is genetically unrelated to the surrogate:
**
- The embryo is created using the intended father's sperm and the intended mother's eggs;
- The embryo is created using the intended father's sperm and a donor egg;
- The embryo is created using the intended mother's egg and donor sperm;
- A donor embryo is transferred to a gestational carrier. Such an embryo may be available when others undergoing IVF have embryos left over, which they donate to others. The resulting child is genetically unrelated to the gestational carrier.
Source:
Surrogacy - Wikipedia
Not alone- as with creating a baby, you need 3 things- bullets, the gun and most important of all, a person to pick a target and then pull the trigger.
Yakuda
Verified User
Is English your second language? I made no claim about who is highly intelligent, I asked you what you mean by "highly" intelligent. You reading with comprehension would help make this a more fruitful discussion
Into the Night
Verified User
Your word games won't work, Scotch. Abortion is murder.A sperm and an egg is hardly sufficient to create a child. They are both just -part- of what's required. You're forgetting the most important part of all- the female's body that houses them both. That's the real heavy lifter in creating a baby. This becomes abundantly clear when it comes to birth surrogacy- note that while the sperm and the egg can be from various sources, the one constant is the gestational carrier:
**
Surrogacy
Surrogacy (also known as host or full surrogacy was first achieved in April 1986. It takes place when an embryo created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology is transferred to a gestational carrier. Surrogacy has several forms, and in each form, the resulting child is genetically unrelated to the surrogate:
**
- The embryo is created using the intended father's sperm and the intended mother's eggs;
- The embryo is created using the intended father's sperm and a donor egg;
- The embryo is created using the intended mother's egg and donor sperm;
- A donor embryo is transferred to a gestational carrier. Such an embryo may be available when others undergoing IVF have embryos left over, which they donate to others. The resulting child is genetically unrelated to the gestational carrier.
Source:
Surrogacy - Wikipedia
Not alone- as with creating a baby, you need 3 things- bullets, the gun and most important of all, a person to pick a target and then pull the trigger.
Into the Night
Verified User
Your word games won't help you. Abortion is murder.Under U.S. law, they are now considered to be legal people. I suspect it's why the term "natural person" came about to begin with, to differentiate between what I consider to be -actual- people and corporate "people". From the article I referenced in the post you're responding to:
**
The term “natural person” refers to a living human being, with certain rights and responsibilities under the law. By contrast, a “legal person,” or an “artificial person,” is a group of people that is considered by law to be acting as a single individual. Both natural and legal persons are entitled to sue other parties and sign contracts. They can also both be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.
**
I suspect what you -really- want to know is whether I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FED. I don't. Like you, I think that decision should be overturned. For anyone who hasn't heard of this decision, here's Wikipedia's entry on it:
Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia
A quote from the article that I think is pretty good:
**
The Supreme Court's 5–4 ruling in favor of Citizens United sparked significant controversy, with some viewing it as a defense of American principles of free speech and a safeguard against government overreach, and others criticizing it for reaffirming the longstanding principle of corporate personhood, and for allowing large corporations to wield disproportionate political power.
**
Into the Night
Verified User
He never learned it. He only knows Liberal. It looks like English, but words have no meaning or shifting meaning.
He is desperately trying to pivot away from abortion and what it means for the life that is snuffed out by it.
Into the Night
Verified User
Into the Night
Verified User
Like many Democrats, Scotch takes it to an art form.
That you have. He is desperately trying to squirm away from the only logical answer.
He won't. He can't afford to face the murder he is advocating.
Scott
Verified User
True, but irrelevant. There would be no human children without human sperm. They are an absolutely integral part of making children.