Abortion

[Yakuda]

As I've said to you in the past, I believe that a couple planning to engage in sexual intercourse -should- be able to make a contract stipulating that if the female gets pregnant due to said sexual intercourse, she would have an abortion. I know of only one example where a man actually tried this and it went to court- the judge apparently dismissed the case.

So, given this fact, a man's control of his sperm ends once he donates his sperm to a female's vagina, regardless of whether or not he makes a contract with her beforehand as to what should happen to the sperm should it impregnate the female, at least if the contract stipulates that the female should have an abortion if this happens. We don't have to agree to accept that this is how things are.

That doesn't make any of this just. If you don't care about justice then you're an evil prick that should not live among decent people. You can whine that it's legal but that doesn't make it ethical or just. I care more about justice than legality.

 

[Scott]

People who see abortion as a woman's right to determine her life should stop forcing people who do not believe in abortion to have one. Oh wait, they don't.

Agreed.

It is their decision to have a baby and none of our business.

I certainly agree that it should be the pregnant female's decision. The part of it being none of the rest of society's business is where I don't agree. Society alone decides what is its business and what isn't its business- that becomes clear when we remember that society makes the laws that govern us all. What we can loosely call the conservative right side of society has clearly come to the conclusion that whether a female can or can't have an abortion is its business. I'm fine with them deciding that its their business- I just believe that they've come to the wrong conclusion as to whether females should be allowed to decide. So I've done my best to explain why in the hopes that they have a change of heart.

 

[gfm7175]

People who see abortion as a woman's [mother's] right to determine her life [wield killing supremacy over the father and the unborn child] ...

Fixed that for you.

It is their [her] decision to have [kill] a baby and none of our business [because she has killing supremacy].

Fixed that for you also.

 

[gfm7175]

The number might be around the same, or perhaps even less. I don't think you're really thinking this whole thing through-

I don't think you're understanding basic logic.​

You said: "But perhaps much more important, have you considered how many more -birthed- children there would be who would die between birth and the age of five if a significant proportion of those 40 million abortions didn't occur?"

If a "significant proportion" of abortions didn't occur, then deaths between the ages of birth and five would necessarily rise (outside of a freak miracle of absolutely ZERO of those children dying between birth and five) because ALL of those people, by definition, have now made it to birth before dying.​

I said (to make a point about the silliness of what you said): "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?"

If a "significant proportion" of deaths between 0-64 didn't occur, then deaths from the ages of 65+ would necessarily rise (because ALL of those people, by definition, have now made it to age 65 before dying).​

think of this from the perspective of a mother or family unit that doesn't have enough resources to feed themselves or their family already. Bringing in yet another baby may break the entire family. So -more- people may die as a result of not having an abortion instead of less. Now, I fully admit that I know of no studies that study this issue, but I just think you should consider that what you think would increase average life expectancy might actually decrease it. And this is -especially- true for those who don't consider an embryo or fetus to be a natural person.

Don't have children that you can't provide for.

 

[Into the Night]

You asked and I answered.

So not a murder. Thanks for being honest.

Already did. Pay attention.

As you can see, @IBDaMann, Neither LeftNut nor Scotch can read or understand English.

 

[Yakuda]

I don't think you're understanding basic logic.​

You said: "But perhaps much more important, have you considered how many more -birthed- children there would be who would die between birth and the age of five if a significant proportion of those 40 million abortions didn't occur?"

If a "significant proportion" of abortions didn't occur, then deaths between the ages of birth and five would necessarily rise (outside of a freak miracle of absolutely ZERO of those children dying between birth and five) because ALL of those people, by definition, have now made it to birth before dying.​

I said (to make a point about the silliness of what you said): "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?"

If a "significant proportion" of deaths between 0-64 didn't occur, then deaths from the ages of 65+ would necessarily rise (because ALL of those people, by definition, have now made it to age 65 before dying).​

Don't have children that you can't provide for.

You want them to exercise self restraint?

 

[Into the Night]

I don't think you're understanding basic logic.​

He's already denied it several times so far.

You said: "But perhaps much more important, have you considered how many more -birthed- children there would be who would die between birth and the age of five if a significant proportion of those 40 million abortions didn't occur?"

If a "significant proportion" of abortions didn't occur, then deaths between the ages of birth and five would necessarily rise (outside of a freak miracle of absolutely ZERO of those children dying between birth and five) because ALL of those people, by definition, have now made it to birth before dying.​

I said (to make a point about the silliness of what you said): "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?"

If a "significant proportion" of deaths between 0-64 didn't occur, then deaths from the ages of 65+ would necessarily rise (because ALL of those people, by definition, have now made it to age 65 before dying).​

Don't have children that you can't provide for.

He is taking evasion to an art form. He is still trying to play his word games.

 

[Into the Night]

Agreed.



I certainly agree that it should be the pregnant female's decision. The part of it being none of the rest of society's business is where I don't agree. Society alone decides what is its business and what isn't its business- that becomes clear when we remember that society makes the laws that govern us all. What we can loosely call the conservative right side of society has clearly come to the conclusion that whether a female can or can't have an abortion is its business. I'm fine with them deciding that its their business- I just believe that they've come to the wrong conclusion as to whether females should be allowed to decide. So I've done my best to explain why in the hopes that they have a change of heart.

Murder is not a right, Scotch. Abortion is murder.

 

[gfm7175]

You want them to exercise self restraint?

Yes, but I realize that they can't/won't do it.

I likewise want them to take responsibility for their choices, but they can't/won't do that either.

I also want them to be honest about their desire for women and hitmen (posing as doctors) to have killing supremacy over fathers and unborn children, but they can't/won't do that either.

I also want them to be honest about abortion being a proper subset of contract killing, but they can't/won't do that either.

 

[Yakuda]

You want them to exercise self restraint?

I figured I'd get the finger from you shitbird I absolute LOVE seeing those things.

 

[Yakuda]

Yes, but I realize that they can't/won't do it.

I likewise want them to take responsibility for their choices, but they can't/won't do that either.

I also want them to be honest about their desire to grant women and hitmen (posing as doctors) killing supremacy over fathers and unborn children, but they can't/won't do that either.

I honestly believe they dont possess the inclination to act with self restraint.

 

[AProudLefty]

You didn't answer anything.

I have. Have you forgotten your question?

You're asking the wrong person. Your asking about a scenario that falls outside my definition. Ask me about scenarios that fall within my definition, or ask Into the Night your question as it is.

I'm asking you.

You haven't answered anything. You merely gibbered. Listen to what you are saying.

Sorry that you cannot understand English or have forgotten your questions.

 

[Scott]

It's relevant because those on the pro choice side of this debate believe that not all "living humans" are equal in value.

Ahhhhhh, so the lives of some living humans are "more equal" than others. Got it.

Exactly. This is why it's so important to differentiate the different stages of living humans. Most people agree that human sperms and eggs are not as valuable as what follows, such as embryos and fetuses. The division between a lot of the right and left is that the left views fetuses and especially embryos as less valuable than birth babies and beyond. Everyone I know agrees that once it reaches the stage of a birthed baby, it has the rights of natural people of any age that's older than that.

Btw, I think that "pro choice" is the wrong terminology to be using.

Ofcourse. It suggests that those who are against abortions want to enslave females to carry their pregnancies to term, regardless of their wishes.

We tend to believe that humans should be allowed to remove these "living human" stages prior to birth, whether that be from a fertile male's release of his sperm into a kleenex, where said sperm will inevitably die, or if a sperm impregnates a female, the ability for said female to remove her fertilized egg from her body, at least if it's still a few months away from being born.

There's that dehumanizing language again...

Nothing dehumanizing about the language I've used. What it -is-, is language that is unambiguous as to what is being referred to. I think it's understandable that those who want to control whether or not females are allowed to have abortions want to muddy the waters as much as possible, using words that can refer both to humans that are birthed and not yet birthed. People naturally react to phrases like "killing babies" stronger than "terminating a pregnancy", or pointing out that sperms and eggs that aren't united inside a female's body die on a regular basis.

 

[IBDaMann]

I have.

You have not.

I'm asking you.

I see very clearly that you are asking me. Nonetheless, I am still the wrong person to be asking because your question falls outside my stated definition. I'm not sure why you aren't able to grasp what I am telling you, beyond your inability to read my posts, of course.

@Into the Night will be happy to answer your question about whether it is murder to kill an embryo/fetus before any heartbeat is detected.

 

[AProudLefty]

You have not.

Yes I have. Go reread your question.

I see very clearly that you are asking me. Nonetheless, I am still the wrong person to be asking because your question falls outside my stated definition. I'm not sure why you aren't able to grasp what I am telling you, beyond your inability to read my posts, of course.

You are unwilling to answer my question. Why?

@Into the Night will be happy to answer your question about whether it is murder to kill an embryo/fetus before any heartbeat is detected.

You, @gfm7175 and @Into the Night are indistinguishable from each other. To ask one a question is to ask all of them.

 

[IBDaMann]

You, @gfm7175 and @Into the Night are indistinguishable from each other. To ask one a question is to ask all of them.

Too funny. What will you say when you get differing responses?

 

[AProudLefty]

Too funny. What will you say when you get differing responses?

Not much of differing.

 

[IBDaMann]

Not much of differing.

Of course not; you haven't asked Into the Night your question yet. Too funny! You don't even know when you haven't asked a question yet!

 

[AProudLefty]

Of course not; you haven't asked Into the Night your question yet. Too funny! You don't even know when you haven't asked a question yet!

Still forgetting your own questions?

 

[IBDaMann]

It is their decision [whether or not to allow their own children to remain alive or to snuff the life out of any of them] and none of our business.

FTFY. Incorrect. It is all of society's business when living humans are killed. It is all of society's concern when any parent kills his or her own children. How could you possibly think otherwise, other than being a mindless regurgitator of the Party of Death?