Poll of the Day > Why are leftist so radical about abortion rights?

Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Revelation34 09/20/20 8:39:00 PM #252:	Mead posted... its between a woman and her doctor nobody elses business. Not yours and sure as hell not the governments I slightly disagree. If the woman is in a relationship she should discuss it first but that's it. Her choice is all that matters. Wanded posted... there is "the mother is gonna literally die" danger and there is "this baby is kinda stressing me out" danger if all you need to do to get a third trimester abortion is say "abort this baby or i'll suicide", then there is no real restriction, it's naive to think otherwise. Your ass isn't a source. Wanded posted... that wasn't what i was trying to ask, i'll rephrase a woman goes to have an abortion the day before the baby is born, there is no red tape or any othe third party interfering, there is zero risk to the mothers health, the baby will 100% die in the abortion, the mother wants to abort because she doesn't want to deal with the hassle, the doctor agrees to abort because he wants 5000$ in cash, they both want this abortion to happen. this and nothing else is the scenerio do you think this abortion should be legal? Find a real source where this has actually happened. Unbridled9 posted... I read something different. It said only about half of the women getting abortion have had one previously... Yes. Your point? Only a small portion of pregnancies end in abortion and, of those, they tend to be concentrated into an even smaller subset. I.E if there are 1,000 pregnancies a year then 10 of them end in abortion. Of those 10 only 5 are first timers with the other five being concentrated into a group of women who have repeat abortions. I don't see what's wrong with that. The same article also said: I do not recall citing an article in my post. Since your first two statements were wrong, this is probably wrong, as well... Since this statement is based off of incorrect information, that is... Well first off, no. Even if every woman in the U.S. got pregnant this year and 49% of them got abortions and the other 51% carried to term they'd still be a minority so unless something really insane is happening in the U.S. my statement is almost certainly true... But more to the point it's fairly well known that abortion clinics struggle to stay open at times due to a lack of customers. Simply put, there aren't enough women seeking abortions in the area to keep clinics open. So clearly only a small number of women even utilize the service. The article also mentioned that, "Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used some method of contraception during the month they became pregnant." So, another wrong statement, I guess... The article is old, and stuff can have changed. But it was covering the changes I think for a couple decades. Either way, to change as drastically as you say would be pretty odd... How so? These women used contraceptives and, as has been noted, contraceptives don't have a 100% effectiveness rating. That doesn't mean they are ineffective however and a woman can't have an active sex live, use contraceptives, and not get pregnant. After all, if a woman uses contraceptives then doesn't get pregnant the statistic doesn't get recorded. So what's your argument here? It's a right. And carrying it full affects them a lot. For example, their job. Based on your job, you could end up missing out on many things for work. You could miss a something, which causes a missed promotion. Or miss a chance to travel. And at one point, can't even go. You're also forced to give up certain things, even if they're not the healthiest for you like drinking and smoking. And maybe other things you enjoy, as well. You also get sick in the morning, have doctor bills, and have to buy more food. It's more than just carrying it. It's life changing, even for just those 9 months. And all on your dime because somebody else has control over your body instead of your own self... I don't recall the question of if it being a right or not being part of the question. If you believe that it is and it is something important to you go ahead and vote for it. If you believe it isn't and it's something important to you, go vote against it. My point is that the left is intentionally using it to whip it's voting base, specifically the young female demographic, into a voting frenzy to vote for them regardless of the candidate and to try and grow their power-base. It only affects a small portion of the population at best (especially since half the population can't get pregnant and a sizable portion of the other half is pro-life) but can be easily utilized to whip the entire base up over fear that may be completely unfounded. I mean, think about it, you don't have a CLUE who Biden would put forwards to fill the slot assuming it doesn't get filled and he wins. For all you know he could pick a horrible, corrupt, judge who doesn't care one bit for the law or anything and shills the party line. He could pick a candidate that is pro-life for various reasons both good and bad. Yet people are now in a frenzy over it and the left is doing their best to push the message that, if Trump pushes through his candidate (likely Amy), America may as well rename itself 'The Republic of Gilead'. It's not a small portion. And they shoudl feel threatened. They're taking away a right. Who says they won't go after another right afterwards? You realize that a lot of people on the right feel the same way when it comes to things like freedom of speech and the second amendment, right? Are you going to defend those rights else they take away another right next? Don't go telling me that abortion is a right and freedom of speech and bearing arms aren't when the latter two are in the bill of rights while the former is not. That's the problem, though. Some states are dumb and will choose to not let it happen. And that's really bad... Who are you to decide that for a state that's not your own? I suppose I should make my own stance clear. I am pro-life. I also recognize that the question of when life begins is one that cannot, nor should it, be resolved by a court decision. As such I'm willing to compromise with the pro-choice and do things like accept first-trimester abortions and the like. However I feel that there has become a distinct RIFT in the pro-choice group between two parties. One which is pro-choice (having the option for medical conditions, early pregnancies, and the like but against things like third trimester abortions) and one which is pro-abortion (basically unrestricted abortions). I'm willing to talk to, and compromise with, the former but the latter is unreasonable and unacceptable in my eyes. You're blatantly wrong. Nobody is actually pro-abortion. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:944873899] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted...</cite> <quote> its between a woman and her doctor nobody elses business. Not yours and sure as hell not the governments </quote> I slightly disagree. If the woman is in a relationship she should discuss it first but that's it. Her choice is all that matters. Wanded posted...</cite> <quote> there is "the mother is gonna literally die" danger and there is "this baby is kinda stressing me out" danger if all you need to do to get a third trimester abortion is say "abort this baby or i'll suicide", then there is no real restriction, it's naive to think otherwise. </quote> Your ass isn't a source. Wanded posted...</cite> <quote> that wasn't what i was trying to ask, i'll rephrase a woman goes to have an abortion the day before the baby is born, there is no red tape or any othe third party interfering, there is zero risk to the mothers health, the baby will 100% die in the abortion, the mother wants to abort because she doesn't want to deal with the hassle, the doctor agrees to abort because he wants 5000$ in cash, they both want this abortion to happen. this and nothing else is the scenerio do you think this abortion should be legal? </quote> Find a real source where this has actually happened. Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>I read something different. It said only about half of the women getting abortion have had one previously... Yes. Your point? Only a small portion of pregnancies end in abortion and, of those, they tend to be concentrated into an even smaller subset. I.E if there are 1,000 pregnancies a year then 10 of them end in abortion. Of those 10 only 5 are first timers with the other five being concentrated into a group of women who have repeat abortions. I don't see what's wrong with that. The same article also said: I do not recall citing an article in my post. Since your first two statements were wrong, this is probably wrong, as well... Since this statement is based off of incorrect information, that is... Well first off, no. Even if every woman in the U.S. got pregnant this year and 49% of them got abortions and the other 51% carried to term they'd still be a minority so unless something really insane is happening in the U.S. my statement is almost certainly true... But more to the point it's fairly well known that abortion clinics struggle to stay open at times due to a lack of customers. Simply put, there aren't enough women seeking abortions in the area to keep clinics open. So clearly only a small number of women even utilize the service. The article also mentioned that, "Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used some method of contraception during the month they became pregnant." So, another wrong statement, I guess... The article is old, and stuff can have changed. But it was covering the changes I think for a couple decades. Either way, to change as drastically as you say would be pretty odd... How so? These women used contraceptives and, as has been noted, contraceptives don't have a 100% effectiveness rating. That doesn't mean they are ineffective however and a woman can't have an active sex live, use contraceptives, and not get pregnant. After all, if a woman uses contraceptives then doesn't get pregnant the statistic doesn't get recorded. So what's your argument here? It's a right. And carrying it full affects them a lot. For example, their job. Based on your job, you could end up missing out on many things for work. You could miss a something, which causes a missed promotion. Or miss a chance to travel. And at one point, can't even go. You're also forced to give up certain things, even if they're not the healthiest for you like drinking and smoking. And maybe other things you enjoy, as well. You also get sick in the morning, have doctor bills, and have to buy more food. It's more than just carrying it. It's life changing, even for just those 9 months. And all on your dime because somebody else has control over your body instead of your own self... I don't recall the question of if it being a right or not being part of the question. If you believe that it is and it is something important to you go ahead and vote for it. If you believe it isn't and it's something important to you, go vote against it. My point is that the left is intentionally using it to whip it's voting base, specifically the young female demographic, into a voting frenzy to vote for them regardless of the candidate and to try and grow their power-base. It only affects a small portion of the population at best (especially since half the population can't get pregnant and a sizable portion of the other half is pro-life) but can be easily utilized to whip the entire base up over fear that may be completely unfounded. I mean, think about it, you don't have a CLUE who Biden would put forwards to fill the slot assuming it doesn't get filled and he wins. For all you know he could pick a horrible, corrupt, judge who doesn't care one bit for the law or anything and shills the party line. He could pick a candidate that is pro-life for various reasons both good and bad. Yet people are now in a frenzy over it and the left is doing their best to push the message that, if Trump pushes through his candidate (likely Amy), America may as well rename itself 'The Republic of Gilead'. It's not a small portion. And they shoudl feel threatened. They're taking away a right. Who says they won't go after another right afterwards? You realize that a lot of people on the right feel the same way when it comes to things like freedom of speech and the second amendment, right? Are you going to defend those rights else they take away another right next? Don't go telling me that abortion is a right and freedom of speech and bearing arms aren't when the latter two are in the bill of rights while the former is not. That's the problem, though. Some states are dumb and will choose to not let it happen. And that's really bad... Who are you to decide that for a state that's not your own? I suppose I should make my own stance clear. I am pro-life. I also recognize that the question of when life begins is one that cannot, nor should it, be resolved by a court decision. As such I'm willing to compromise with the pro-choice and do things like accept first-trimester abortions and the like. However I feel that there has become a distinct RIFT in the pro-choice group between two parties. One which is pro-choice (having the option for medical conditions, early pregnancies, and the like but against things like third trimester abortions) and one which is pro-abortion (basically unrestricted abortions). I'm willing to talk to, and compromise with, the former but the latter is unreasonable and unacceptable in my eyes. </quote> You're blatantly wrong. Nobody is actually pro-abortion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 09/20/20 8:41:53 PM #253:	Galcian posted... The fertilized zygote is still the same life as a person is. The only difference is time. Before that time occurs, it is not a person. --- The Betrayer <cite>Mead posted [p:944873986] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Galcian posted... </cite> <quote>The fertilized zygote is still the same life as a person is. The only difference is time.</quote> Before that time occurs, it is not a person. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Galcian 09/20/20 8:48:55 PM #254:	Mead posted... Before that time occurs, it is not a person. At what point does it become a person then? It has the same DNA and life as a baby/child/adult does. It is simply an early life stage. --- <cite>Galcian posted [p:944874232] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>Before that time occurs, it is not a person.</quote>At what point does it become a person then? It has the same DNA and life as a baby/child/adult does. It is simply an early life stage. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 09/20/20 8:53:28 PM #255:	Galcian posted... At what point does it become a person then? It has the same DNA and life as a baby/child/adult does. It is simply an early life stage. The definition of the word person itself means a fetus is not a person. It doesn't become a person until it is born. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:944874413] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Galcian posted...</cite> <quote> At what point does it become a person then? It has the same DNA and life as a baby/child/adult does. It is simply an early life stage. </quote> The definition of the word person itself means a fetus is not a person. It doesn't become a person until it is born.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/20/20 8:56:41 PM #256:	Revelation34 posted... Find a real source where this has actually happened. it's a thought experiment, on which i'm still waiting for @Mead s answer --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944874547] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>Find a real source where this has actually happened.</quote>it's a thought experiment, on which i'm still waiting for @Mead s answer </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 09/20/20 8:57:58 PM #257:	Galcian posted... At what point does it become a person then? Nobody knows for sure, a lot of people think it is when the heart begins beating or where brain activity starts to form --- The Betrayer <cite>Mead posted [p:944874599] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Galcian posted... </cite> <quote>At what point does it become a person then?</quote> Nobody knows for sure, a lot of people think it is when the heart begins beating or where brain activity starts to form </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/20/20 8:58:04 PM #258:	Revelation34 posted... The definition of the word person itself means a fetus is not a person. It doesn't become a person until it is born. where does it say that --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944874605] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>The definition of the word person itself means a fetus is not a person. It doesn't become a person until it is born.</quote>where does it say that </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbridled9 09/20/20 8:59:06 PM #259:	Wanded posted... if i drive in a car at night and see something enter the road right in front of me, might be a human, might be a dog or some other animal, might just be something the wind moved, isn't the only correct choice to stop the car? I'm gonna stop you right there. There's no way that a court ruling about when life begins can not conflict with religious/personal viewpoints. Let's assume a person attacks a pregnant woman and stabs her in the belly killing the baby but the woman survives. Is the attacker guilty of murder/homicide/whatever? If a court rules that life begins at birth and not before than the attacker is not guilty even if the mother was eagerly awaiting the delivery of her baby. If it rules that it begins earlier then at what point does it become 'alive' and could the attacker be found guilty of murder if they didn't even know the woman was pregnant because it was so early on? There's a lot of questions and it shouldn't be answered by the courts especially if the answer comes about not through an examination of morality, spirituality, or whatever and, instead, because of party propaganda. --- I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ***! - White Mage <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:944874641] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>if i drive in a car at night and see something enter the road right in front of me, might be a human, might be a dog or some other animal, might just be something the wind moved, isn't the only correct choice to stop the car?</quote> I'm gonna stop you right there. There's no way that a court ruling about when life begins can not conflict with religious/personal viewpoints. Let's assume a person attacks a pregnant woman and stabs her in the belly killing the baby but the woman survives. Is the attacker guilty of murder/homicide/whatever? If a court rules that life begins at birth and not before than the attacker is not guilty even if the mother was eagerly awaiting the delivery of her baby. If it rules that it begins earlier then at what point does it become 'alive' and could the attacker be found guilty of murder if they didn't even know the woman was pregnant because it was so early on? There's a lot of questions and it shouldn't be answered by the courts especially if the answer comes about not through an examination of morality, spirituality, or whatever and, instead, because of party propaganda. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thedeerzord 09/20/20 8:59:31 PM #260:	Revelation34 posted... It doesn't become a person until it is born. No it doesn't. It becomes a person the moment it is conceived. If it doesn't become a person at that moment, then it does the moment it is able to survive outside of the womb. --- Please pray for this GFaqs user:Jen0125. Shes like, so mean and hateful and stuff. <cite>thedeerzord posted [p:944874654] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>It doesn't become a person until it is born.</quote>No it doesn't. It becomes a person the moment it is conceived. If it doesn't become a person at that moment, then it does the moment it is able to survive outside of the womb. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 09/20/20 8:59:51 PM #261:	Wanded posted... it's a thought experiment, on which i'm still waiting for @Mead s answer about whether or not to run someone over? That doesnt have anything to do with anything if you have to carefully build parameters around your question or insist on yes/no answers all you are doing is showing that youre incapable of actually having an intelligent discussion --- The Betrayer <cite>Mead posted [p:944874671] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>it's a thought experiment, on which i'm still waiting for @Mead s answer</quote> about whether or not to run someone over? That doesnt have anything to do with anything if you have to carefully build parameters around your question or insist on yes/no answers all you are doing is showing that youre incapable of actually having an intelligent discussion </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/20/20 8:59:59 PM #262:	Mead posted... Nobody knows for sure, a lot of people think it is when the heart begins beating or where brain activity starts to form that's around week 6 of the pregnancy --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944874681] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>Nobody knows for sure, a lot of people think it is when the heart begins beating or where brain activity starts to form</quote>that's around week 6 of the pregnancy </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/20/20 9:02:50 PM #263:	Mead posted... about whether or not to run someone over? That doesnt have anything to do with anything you ignored this post "that wasn't what i was trying to ask, i'll rephrase a woman goes to have an abortion the day before the baby is born, there is no red tape or any othe third party interfering, there is zero risk to the mothers health, the baby will 100% die in the abortion, the mother wants to abort because she doesn't want to deal with the hassle, the doctor agrees to abort because he wants 5000$ in cash, they both want this abortion to happen. this and nothing else is the scenerio do you think this abortion should be legal?" --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944874792] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>about whether or not to run someone over? That doesnt have anything to do with anything</quote>you ignored this post "that wasn't what i was trying to ask, i'll rephrase a woman goes to have an abortion the day before the baby is born, there is no red tape or any othe third party interfering, there is zero risk to the mothers health, the baby will 100% die in the abortion, the mother wants to abort because she doesn't want to deal with the hassle, the doctor agrees to abort because he wants 5000$ in cash, they both want this abortion to happen. this and nothing else is the scenerio do you think this abortion should be legal?" </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DirtBasedSoap 09/20/20 9:04:48 PM #264:	no reasonable person thinks you should be able to abort a baby 9 months into a pregnancy lol --- me when anyone replies to my posts: https://youtu.be/d1YBv2mWll0 <cite>DirtBasedSoap posted [p:944874867] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>no reasonable person thinks you should be able to abort a baby 9 months into a pregnancy lol </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 09/20/20 9:07:49 PM #265:	Wanded posted... that's around week 6 of the pregnancy for a heartbeat --- The Betrayer <cite>Mead posted [p:944874970] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>that's around week 6 of the pregnancy</quote> for a heartbeat </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 09/20/20 9:09:07 PM #266:	Wanded posted... you ignored this post "that wasn't what i was trying to ask, i'll rephrase a woman goes to have an abortion the day before the baby is born, there is no red tape or any othe third party interfering, there is zero risk to the mothers health, the baby will 100% die in the abortion, the mother wants to abort because she doesn't want to deal with the hassle, the doctor agrees to abort because he wants 5000$ in cash, they both want this abortion to happen. this and nothing else is the scenerio do you think this abortion should be legal?" Lol what in the hell is actually the matter with you Mead posted... if you have to carefully build parameters around your question or insist on yes/no answers all you are doing is showing that youre incapable of actually having an intelligent discussion --- The Betrayer <cite>Mead posted [p:944875015] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>you ignored this post "that wasn't what i was trying to ask, i'll rephrase a woman goes to have an abortion the day before the baby is born, there is no red tape or any othe third party interfering, there is zero risk to the mothers health, the baby will 100% die in the abortion, the mother wants to abort because she doesn't want to deal with the hassle, the doctor agrees to abort because he wants 5000$ in cash, they both want this abortion to happen. this and nothing else is the scenerio do you think this abortion should be legal?"</quote> Lol what in the hell is actually the matter with you Mead posted... </cite> <quote>if you have to carefully build parameters around your question or insist on yes/no answers all you are doing is showing that youre incapable of actually having an intelligent discussion</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zareth 09/20/20 9:33:53 PM #267:	Wanded posted... if i drive in a car at night and see something enter the road right in front of me, might be a human, might be a dog or some other animal, might just be something the wind moved, isn't the only correct choice to stop the car? You really need to stop it with the comparisons, dude, you're really bad at them. --- It's okay, I have no idea who I am either. https://imgur.com/WOo6wcq <cite>Zareth posted [p:944875952] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>if i drive in a car at night and see something enter the road right in front of me, might be a human, might be a dog or some other animal, might just be something the wind moved, isn't the only correct choice to stop the car?</quote>You really need to stop it with the comparisons, dude, you're really bad at them. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/20/20 10:36:01 PM #268:	Wanded posted... a fetus has the genetical dna code of a human, it is a human Not until it's born, it's not... Unbridled9 posted... Yes. Your point? Only a small portion of pregnancies end in abortion and, of those, they tend to be concentrated into an even smaller subset. I.E if there are 1,000 pregnancies a year then 10 of them end in abortion. Of those 10 only 5 are first timers with the other five being concentrated into a group of women who have repeat abortions. I don't see what's wrong with that. Except you said, "it tends to be concentrated into a small selection of repeat-aborters." But that's not true as half of the ones aborting are actually first timers. In 2017, there were over 860,000 abortions. So, following that logic, So over 460,000 were most likely first timers. Maybe in small percentage-wise at one percent, but it's also still quite a large number. And the small selection or repeat abusers makes up less than half of the abortions. Unbridled9 posted... I do not recall citing an article in my post. I wasn't talking about the one I read... Unbridled9 posted... Well first off, no. Even if every woman in the U.S. got pregnant this year and 49% of them got abortions and the other 51% carried to term they'd still be a minority so unless something really insane is happening in the U.S. my statement is almost certainly true... But more to the point it's fairly well known that abortion clinics struggle to stay open at times due to a lack of customers. Simply put, there aren't enough women seeking abortions in the area to keep clinics open. So clearly only a small number of women even utilize the service. It would be a minority for that year. But people can get pregnant more than once. And in different years, as well... Meaning that it could end up affected most of them over time. Not only that, but it still affects all women since we have taken their control of their body away. No matter whether they want the baby or not, they have to have it. So, it still affect them because they can't get a legal abortion... So, it most likely won't be true. The only reason it affects less women is because the rate has been dropping since like forever. Though, that might just be the US... And I don't think it's because they are seeking it, but because some states keeping banning it, or making women jump through hoops to get one. Unbridled9 posted... How so? These women used contraceptives and, as has been noted, contraceptives don't have a 100% effectiveness rating. That doesn't mean they are ineffective however and a woman can't have an active sex live, use contraceptives, and not get pregnant. After all, if a woman uses contraceptives then doesn't get pregnant the statistic doesn't get recorded. So what's your argument here? I never said they were ineffective. Earlier, you made it sound as though it was mainly because they weren't using contraceptives enough, then we would get rid of the unwanted pregnancies. But maybe I read that wrong. That being said, nearly half of pregnancies are unwanted. And many may have been wearing contraceptives. Especially since I think the article had mentioned only 11% of women weren't practicing contraception... Unbridled9 posted... I don't recall the question of if it being a right or not being part of the question. If you believe that it is and it is something important to you go ahead and vote for it. If you believe it isn't and it's something important to you, go vote against it. My point is that the left is intentionally using it to whip it's voting base, specifically the young female demographic, into a voting frenzy to vote for them regardless of the candidate and to try and grow their power-base. It only affects a small portion of the population at best (especially since half the population can't get pregnant and a sizable portion of the other half is pro-life) but can be easily utilized to whip the entire base up over fear that may be completely unfounded. The reason I mentioned it being a right is because you said, "If it's a right is debatable at best". But I disagree and say it is a right. As for population, it can't affect all of them at once. That doesn't mean it won't affect them later. Some females can get pregnant, or can't get pregnant yet. That doesn't mean it won't affect them once they're older, though. Not to mention, that for women having abortion, apparently 6 out of 10 are already mothers. So, even the people who have had kids go to get abortions, as well... So, it could end up affect all women. But just in different years. Seeing as women are different ages, and there will always be some who are too old, and some who are too young. Just because it doesn't affect the old ones anymore doesn't mean it didn't affect them when they were younger. Unbridled9 posted... I mean, think about it, you don't have a CLUE who Biden would put forwards to fill the slot assuming it doesn't get filled and he wins. For all you know he could pick a horrible, corrupt, judge who doesn't care one bit for the law or anything and shills the party line. He could pick a candidate that is pro-life for various reasons both good and bad. Yet people are now in a frenzy over it and the left is doing their best to push the message that, if Trump pushes through his candidate (likely Amy), America may as well rename itself 'The Republic of Gilead'. He could. Though, it I'm being honest, I still trust him more than Trump... I'd at least give him a chance... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:944878480] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>a fetus has the genetical dna code of a human, it is a human</quote> Not until it's born, it's not... Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes. Your point? Only a small portion of pregnancies end in abortion and, of those, they tend to be concentrated into an even smaller subset. I.E if there are 1,000 pregnancies a year then 10 of them end in abortion. Of those 10 only 5 are first timers with the other five being concentrated into a group of women who have repeat abortions. I don't see what's wrong with that.</quote> Except you said, "it tends to be concentrated into a small selection of repeat-aborters." But that's not true as half of the ones aborting are actually first timers. In 2017, there were over 860,000 abortions. So, following that logic, So over 460,000 were most likely first timers. Maybe in small percentage-wise at one percent, but it's also still quite a large number. And the small selection or repeat abusers makes up less than half of the abortions. Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>I do not recall citing an article in my post.</quote> I wasn't talking about the one I read... Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>Well first off, no. Even if every woman in the U.S. got pregnant this year and 49% of them got abortions and the other 51% carried to term they'd still be a minority so unless something really insane is happening in the U.S. my statement is almost certainly true... But more to the point it's fairly well known that abortion clinics struggle to stay open at times due to a lack of customers. Simply put, there aren't enough women seeking abortions in the area to keep clinics open. So clearly only a small number of women even utilize the service.</quote> It would be a minority for that year. But people can get pregnant more than once. And in different years, as well... Meaning that it could end up affected most of them over time. Not only that, but it still affects all women since we have taken their control of their body away. No matter whether they want the baby or not, they have to have it. So, it still affect them because they can't get a legal abortion... So, it most likely won't be true. The only reason it affects less women is because the rate has been dropping since like forever. Though, that might just be the US... And I don't think it's because they are seeking it, but because some states keeping banning it, or making women jump through hoops to get one. Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>How so? These women used contraceptives and, as has been noted, contraceptives don't have a 100% effectiveness rating. That doesn't mean they are ineffective however and a woman can't have an active sex live, use contraceptives, and not get pregnant. After all, if a woman uses contraceptives then doesn't get pregnant the statistic doesn't get recorded. So what's your argument here?</quote> I never said they were ineffective. Earlier, you made it sound as though it was mainly because they weren't using contraceptives enough, then we would get rid of the unwanted pregnancies. But maybe I read that wrong. That being said, nearly half of pregnancies are unwanted. And many may have been wearing contraceptives. Especially since I think the article had mentioned only 11% of women weren't practicing contraception... Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>I don't recall the question of if it being a right or not being part of the question. If you believe that it is and it is something important to you go ahead and vote for it. If you believe it isn't and it's something important to you, go vote against it. My point is that the left is intentionally using it to whip it's voting base, specifically the young female demographic, into a voting frenzy to vote for them regardless of the candidate and to try and grow their power-base. It only affects a small portion of the population at best (especially since half the population can't get pregnant and a sizable portion of the other half is pro-life) but can be easily utilized to whip the entire base up over fear that may be completely unfounded.</quote> The reason I mentioned it being a right is because you said, "If it's a right is debatable at best". But I disagree and say it is a right. As for population, it can't affect all of them at once. That doesn't mean it won't affect them later. Some females can get pregnant, or can't get pregnant yet. That doesn't mean it won't affect them once they're older, though. Not to mention, that for women having abortion, apparently 6 out of 10 are already mothers. So, even the people who have had kids go to get abortions, as well... So, it could end up affect all women. But just in different years. Seeing as women are different ages, and there will always be some who are too old, and some who are too young. Just because it doesn't affect the old ones anymore doesn't mean it didn't affect them when they were younger. Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, think about it, you don't have a CLUE who Biden would put forwards to fill the slot assuming it doesn't get filled and he wins. For all you know he could pick a horrible, corrupt, judge who doesn't care one bit for the law or anything and shills the party line. He could pick a candidate that is pro-life for various reasons both good and bad. Yet people are now in a frenzy over it and the left is doing their best to push the message that, if Trump pushes through his candidate (likely Amy), America may as well rename itself 'The Republic of Gilead'.</quote> He could. Though, it I'm being honest, I still trust him more than Trump... I'd at least give him a chance...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/20/20 10:36:07 PM #269:	Unbridled9 posted... You realize that a lot of people on the right feel the same way when it comes to things like freedom of speech and the second amendment, right? Are you going to defend those rights else they take away another right next? Don't go telling me that abortion is a right and freedom of speech and bearing arms aren't when the latter two are in the bill of rights while the former is not. Sure. I never said I was against guns. Nor have I tried to take them away from people. I also do believe in free speech. Though, like others have said, "Freedom or speech" is not "Freedom of consequences". But I would be against it if someone tried to take away freedom of speech or the second amendment... I don't even know what gave you the impression I wouldn't fight for those... Unbridled9 posted... Who are you to decide that for a state that's not your own? I don't decide. But I think it's dumb when a women have to give up the rights to her body just because a state is against it. I don't think the state should choose. I think a woman has the right to choose... Unbridled9 posted... I suppose I should make my own stance clear. I am pro-life. I also recognize that the question of when life begins is one that cannot, nor should it, be resolved by a court decision. As such I'm willing to compromise with the pro-choice and do things like accept first-trimester abortions and the like. However I feel that there has become a distinct RIFT in the pro-choice group between two parties. One which is pro-choice (having the option for medical conditions, early pregnancies, and the like but against things like third trimester abortions) and one which is pro-abortion (basically unrestricted abortions). I'm willing to talk to, and compromise with, the former but the latter is unreasonable and unacceptable in my eyes. Personally, I'm pro-choice. I'd rather women make their own choice. As for when they have the abortion, I don't really care. I think they should have a reason why. And I don't think they should wit unnecessarily. I also know that there could be many reason on why they had to wait, or that something could have possibly changed last minute, as well. Like the sudden death of a spouse, or something new found with the baby. Either way, I don't think their rights should be taken away. And I think they should get the abortion as early as possible. But I still think late abortions can be fine. Because I'm not going to tell someone whether their reason is good or not... Wanded posted... if i drive in a car at night and see something enter the road right in front of me, might be a human, might be a dog or some other animal, might just be something the wind moved, isn't the only correct choice to stop the car? Depends on everything else happening. Maybe stopping the car would cause an accident, for example... Unbridled9 posted... If a court rules that life begins at birth and not before than the attacker is not guilty even if the mother was eagerly awaiting the delivery of her baby. He's not guilty or murder, but still has assault with a deadly weapon and possibly attempted murder, as well... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:944878484] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>You realize that a lot of people on the right feel the same way when it comes to things like freedom of speech and the second amendment, right? Are you going to defend those rights else they take away another right next? Don't go telling me that abortion is a right and freedom of speech and bearing arms aren't when the latter two are in the bill of rights while the former is not.</quote> Sure. I never said I was against guns. Nor have I tried to take them away from people. I also do believe in free speech. Though, like others have said, "Freedom or speech" is not "Freedom of consequences". But I would be against it if someone tried to take away freedom of speech or the second amendment... I don't even know what gave you the impression I wouldn't fight for those... Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>Who are you to decide that for a state that's not your own?</quote> I don't decide. But I think it's dumb when a women have to give up the rights to her body just because a state is against it. I don't think the state should choose. I think a woman has the right to choose... Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>I suppose I should make my own stance clear. I am pro-life. I also recognize that the question of when life begins is one that cannot, nor should it, be resolved by a court decision. As such I'm willing to compromise with the pro-choice and do things like accept first-trimester abortions and the like. However I feel that there has become a distinct RIFT in the pro-choice group between two parties. One which is pro-choice (having the option for medical conditions, early pregnancies, and the like but against things like third trimester abortions) and one which is pro-abortion (basically unrestricted abortions). I'm willing to talk to, and compromise with, the former but the latter is unreasonable and unacceptable in my eyes.</quote> Personally, I'm pro-choice. I'd rather women make their own choice. As for when they have the abortion, I don't really care. I think they should have a reason why. And I don't think they should wit unnecessarily. I also know that there could be many reason on why they had to wait, or that something could have possibly changed last minute, as well. Like the sudden death of a spouse, or something new found with the baby. Either way, I don't think their rights should be taken away. And I think they should get the abortion as early as possible. But I still think late abortions can be fine. Because I'm not going to tell someone whether their reason is good or not... Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>if i drive in a car at night and see something enter the road right in front of me, might be a human, might be a dog or some other animal, might just be something the wind moved, isn't the only correct choice to stop the car?</quote> Depends on everything else happening. Maybe stopping the car would cause an accident, for example... Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>If a court rules that life begins at birth and not before than the attacker is not guilty even if the mother was eagerly awaiting the delivery of her baby.</quote> He's not guilty or murder, but still has assault with a deadly weapon and possibly attempted murder, as well...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BarneyBosco 09/20/20 10:44:23 PM #270:	The left abandoned their war on drugs and have recently doubled up on their war on kids. --- http://celebmafia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Ana-Ivanovic-5.jpg PSN J_Frost77 search my PSN to join the Divinity Original Sin Community <cite>BarneyBosco posted [p:944878760] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>The left abandoned their war on drugs and have recently doubled up on their war on kids. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DirtBasedSoap 09/20/20 10:46:19 PM #271:	BarneyBosco posted... The left BarneyBosco posted... war on drugs youre confused --- me when anyone replies to my posts: https://youtu.be/d1YBv2mWll0 <cite>DirtBasedSoap posted [p:944878824] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>BarneyBosco posted... </cite> <quote>The left</quote> BarneyBosco posted... </cite> <quote>war on drugs</quote>youre confused </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 09/20/20 11:31:23 PM #272:	BarneyBosco posted... The left abandoned their war on drugs and have recently doubled up on their war on kids. to be fair drugs are way better than most kids --- The Betrayer <cite>Mead posted [p:944880344] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>BarneyBosco posted... </cite> <quote>The left abandoned their war on drugs and have recently doubled up on their war on kids.</quote> to be fair drugs are way better than most kids </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/21/20 12:42:23 AM #273:	Unbridled9 posted... I'm gonna stop you right there. There's no way that a court ruling about when life begins can not conflict with religious/personal viewpoints. Let's assume a person attacks a pregnant woman and stabs her in the belly killing the baby but the woman survives. Is the attacker guilty of murder/homicide/whatever? If a court rules that life begins at birth and not before than the attacker is not guilty even if the mother was eagerly awaiting the delivery of her baby. If it rules that it begins earlier then at what point does it become 'alive' and could the attacker be found guilty of murder if they didn't even know the woman was pregnant because it was so early on? There's a lot of questions and it shouldn't be answered by the courts especially if the answer comes about not through an examination of morality, spirituality, or whatever and, instead, because of party propaganda. i meant that if you have a button with "maybe murder" written on it, you shouldn't press it. --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944882395] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Unbridled9 posted... </cite> <quote>I'm gonna stop you right there. There's no way that a court ruling about when life begins can not conflict with religious/personal viewpoints. Let's assume a person attacks a pregnant woman and stabs her in the belly killing the baby but the woman survives. Is the attacker guilty of murder/homicide/whatever? If a court rules that life begins at birth and not before than the attacker is not guilty even if the mother was eagerly awaiting the delivery of her baby. If it rules that it begins earlier then at what point does it become 'alive' and could the attacker be found guilty of murder if they didn't even know the woman was pregnant because it was so early on? There's a lot of questions and it shouldn't be answered by the courts especially if the answer comes about not through an examination of morality, spirituality, or whatever and, instead, because of party propaganda.</quote>i meant that if you have a button with "maybe murder" written on it, you shouldn't press it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/21/20 12:45:14 AM #274:	Mead posted... for a heartbeat brainwave is before the heartbeat Mead posted... Lol what in the hell is actually the matter with you i'm not having a discussion, i'm checking what your beliefs are so answer the question, do you believe that scenerio should be legal? --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944882461] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>for a heartbeat</quote>brainwave is before the heartbeat Mead posted... </cite> <quote>Lol what in the hell is actually the matter with you</quote>i'm not having a discussion, i'm checking what your beliefs are so answer the question, do you believe that scenerio should be legal? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/21/20 12:48:02 AM #275:	LinkPizza posted... Not until it's born, it's not... again, on what basis? who decided the fully developed baby 5 seconds before birth is not human but the one 5 seconds after birth is? --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944882537] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Not until it's born, it's not...</quote>again, on what basis? who decided the fully developed baby 5 seconds before birth is not human but the one 5 seconds after birth is? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wolfy42 09/21/20 12:54:31 AM #276:	While not "pro-abortion" I am VERY pro population control. I believe that should be done with birth control, and not by abortions, in fact I don't believe abortions should ever be necessary, but I do believe it's better to have an abortion than to give birth to a child who will be neglected, abused or just basically not have a loving family to take care of them. I won't force my belief on others, or make other people have an abortion because of how I feel etc. That seems crazy to me. I honestly believe this should be left up to the individual mothers (and fathers to some degree), and to the doctors that actually perform the abortion (IE if no doctors want to, then you can't get one (well from a doctor), and you should never force a doctor to give an abortion if they don't believe in it (or fire them because they won't). You should need to state that is the case if your a doctor in that field though, which would obviously have a large impact on if you got hired or not. Sadly though that could allow a hospital to ONLY hire doctors that don't believe in giving abortions, which could mean in some states, they would be very hard to get. Even so, you should not make it mandatory to do that for doctors, I believe that is just as wrong as not allowing a mother to get an abortion. You should not force people to do things they do not want, and that sadly includes giving birth. If you feel it is murder, put the burden on those who do, and pony up money to pay for women to give birth to unwanted babies (again with the caveat of getting tubes tied, and having it only be once per woman etc). That would prevent most abortions right there (sadly it might encourage some to actually get pregnant for the pay day, so it's not a perfect solution). --- Tacobot 3000 "Saving the world from not having tacos." Glowing Elephant "Stonehedge was a sex thing." <cite>wolfy42 posted [p:944882692] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>While not "pro-abortion" I am VERY pro population control. I believe that should be done with birth control, and not by abortions, in fact I don't believe abortions should ever be necessary, but I do believe it's better to have an abortion than to give birth to a child who will be neglected, abused or just basically not have a loving family to take care of them. I won't force my belief on others, or make other people have an abortion because of how I feel etc. That seems crazy to me. I honestly believe this should be left up to the individual mothers (and fathers to some degree), and to the doctors that actually perform the abortion (IE if no doctors want to, then you can't get one (well from a doctor), and you should never force a doctor to give an abortion if they don't believe in it (or fire them because they won't). You should need to state that is the case if your a doctor in that field though, which would obviously have a large impact on if you got hired or not. Sadly though that could allow a hospital to ONLY hire doctors that don't believe in giving abortions, which could mean in some states, they would be very hard to get. Even so, you should not make it mandatory to do that for doctors, I believe that is just as wrong as not allowing a mother to get an abortion. You should not force people to do things they do not want, and that sadly includes giving birth. If you feel it is murder, put the burden on those who do, and pony up money to pay for women to give birth to unwanted babies (again with the caveat of getting tubes tied, and having it only be once per woman etc). That would prevent most abortions right there (sadly it might encourage some to actually get pregnant for the pay day, so it's not a perfect solution). </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 09/21/20 1:08:26 AM #277:	Wanded posted... alright, same scenerio but a day before? would be interesting to hear your @Mead @BlackScythe0 answer to this as well woman comes to abort a day before the baby is born, no red tape, no danger to the mother, the abortion will be 100% successful and the baby won't be alive, you're ruler of the universe, yay or nay? How do you know the date the baby is born? Sometimes it's early sometimes it's late. Anyways irrelevant question I'm not in support of month 9 abortions. I think it's generally around month 7 when it becomes viable if I recall correctly. I know I've looked it up before and can't be bothered to do so for a response to you (massive headache from smelling paint all day at work) <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:944882993] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>alright, same scenerio but a day before? would be interesting to hear your @Mead @BlackScythe0 answer to this as well woman comes to abort a day before the baby is born, no red tape, no danger to the mother, the abortion will be 100% successful and the baby won't be alive, you're ruler of the universe, yay or nay?</quote> How do you know the date the baby is born? Sometimes it's early sometimes it's late. Anyways irrelevant question I'm not in support of month 9 abortions. I think it's generally around month 7 when it becomes viable if I recall correctly. I know I've looked it up before and can't be bothered to do so for a response to you (massive headache from smelling paint all day at work) </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wolfy42 09/21/20 1:13:16 AM #278:	BlackScythe0 posted... alright, same scenerio but a day before? would be interesting to hear your @Mead @BlackScythe0 answer to this as well woman comes to abort a day before the baby is born, no red tape, no danger to the mother, the abortion will be 100% successful and the baby won't be alive, you're ruler of the universe, yay or nay? I'm pretty sure it would be more dangerous to abort at that point than to give birth. If I'm the ruler of the universe I would ensure the baby was born and had a good family to take care of it. I don't think anyone gives 9 month abortions (doctors at least), I have of course heard of babies been born dead (Stillborn) which totally sucks, but, I don't think that is usually induced. Mother would basically still have to give birth, so it's just a choice of if she gives birth to a live or dead baby, and basically you would be killing a fully formed baby at that point. --- Tacobot 3000 "Saving the world from not having tacos." Glowing Elephant "Stonehedge was a sex thing." <cite>wolfy42 posted [p:944883095] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>BlackScythe0 posted... </cite> <quote>alright, same scenerio but a day before? would be interesting to hear your @Mead @BlackScythe0 answer to this as well woman comes to abort a day before the baby is born, no red tape, no danger to the mother, the abortion will be 100% successful and the baby won't be alive, you're ruler of the universe, yay or nay?</quote> I'm pretty sure it would be more dangerous to abort at that point than to give birth. If I'm the ruler of the universe I would ensure the baby was born and had a good family to take care of it. I don't think anyone gives 9 month abortions (doctors at least), I have of course heard of babies been born dead (Stillborn) which totally sucks, but, I don't think that is usually induced. Mother would basically still have to give birth, so it's just a choice of if she gives birth to a live or dead baby, and basically you would be killing a fully formed baby at that point. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 09/21/20 1:15:51 AM #279:	Wanded posted... i'm not having a discussion, i'm checking what your beliefs are so answer the question, do you believe that scenerio should be legal? Not only should it be legal but the doctor should be awarded the Nobel prize for baby murderin --- The Betrayer <cite>Mead posted [p:944883152] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>i'm not having a discussion, i'm checking what your beliefs are so answer the question, do you believe that scenerio should be legal?</quote> Not only should it be legal but the doctor should be awarded the Nobel prize for baby murderin </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/21/20 1:25:48 AM #280:	Wanded posted... again, on what basis? who decided the fully developed baby 5 seconds before birth is not human but the one 5 seconds after birth is? The law, I guess. Since abortion literally isnt murder. Not to mention, it doesnt get any rights than humans have until its born. So, its not a human until its borne until then, its a fetus and nothing more... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:944883369] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>again, on what basis? who decided the fully developed baby 5 seconds before birth is not human but the one 5 seconds after birth is?</quote> The law, I guess. Since abortion literally isnt murder. Not to mention, it doesnt get any rights than humans have until its born. So, its not a human until its borne until then, its a fetus and nothing more...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/21/20 1:29:26 AM #281:	wolfy42 posted... You should not force people to do things they do not want, and that sadly includes giving birth. If you feel it is murder, put the burden on those who do, and pony up money to pay for women to give birth to unwanted babies (again with the caveat of getting tubes tied, and having it only be once per woman etc). That would prevent most abortions right there (sadly it might encourage some to actually get pregnant for the pay day, so it's not a perfect solution). The tubes tying thing is a little much, too, tbh. Especially since they probably wont cover the cost to get it undone when theyre ready to have kids. Not to mention, some abortions are done not because they dont want kids, but because they wouldnt be able to take care of a child with special needs (whether financially or otherwise)... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:944883449] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>wolfy42 posted...</cite> <quote>You should not force people to do things they do not want, and that sadly includes giving birth. If you feel it is murder, put the burden on those who do, and pony up money to pay for women to give birth to unwanted babies (again with the caveat of getting tubes tied, and having it only be once per woman etc). That would prevent most abortions right there (sadly it might encourage some to actually get pregnant for the pay day, so it's not a perfect solution).</quote> The tubes tying thing is a little much, too, tbh. Especially since they probably wont cover the cost to get it undone when theyre ready to have kids. Not to mention, some abortions are done not because they dont want kids, but because they wouldnt be able to take care of a child with special needs (whether financially or otherwise)...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/21/20 2:04:17 AM #282:	LinkPizza posted... The law, I guess alright, so once the law changes and deems abortion is murder and fetuses have basic human right, would you accept that? BlackScythe0 posted... How do you know the date the baby is born? Sometimes it's early sometimes it's late. Anyways irrelevant question I'm not in support of month 9 abortions. I think it's generally around month 7 when it becomes viable if I recall correctly. I know I've looked it up before and can't be bothered to do so for a response to you (massive headache from smelling paint all day at work) i don't, it's just a hypothetical what makes it viable though? why that secific time period and not like a week before that --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944884139] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>The law, I guess</quote>alright, so once the law changes and deems abortion is murder and fetuses have basic human right, would you accept that? BlackScythe0 posted... </cite> <quote>How do you know the date the baby is born? Sometimes it's early sometimes it's late. Anyways irrelevant question I'm not in support of month 9 abortions. I think it's generally around month 7 when it becomes viable if I recall correctly. I know I've looked it up before and can't be bothered to do so for a response to you (massive headache from smelling paint all day at work)</quote>i don't, it's just a hypothetical what makes it viable though? why that secific time period and not like a week before that </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/21/20 2:06:36 AM #283:	Wanded posted... alright, so once the law changes and deems abortion is murder and fetuses have basic human right, would you accept that? Nope. --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:944884185] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>alright, so once the law changes and deems abortion is murder and fetuses have basic human right, would you accept that?</quote> Nope.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/21/20 2:10:37 AM #284:	Wanded posted... what makes it viable though? Do you know what viable is? Viable in this case, means that the fetus will survive birth, and survive as a baby. I believe they can be like 80%-90% at maybe 24 weeks. I could be a little early there, though. It might be later. Of course, thats born early, but not induced, as far as I know... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:944884256] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>what makes it viable though?</quote> Do you know what viable is? Viable in this case, means that the fetus will survive birth, and survive as a baby. I believe they can be like 80%-90% at maybe 24 weeks. I could be a little early there, though. It might be later. Of course, thats born early, but not induced, as far as I know...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/21/20 2:15:01 AM #285:	LinkPizza posted... Nope. why not, you just said the law is the basis to your abortion stance, hence if the law changes it is supposed to change as well --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944884336] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Nope.</quote>why not, you just said the law is the basis to your abortion stance, hence if the law changes it is supposed to change as well </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/21/20 2:17:02 AM #286:	LinkPizza posted... Do you know what viable is? Viable in this case, means that the fetus will survive birth, and survive as a baby. I believe they can be like 80%-90% at maybe 24 weeks. I could be a little early there, though. It might be later. Of course, thats born early, but not induced, as far as I know... it can survive from the first 1, all you have to do is leave it alone and not kill it, it's viable from conception, as long as you live it alone. --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944884365] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Do you know what viable is? Viable in this case, means that the fetus will survive birth, and survive as a baby. I believe they can be like 80%-90% at maybe 24 weeks. I could be a little early there, though. It might be later. Of course, thats born early, but not induced, as far as I know...</quote>it can survive from the first 1, all you have to do is leave it alone and not kill it, it's viable from conception, as long as you live it alone. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 09/21/20 2:18:49 AM #287:	thedeerzord posted... No it doesn't. It becomes a person the moment it is conceived. If it doesn't become a person at that moment, then it does the moment it is able to survive outside of the womb. No it would be a human when it is conceived, not a person. wolfy42 posted... , and you should never force a doctor to give an abortion if they don't believe in it (or fire them because they won't). If that's their job then they should be forced to do it. Same reason why any pharmacist that refuses to fill out birth control pills deserves to be fired. Wanded posted... alright, so if the law changes and deems abortion is murder and fetuses have basic human right, would you accept that? I fixed that for you. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:944884391] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>thedeerzord posted...</cite> <quote>No it doesn't. It becomes a person the moment it is conceived. If it doesn't become a person at that moment, then it does the moment it is able to survive outside of the womb.</quote> No it would be a human when it is conceived, not a person. wolfy42 posted...</cite> <quote>, and you should never force a doctor to give an abortion if they don't believe in it (or fire them because they won't).</quote> If that's their job then they should be forced to do it. Same reason why any pharmacist that refuses to fill out birth control pills deserves to be fired. Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>alright, so if the law changes and deems abortion is murder and fetuses have basic human right, would you accept that?</quote> I fixed that for you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 09/21/20 2:20:39 AM #288:	Wanded posted... it can survive from the first 1, all you have to do is leave it alone and not kill it, it's viable from conception, as long as you live it alone. This is not an argument. This is nonsense. You know what viable means. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:944884414] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>it can survive from the first 1, all you have to do is leave it alone and not kill it, it's viable from conception, as long as you live it alone.</quote> This is not an argument. This is nonsense. You know what viable means. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/21/20 2:23:16 AM #289:	Wanded posted... why not, you just said the law is the basis to your abortion stance, hence if the law changes it is supposed to change as well Nope. Theyre changing the law that make abortion illegal. But it still doesnt make abortion murder. And fetus still dont get human rights until they are born... Wanded posted... it can survive from the first 1, all you have to do is leave it alone and not kill it, it's viable from conception, as long as you live it alone. No its not. Youre not using viable correctly. People are talking about it being viable to take out of the woman. And its not viable to do that until at least 24 weeks (if its even that early). And not all of them, either... Thats what people are talking about when they say viable. You seem to be talking about something else... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:944884464] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>why not, you just said the law is the basis to your abortion stance, hence if the law changes it is supposed to change as well</quote> Nope. Theyre changing the law that make abortion illegal. But it still doesnt make abortion murder. And fetus still dont get human rights until they are born... Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>it can survive from the first 1, all you have to do is leave it alone and not kill it, it's viable from conception, as long as you live it alone.</quote> No its not. Youre not using viable correctly. People are talking about it being viable to take out of the woman. And its not viable to do that until at least 24 weeks (if its even that early). And not all of them, either... Thats what people are talking about when they say viable. You seem to be talking about something else...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/21/20 2:37:42 AM #290:	BlackScythe0 posted... This is not an argument. This is nonsense. You know what viable means. viable - capable of working successfully; feasible. unless the fetus died from complications, it's working as intended that aside, i don't see a reason why that would be the cutoff, "sorry missy, had you came yesterday we would have crushed that baby to mush! but now it can survive if we take it out which we will not do so your now stuck with that kid, come back in 3 months to give birth and have a nice day!" --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944884683] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>BlackScythe0 posted... </cite> <quote>This is not an argument. This is nonsense. You know what viable means.</quote>viable - capable of working successfully; feasible. unless the fetus died from complications, it's working as intended that aside, i don't see a reason why that would be the cutoff, "sorry missy, had you came yesterday we would have crushed that baby to mush! but now it can survive if we take it out which we will not do so your now stuck with that kid, come back in 3 months to give birth and have a nice day!" </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/21/20 2:43:56 AM #291:	LinkPizza posted... Nope. Theyre changing the law that make abortion illegal it was initially illegal though, until recently. LinkPizza posted... But it still doesnt make abortion murder. And fetus still dont get human rights until they are born... you said earlier these things depend on the law, when they change the law to declare fetuses human and having human rights, will you accept that? --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944884771] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Nope. Theyre changing the law that make abortion illegal</quote>it was initially illegal though, until recently. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>But it still doesnt make abortion murder. And fetus still dont get human rights until they are born...</quote>you said earlier these things depend on the law, when they change the law to declare fetuses human and having human rights, will you accept that? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PBusted 09/21/20 2:46:33 AM #292:	Unbridled9 posted... Don't go telling me that abortion is a right and freedom of speech and bearing arms aren't when the latter two are in the bill of rights while the former is not. Abortion falls under the 9th and 14th amendment. thedeerzord posted... No it doesn't. It becomes a person the moment it is conceived. If it doesn't become a person at that moment, then it does the moment it is able to survive outside of the womb. Objectively false. <cite>PBusted posted [p:944884814] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Unbridled9 posted... </cite> <quote>Don't go telling me that abortion is a right and freedom of speech and bearing arms aren't when the latter two are in the bill of rights while the former is not.</quote>Abortion falls under the 9th and 14th amendment. thedeerzord posted... </cite> <quote>No it doesn't. It becomes a person the moment it is conceived. If it doesn't become a person at that moment, then it does the moment it is able to survive outside of the womb.</quote> Objectively false. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 09/21/20 2:58:59 AM #293:	PBusted posted... Abortion falls under the 9th and 14th amendment. Not sure about the 9th but I know what you're talking about with the 14th amendment. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:944884976] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>PBusted posted...</cite> <quote>Abortion falls under the 9th and 14th amendment.</quote> Not sure about the 9th but I know what you're talking about with the 14th amendment.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/21/20 9:46:36 AM #294:	Wanded posted... it was initially illegal though, until recently. Abortion was. But I still dont know if abortion was actually considered murder still. Not only that, but they were still learning. I mean, at one point, werent they literally putting women in mental institutions for having their period... Along with other stuff like Novel Reading, apparently... And even if (which likely wont happen) they make abortion illegal, it still doesnt make it murder... Wanded posted... you said earlier these things depend on the law, when they change the law to declare fetuses human and having human rights, will you accept that? First, its if, not when. And the law wont change like that. And in the end, it wont matter. They are fetuses. Science has determined that. And science wont just change because of the law. Plus, the law has already determined that they are not humans. And just saying they are doesnt mean much since the evidence will show that its not. Evidence like how they dont need a passport, get child support before birth, count for things like welfare/food stamps as another child, etc... changing the wording of the law to discount science doesnt work. Especially when you cherry pick certain parts. Like calling a fetus a human, but not giving it those rights. And they wont give it those rights. They barely want to give women rights. So, no. I still wont. Wanded posted... viable - capable of working successfully; feasible. unless the fetus died from complications, it's working as intended And in this case, theyre talking about being viable if they took it out of the woman. You know that and are acting dense to try to prove some point that no one cares about... And you know that... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:944891308] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>it was initially illegal though, until recently.</quote> Abortion was. But I still dont know if abortion was actually considered murder still. Not only that, but they were still learning. I mean, at one point, werent they literally putting women in mental institutions for having their period... Along with other stuff like Novel Reading, apparently... And even if (which likely wont happen) they make abortion illegal, it still doesnt make it murder... Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>you said earlier these things depend on the law, when they change the law to declare fetuses human and having human rights, will you accept that?</quote> First, its if, not when. And the law wont change like that. And in the end, it wont matter. They are fetuses. Science has determined that. And science wont just change because of the law. Plus, the law has already determined that they are not humans. And just saying they are doesnt mean much since the evidence will show that its not. Evidence like how they dont need a passport, get child support before birth, count for things like welfare/food stamps as another child, etc... changing the wording of the law to discount science doesnt work. Especially when you cherry pick certain parts. Like calling a fetus a human, but not giving it those rights. And they wont give it those rights. They barely want to give women rights. So, no. I still wont. Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>viable - capable of working successfully; feasible. unless the fetus died from complications, it's working as intended</quote> And in this case, theyre talking about being viable if they took it out of the woman. You know that and are acting dense to try to prove some point that no one cares about... And you know that...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/21/20 2:49:05 PM #295:	LinkPizza posted... Science has determined that. that's an excuse for argument from authority, what is the scientific basis for that assertion? also most doctors agree a fetus is a human being LinkPizza posted... And in this case, theyre talking about being viable if they took it out of the woman. that's semantics and i explained why, the fetus is always viable, all you need to do is not kill it to keep it that way, and again, it's completely irrelevant becaus ethey aren't gonna take the child out at 6 months so why does it matter --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944903191] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Science has determined that.</quote>that's an excuse for argument from authority, what is the scientific basis for that assertion? also most doctors agree a fetus is a human being LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>And in this case, theyre talking about being viable if they took it out of the woman.</quote>that's semantics and i explained why, the fetus is always viable, all you need to do is not kill it to keep it that way, and again, it's completely irrelevant becaus ethey aren't gonna take the child out at 6 months so why does it matter </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 09/21/20 2:54:39 PM #296:	Dude women are allowed to get an abortion and you cant stop it If abortion is illegal then all you do is make abortion unregulated and more dangerous --- The Betrayer <cite>Mead posted [p:944903447] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Dude women are allowed to get an abortion and you cant stop it If abortion is illegal then all you do is make abortion unregulated and more dangerous </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/21/20 3:03:41 PM #297:	Mead posted... Dude women are allowed to get an abortion and you cant stop it If abortion is illegal then all you do is make abortion unregulated and more dangerous i don't need to stop it, it's inevitable it will be stopped because society is already swinging hard to my side, most people recognize it is a human life hence it is immoral to kill it. i'm simply here to explain to you why that is going to happen and why your stance has no basis to it so you'll perhaps stop raging and calling for an armed revolution. if abortion is illegal more women would simply not do it rather than risking an unsafe abortion, hence more human lives are saved rather than lost, i already explained this here earlier, go back and read my post in page 17 --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944903844] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>Dude women are allowed to get an abortion and you cant stop it If abortion is illegal then all you do is make abortion unregulated and more dangerous</quote>i don't need to stop it, it's inevitable it will be stopped because society is already swinging hard to my side, most people recognize it is a human life hence it is immoral to kill it. i'm simply here to explain to you why that is going to happen and why your stance has no basis to it so you'll perhaps stop raging and calling for an armed revolution. if abortion is illegal more women would simply not do it rather than risking an unsafe abortion, hence more human lives are saved rather than lost, i already explained this here earlier, go back and read my post in page 17 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 09/21/20 3:04:29 PM #298:	Wanded posted... fetus is always viable, all you need to do is not kill it to keep it that way, "Miscarriages are a myth." Wanded posted... i don't need to stop it, it's inevitable it will be stopped because society is already swinging hard to my side, most people recognize it is a human life hence it is immoral to kill it. if abortion is illegal more women would simply not do it rather than risking an unsafe abortion, hence more human lives are saved rather than lost, i already explained this here earlier, go back and read my post in page 17 LMAO. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:944903863] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>fetus is always viable, all you need to do is not kill it to keep it that way, </quote> "Miscarriages are a myth." Wanded posted...</cite> <quote> i don't need to stop it, it's inevitable it will be stopped because society is already swinging hard to my side, most people recognize it is a human life hence it is immoral to kill it. if abortion is illegal more women would simply not do it rather than risking an unsafe abortion, hence more human lives are saved rather than lost, i already explained this here earlier, go back and read my post in page 17 </quote> LMAO.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/21/20 3:08:34 PM #299:	Revelation34 posted... "Miscarriages are a myth." Wanded posted... viable - capable of working successfully; feasible. unless the fetus died from complications, it's working as intended no one is talking about miscarriages --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944904025] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>"Miscarriages are a myth."</quote> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite>viable - capable of working successfully; feasible. unless the fetus died from complications, it's working as intended</quote> no one is talking about miscarriages </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 09/21/20 3:17:03 PM #300:	Wanded posted... if abortion is illegal more women would simply not do it rather than risking an unsafe abortion historically you are categorically incorrect --- The Betrayer <cite>Mead posted [p:944904332] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>if abortion is illegal more women would simply not do it rather than risking an unsafe abortion</quote> historically you are categorically incorrect </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/21/20 3:17:50 PM #301:	Wanded posted... that's an excuse for argument from authority, what is the scientific basis for that assertion? also most doctors agree a fetus is a human being The basis of the argument is given that they call it something different. And the fact that its not a human is based on it not having human rights. Its pretty simple. Also, appeal to authority only works if the authority figure isnt an expert... Wanded posted... that's semantics and i explained why, the fetus is always viable, all you need to do is not kill it to keep it that way, and again, it's completely irrelevant becaus ethey aren't gonna take the child out at 6 months so why does it matter Because thats not what anyone is talking about. Even babies that eventually get miscarried are viable. My little brother that died during childbirth was also viable. Nobody is asking if the baby is viable like that. What they are talking about when they say its viable is if it would be able to live on its own outside the womb if it came out that instant. Not if it viable if no one messes with it. And honestly, youre still wrong. As I said, my little brother was viable inder your rules, and still died. So, your whole argument is irrelevant because youre not using the same definition of the word we are. When w43 talking about it, were talking about viability if it comes out now. Not viability if we wait for it to be born. Thats why they say its viable after a certain amount of time. You just acting dense for no reason... Wanded posted... i don't need to stop it, it's inevitable it will be stopped because society is already swinging hard to my side Not they arent. Its about the same as its always been. And you side doesnt even care about human rights. You side tried to stop a 10 year old girl from getting and abortion. And she would have literally died without one. You side wants the government to control what a women does with her body. You side doesnt care about human life. Its wants to control human life, and punish women for having sex... Wanded posted... if abortion is illegal more women would simply not do it rather than risking an unsafe abortion Some might not get one. Others still would. I mean, a lot of people still drank when alcohol was illegal and people were dying from making their own. Whos to say the same wont happen with this? Wanded posted... no one is talking about miscarriages Except under your rules, those miscarries babies were also viable... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:944904369] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>that's an excuse for argument from authority, what is the scientific basis for that assertion? also most doctors agree a fetus is a human being</quote> The basis of the argument is given that they call it something different. And the fact that its not a human is based on it not having human rights. Its pretty simple. Also, appeal to authority only works if the authority figure isnt an expert... Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>that's semantics and i explained why, the fetus is always viable, all you need to do is not kill it to keep it that way, and again, it's completely irrelevant becaus ethey aren't gonna take the child out at 6 months so why does it matter</quote> Because thats not what anyone is talking about. Even babies that eventually get miscarried are viable. My little brother that died during childbirth was also viable. Nobody is asking if the baby is viable like that. What they are talking about when they say its viable is if it would be able to live on its own outside the womb if it came out that instant. Not if it viable if no one messes with it. And honestly, youre still wrong. As I said, my little brother was viable inder your rules, and still died. So, your whole argument is irrelevant because youre not using the same definition of the word we are. When w43 talking about it, were talking about viability if it comes out now. Not viability if we wait for it to be born. Thats why they say its viable after a certain amount of time. You just acting dense for no reason... Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>i don't need to stop it, it's inevitable it will be stopped because society is already swinging hard to my side</quote> Not they arent. Its about the same as its always been. And you side doesnt even care about human rights. You side tried to stop a 10 year old girl from getting and abortion. And she would have literally died without one. You side wants the government to control what a women does with her body. You side doesnt care about human life. Its wants to control human life, and punish women for having sex... Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>if abortion is illegal more women would simply not do it rather than risking an unsafe abortion</quote> Some might not get one. Others still would. I mean, a lot of people still drank when alcohol was illegal and people were dying from making their own. Whos to say the same wont happen with this? Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>no one is talking about miscarriages</quote> Except under your rules, those miscarries babies were also viable...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Poll of the Day > Why are leftist so radical about abortion rights? (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Why are leftist so radical about abortion rights?