Off Topic · OT - Roe V Wade overturned (page 8)
djsunyc wrote:US was on a downward slope for a long time but it was a slow burn.folks that voted trump or didn't vote hillary in 2016 just threw gasoline on the fire.
good job folks. that decision looks dumber and dumber by the day.
next up gay marriage? school segregation? or maybe both?
U-S-A!
Gay marriage, then sodomy laws, then birth control
This is not even to mention that the Supreme Court also recently legally endorsed state funding of religious schools and school prayer will probably be next week
This is officially govt by religion. Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers were specifically against that
CashMoney wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:CashMoney wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:
Very good that you are trying to apply Aristotelian teleological reasoning. Still, an acorn is not the same as an oak, organic is not the same as alive, alive is not the same as conscious, and conscious is not the same as human.Acorns grow from Oak trees so if I don't want acorns I'll just chop down the tree before the acorns grow. Better yet, if I don't want acorns I won't grow an oak tree. Organic is not the same as alive because in order for something to be alive it must be organic. Consciousness is a state of human life that begins with organic matter. All different but intertwined.
I get it though. You're deciding factor is consciousness whereas mine is I have a problem with not allowing consciousness to develop. However, consciousness is not present until leaving the womb and has only been proven in infants as young as 5 months old but possibly occur as early as 2 months old.
Would it be okay to give birth to a child, change my mind and toss it into the trash? Of course not because that is murder because the child is a human life even though it does not yet have consciousness.
With that being said, would you agree that a child is not a child until it leaves the moves and achieves consciousness?
Acorns also fall to the ground to be picked up and eaten, while they can still develop into an oak tree.
I honestly cannot tell you at what point a mother cannot kill her child just because she does not want to raise it. Definitely not after birth, I think most will agree that would be murder, because at that point the child is a human being. Is the act of the child exiting the womb and getting the umbilical cord materially change the child's status from a dumb fetus to a human being. Also probably not. But neither the moment of sperm injecting genetic material into an egg change the status of human cells into a human being. So, that point is somewhere in between, and one way or another it would somewhat arbitrary. Some point of compromise, by general consensus and common convention. Not great, but that is how it is.
That is except for case of rape, incest or grave defect of the fetus. No woman should be forced to carry and give birth to a child imposed on her against her will. The child in that case will be the victim of the rapist, there is no justification for victimizing the woman twice.
That's exactly my point. IMO regardless of when the abortion takes place, the end result is the killing of human life.
A 1000% agree that in cases of incest, rape, grave defect of the fetus as well as a risk to the mother's life that abortion is justified.
Good luck getting a doctor in a state in which abortion is illegal and you can be criminally prosecuted to do an abortion to save the life of the mother or in case of a rape
I work with doctors as a lawyer. These people are scared of doing mundane stuff like fill out paperwork because they are worried about simply being sued or reported to the NPDB
Philc1 wrote:I work with doctors as a lawyer.
You are a lawyer?
martin wrote:Philc1 wrote:I work with doctors as a lawyer.You are a lawyer?
Yes
Philc1 wrote:martin wrote:Philc1 wrote:I work with doctors as a lawyer.You are a lawyer?
Yes
Phil?!?!?
BigDaddyG wrote:CashMoney wrote:MaTT4281 wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:martin wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married womenI find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.
When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.
Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.
Food for thought.
In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.
Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?
It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.
Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade
By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.
Society is predominantly pro-choice which is why my belief system isn't being imposed on anyone. I believe in what I do and have my reasons why.
Roe V. Wade being overturned and being handed back to the states simply means that if society wants abortion rights then the fight will be at the state level.
After trigger laws go into effect and taking into account states that will place server restrictions approximately half of the states will still provide abortion rights with no change.
Sounds pretty similar to what was happening that prompted the civil war. Let each state decide if people of dark complexion are humans or property.That is a ridiculous comparison.
You compared getting pregnant to drunk driving just a few pages back...
Consequences of actions are comparable.
No they are not. We can all agree that you going and getting hammered impacts the health and safety of everyone you interact with in that time period. Whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion does not necessarily impact you, me or anyone else on this board. If it does, than maybe you have some other issues to sort out. I don't believe life begins at conception. That definition is nebulous and broad. The danger with that is that the interpretation can be further expanded to include things like contraception, masturbation etc. And most people accept that definition as nonsense.
Apparently you don't see the correlation in my analogy so I won't try to convince you otherwise.
If a woman decides to have an abortion it may not have a direct impact on me, you or anyone else on this board but to think that it may not have an impact on society as a whole is close minded thinking. That's not an insult and I'll expand.
I made a friend a couple years of graduating college at my workplace. He was older, did extremely well financially and was a great person. The type of guy who would give you the shirt off his back and lend a person money whether he were to get paid back or not. He was a good looking guy and was popular with the ladies. He had an off again on again relationship with a woman and she became pregnant.
He wanted that child more than anything. He didn't want anything from her other than for her to give birth, sign over her parental right and keep it moving. She had the abortion and there was nothing he could say or do about it. I have no doubt he would have loved that child, raised that child and given that child every opportunity to succeed in life but the child's life was terminated.
No one will ever know the impact on society that child could have had if not aborted. That child's life may not have impacted anyone us of us directly or indirectly but that child may have impacted society in a positive manner. Perhaps it would have been for the best or the worse but we'll never know.
You believe that life doesn't begin at conception but how can it not when it's the first step in the process?
It doesn't matter when in that process it is purposely stopped because the end result is the same. The back and forth I've had with people here on this board and outside of this board is the same. The point pro-choice people seem to want to make is that it's okay to end a human life because a life isn't a life until some rudimentary point in time. My point of contention is that regardless of when that choice is made the end result is the ending of life.
martin wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:CashMoney wrote:MaTT4281 wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:martin wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married womenI find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.
When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.
Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.
Food for thought.
In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.
Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?
It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.
Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade
By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.
Society is predominantly pro-choice which is why my belief system isn't being imposed on anyone. I believe in what I do and have my reasons why.
Roe V. Wade being overturned and being handed back to the states simply means that if society wants abortion rights then the fight will be at the state level.
After trigger laws go into effect and taking into account states that will place server restrictions approximately half of the states will still provide abortion rights with no change.
Sounds pretty similar to what was happening that prompted the civil war. Let each state decide if people of dark complexion are humans or property.That is a ridiculous comparison.
You compared getting pregnant to drunk driving just a few pages back...
Consequences of actions are comparable.
No they are not. We can all agree that you going and getting hammered impacts the health and safety of everyone you interact with in that time period. Whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion does not necessarily impact you, me or anyone else on this board. If it does, than maybe you have some other issues to sort out. I don't believe life begins at conception. That definition is nebulous and broad. The danger with that is that the interpretation can be further expanded to include things like contraception, masturbation etc. And most people accept that definition as nonsense.
I've never thought that jerking off would ever legitimately come up on a serious discussion in a nationally decided topic but there it is
I'm not surprised at all. Illogical reasoning has somehow become relevant in society.
CashMoney wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:CashMoney wrote:MaTT4281 wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:martin wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married womenI find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.
When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.
Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.
Food for thought.
In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.
Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?
It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.
Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade
By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.
Society is predominantly pro-choice which is why my belief system isn't being imposed on anyone. I believe in what I do and have my reasons why.
Roe V. Wade being overturned and being handed back to the states simply means that if society wants abortion rights then the fight will be at the state level.
After trigger laws go into effect and taking into account states that will place server restrictions approximately half of the states will still provide abortion rights with no change.
Sounds pretty similar to what was happening that prompted the civil war. Let each state decide if people of dark complexion are humans or property.That is a ridiculous comparison.
You compared getting pregnant to drunk driving just a few pages back...
Consequences of actions are comparable.
No they are not. We can all agree that you going and getting hammered impacts the health and safety of everyone you interact with in that time period. Whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion does not necessarily impact you, me or anyone else on this board. If it does, than maybe you have some other issues to sort out. I don't believe life begins at conception. That definition is nebulous and broad. The danger with that is that the interpretation can be further expanded to include things like contraception, masturbation etc. And most people accept that definition as nonsense.
Apparently you don't see the correlation in my analogy so I won't try to convince you otherwise.
If a woman decides to have an abortion it may not have a direct impact on me, you or anyone else on this board but to think that it may not have an impact on society as a whole is close minded thinking. That's not an insult and I'll expand.
I made a friend a couple years of graduating college at my workplace. He was older, did extremely well financially and was a great person. The type of guy who would give you the shirt off his back and lend a person money whether he were to get paid back or not. He was a good looking guy and was popular with the ladies. He had an off again on again relationship with a woman and she became pregnant.
He wanted that child more than anything. He didn't want anything from her other than for her to give birth, sign over her parental right and keep it moving. She had the abortion and there was nothing he could say or do about it. I have no doubt he would have loved that child, raised that child and given that child every opportunity to succeed in life but the child's life was terminated.
No one will ever know the impact on society that child could have had if not aborted. That child's life may not have impacted anyone us of us directly or indirectly but that child may have impacted society in a positive manner. Perhaps it would have been for the best or the worse but we'll never know.
You believe that life doesn't begin at conception but how can it not when it's the first step in the process?
It doesn't matter when in that process it is purposely stopped because the end result is the same. The back and forth I've had with people here on this board and outside of this board is the same. The point pro-choice people seem to want to make is that it's okay to end a human life because a life isn't a life until some rudimentary point in time. My point of contention is that regardless of when that choice is made the end result is the ending of life.
If life begins at conception when do we start counting fetuses in the census? Shouldn’t women who have miscarriages be investigated for negligent homicide?
Just trying to see the consistency
CashMoney wrote:martin wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:CashMoney wrote:MaTT4281 wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:martin wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married womenI find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.
When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.
Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.
Food for thought.
In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.
Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?
It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.
Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade
By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.
Society is predominantly pro-choice which is why my belief system isn't being imposed on anyone. I believe in what I do and have my reasons why.
Roe V. Wade being overturned and being handed back to the states simply means that if society wants abortion rights then the fight will be at the state level.
After trigger laws go into effect and taking into account states that will place server restrictions approximately half of the states will still provide abortion rights with no change.
Sounds pretty similar to what was happening that prompted the civil war. Let each state decide if people of dark complexion are humans or property.That is a ridiculous comparison.
You compared getting pregnant to drunk driving just a few pages back...
Consequences of actions are comparable.
No they are not. We can all agree that you going and getting hammered impacts the health and safety of everyone you interact with in that time period. Whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion does not necessarily impact you, me or anyone else on this board. If it does, than maybe you have some other issues to sort out. I don't believe life begins at conception. That definition is nebulous and broad. The danger with that is that the interpretation can be further expanded to include things like contraception, masturbation etc. And most people accept that definition as nonsense.
I've never thought that jerking off would ever legitimately come up on a serious discussion in a nationally decided topic but there it is
I'm not surprised at all. Illogical reasoning has somehow become relevant in society.
Have you read some of the stuff you have put out?
djsunyc wrote:CashMoney wrote:That's exactly my point. IMO regardless of when the abortion takes place, the end result is the killing of human life.just curious but when did you learn/believe that conception was considered a human? was this something you learned as a kid? teen? adult? and where did you learn this? parents? religious place/person? school? on your own? (i didn't read the entire thread so apologies if you already stated it.)
No apology is necessary but at the end of the day, it's education and learning at an early age. It's simply science. Sperm, eggs, etc., and in order to create a human we know what we need to do and what the process is.
Interference in that process terminates the process thus terminating life.
Hope that answers your question.
ESOMKnicks wrote:CashMoney wrote:
That's exactly my point. IMO regardless of when the abortion takes place, the end result is the killing of human life.No, just because there is no objective measurable definition of when human life begins, it does not mean that terminating the reproductive process at any given point is tantamount to a killing of human life.
Life begins at the fertilization of an embryo. It's not an opinion it's scientific fact. It's a reproductive process as you wrote. Depending on the source pregnancies whether intended or not are successful between 85 to 90% of the time.
How is purposely interfering in the process not tantamount to killing life when a life is being killed?
CashMoney wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:CashMoney wrote:MaTT4281 wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:martin wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married womenI find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.
When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.
Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.
Food for thought.
In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.
Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?
It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.
Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade
By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.
Society is predominantly pro-choice which is why my belief system isn't being imposed on anyone. I believe in what I do and have my reasons why.
Roe V. Wade being overturned and being handed back to the states simply means that if society wants abortion rights then the fight will be at the state level.
After trigger laws go into effect and taking into account states that will place server restrictions approximately half of the states will still provide abortion rights with no change.
Sounds pretty similar to what was happening that prompted the civil war. Let each state decide if people of dark complexion are humans or property.That is a ridiculous comparison.
You compared getting pregnant to drunk driving just a few pages back...
Consequences of actions are comparable.
No they are not. We can all agree that you going and getting hammered impacts the health and safety of everyone you interact with in that time period. Whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion does not necessarily impact you, me or anyone else on this board. If it does, than maybe you have some other issues to sort out. I don't believe life begins at conception. That definition is nebulous and broad. The danger with that is that the interpretation can be further expanded to include things like contraception, masturbation etc. And most people accept that definition as nonsense.
Apparently you don't see the correlation in my analogy so I won't try to convince you otherwise.
If a woman decides to have an abortion it may not have a direct impact on me, you or anyone else on this board but to think that it may not have an impact on society as a whole is close minded thinking. That's not an insult and I'll expand.
I made a friend a couple years of graduating college at my workplace. He was older, did extremely well financially and was a great person. The type of guy who would give you the shirt off his back and lend a person money whether he were to get paid back or not. He was a good looking guy and was popular with the ladies. He had an off again on again relationship with a woman and she became pregnant.
He wanted that child more than anything. He didn't want anything from her other than for her to give birth, sign over her parental right and keep it moving. She had the abortion and there was nothing he could say or do about it. I have no doubt he would have loved that child, raised that child and given that child every opportunity to succeed in life but the child's life was terminated.
No one will ever know the impact on society that child could have had if not aborted. That child's life may not have impacted anyone us of us directly or indirectly but that child may have impacted society in a positive manner. Perhaps it would have been for the best or the worse but we'll never know.
Stop.
You're friend may be a nice guy. You may be a helluva nice guy. But this story has nothing to do with a woman's basic rights to have control of her body. It sounds like you're friend didn't think about the consequences of smashing all these chicks. I'm not judging him. Again, I don't pretend to care about anyone's sexlife other than my own. Maybe he should have had this sorted out before hand?
CashMoney wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:CashMoney wrote:
That's exactly my point. IMO regardless of when the abortion takes place, the end result is the killing of human life.No, just because there is no objective measurable definition of when human life begins, it does not mean that terminating the reproductive process at any given point is tantamount to a killing of human life.
Life begins at the fertilization of an embryo. It's not an opinion it's scientific fact. It's a reproductive process as you wrote. Depending on the source pregnancies whether intended or not are successful between 85 to 90% of the time.
How is purposely interfering in the process not tantamount to killing life when a life is being killed?
That narrow interpretation leads to a more dangerous line of thinking. If life begins when an egg is fertilized, then aren't I committing murder I when knowingly prevent fertilization by wearing a condom? Is my attempt at stopping life akin to me knowingly preventing someone from breathing? Is procreation only for the purpose of breeding? We should make laws that state that only married couple can procreate. Are fertilized eggs covered by Good Samaritan laws?
Philc1 wrote:This is officially govt by religion. Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers were specifically against that
i think the most important thing the gop did was weaponizing jesus christ.
Philc1 wrote:CashMoney wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:CashMoney wrote:MaTT4281 wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:martin wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married womenI find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.
When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.
Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.
Food for thought.
In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.
Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?
It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.
Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade
By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.
Society is predominantly pro-choice which is why my belief system isn't being imposed on anyone. I believe in what I do and have my reasons why.
Roe V. Wade being overturned and being handed back to the states simply means that if society wants abortion rights then the fight will be at the state level.
After trigger laws go into effect and taking into account states that will place server restrictions approximately half of the states will still provide abortion rights with no change.
Sounds pretty similar to what was happening that prompted the civil war. Let each state decide if people of dark complexion are humans or property.That is a ridiculous comparison.
You compared getting pregnant to drunk driving just a few pages back...
Consequences of actions are comparable.
No they are not. We can all agree that you going and getting hammered impacts the health and safety of everyone you interact with in that time period. Whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion does not necessarily impact you, me or anyone else on this board. If it does, than maybe you have some other issues to sort out. I don't believe life begins at conception. That definition is nebulous and broad. The danger with that is that the interpretation can be further expanded to include things like contraception, masturbation etc. And most people accept that definition as nonsense.
Apparently you don't see the correlation in my analogy so I won't try to convince you otherwise.
If a woman decides to have an abortion it may not have a direct impact on me, you or anyone else on this board but to think that it may not have an impact on society as a whole is close minded thinking. That's not an insult and I'll expand.
I made a friend a couple years of graduating college at my workplace. He was older, did extremely well financially and was a great person. The type of guy who would give you the shirt off his back and lend a person money whether he were to get paid back or not. He was a good looking guy and was popular with the ladies. He had an off again on again relationship with a woman and she became pregnant.
He wanted that child more than anything. He didn't want anything from her other than for her to give birth, sign over her parental right and keep it moving. She had the abortion and there was nothing he could say or do about it. I have no doubt he would have loved that child, raised that child and given that child every opportunity to succeed in life but the child's life was terminated.
No one will ever know the impact on society that child could have had if not aborted. That child's life may not have impacted anyone us of us directly or indirectly but that child may have impacted society in a positive manner. Perhaps it would have been for the best or the worse but we'll never know.
You believe that life doesn't begin at conception but how can it not when it's the first step in the process?
It doesn't matter when in that process it is purposely stopped because the end result is the same. The back and forth I've had with people here on this board and outside of this board is the same. The point pro-choice people seem to want to make is that it's okay to end a human life because a life isn't a life until some rudimentary point in time. My point of contention is that regardless of when that choice is made the end result is the ending of life.
If life begins at conception when do we start counting fetuses in the census? Shouldn’t women who have miscarriages be investigated for negligent homicide?
Just trying to see the consistency
There is a start and and finish, a beginning and an end. Life beginning is not the same as a life ending. If life doesn't BEGIN at conception than when does it begin?
"Shouldn’t women who have miscarriages be investigated for negligent homicide?"
I don't understand the relevancy of the question and it's an entirety different topic so I'll pass for the time
martin wrote:CashMoney wrote:martin wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:CashMoney wrote:MaTT4281 wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:martin wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.Welpee wrote:CashMoney wrote:Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married womenI find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.
When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.
Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.
Food for thought.
In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.
Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?
It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.
Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade
By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.
Society is predominantly pro-choice which is why my belief system isn't being imposed on anyone. I believe in what I do and have my reasons why.
Roe V. Wade being overturned and being handed back to the states simply means that if society wants abortion rights then the fight will be at the state level.
After trigger laws go into effect and taking into account states that will place server restrictions approximately half of the states will still provide abortion rights with no change.
Sounds pretty similar to what was happening that prompted the civil war. Let each state decide if people of dark complexion are humans or property.That is a ridiculous comparison.
You compared getting pregnant to drunk driving just a few pages back...
Consequences of actions are comparable.
No they are not. We can all agree that you going and getting hammered impacts the health and safety of everyone you interact with in that time period. Whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion does not necessarily impact you, me or anyone else on this board. If it does, than maybe you have some other issues to sort out. I don't believe life begins at conception. That definition is nebulous and broad. The danger with that is that the interpretation can be further expanded to include things like contraception, masturbation etc. And most people accept that definition as nonsense.
I've never thought that jerking off would ever legitimately come up on a serious discussion in a nationally decided topic but there it is
I'm not surprised at all. Illogical reasoning has somehow become relevant in society.
Have you read some of the stuff you have put out?
I know what I've written on this forum and stand by every word.
What do you feel is illogical?
State Rep. Mickey Dollens proposed vasectomies for Oklahoma men. He said the "tongue-in-cheek proposal" would make vasectomies mandatory.
Dollens added that the proposal was only meant to serve as an example that the government shouldn't regulate reproductive systems.
"If you really want to end abortion, if that's your objective, then I would invite you to coauthor a bill that I am considering next year that would mandate each male, when they reach puberty, get a mandatory vasectomy that is only reversible when they reach the point of financial and emotional stability," a news release quotes Dollens saying during his debate against House Bill 4327. "If you think that's crazy, maybe you understand how 50% of Oklahomans feel."
CashMoney wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:CashMoney wrote:
That's exactly my point. IMO regardless of when the abortion takes place, the end result is the killing of human life.No, just because there is no objective measurable definition of when human life begins, it does not mean that terminating the reproductive process at any given point is tantamount to a killing of human life.
Life begins at the fertilization of an embryo. It's not an opinion it's scientific fact. It's a reproductive process as you wrote. Depending on the source pregnancies whether intended or not are successful between 85 to 90% of the time.
How is purposely interfering in the process not tantamount to killing life when a life is being killed?
This is what burns me up, when people conflate two different items to sell their agenda. Nobody argues when life begins. Everything begins somewhere. The issue is when does a collection of cells develop to the point of it being a human being? Terminating the development of a fertilized egg to prevent it from becoming a human is NOT the same as killing a human. To consider otherwise is a faith matter.
Attaching the first bolt in an assembly line and then throwing the part away doesn't mean I destroyed a car.
BigDaddyG wrote:CashMoney wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:CashMoney wrote:
That's exactly my point. IMO regardless of when the abortion takes place, the end result is the killing of human life.No, just because there is no objective measurable definition of when human life begins, it does not mean that terminating the reproductive process at any given point is tantamount to a killing of human life.
Life begins at the fertilization of an embryo. It's not an opinion it's scientific fact. It's a reproductive process as you wrote. Depending on the source pregnancies whether intended or not are successful between 85 to 90% of the time.
How is purposely interfering in the process not tantamount to killing life when a life is being killed?
That narrow interpretation leads to a more dangerous line of thinking. If life begins when an egg is fertilized, then aren't I committing murder I when knowingly prevent fertilization by wearing a condom? Is my attempt at stopping life akin to me knowingly preventing someone from breathing? Is procreation only for the purpose of breeding? We should make laws that state that only married couple can procreate. Are fertilized eggs covered by Good Samaritan laws?
Taking preventative measures to ensure pregnancy doesn't occur isn't murder bro.
It could be viewed that way if every time a male ejaculated into a female the event resulted in a pregnancy 100% of the time and we both know that isn't the case. Of course, this is from a legal perspective and based on reality.
Your questions are separate and apart topics but I'll admit I find your questions amusing especially "Is procreation only for the purpose of breeding?"
Religion aside, men and women have reproductive organs for a reason and I can never know for sure but with logical reasoning, I believe it's for the purpose of procreation.
You're a funny dude.
ESOMKnicks wrote:CashMoney wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:
Very good that you are trying to apply Aristotelian teleological reasoning. Still, an acorn is not the same as an oak, organic is not the same as alive, alive is not the same as conscious, and conscious is not the same as human.Acorns grow from Oak trees so if I don't want acorns I'll just chop down the tree before the acorns grow. Better yet, if I don't want acorns I won't grow an oak tree. Organic is not the same as alive because in order for something to be alive it must be organic. Consciousness is a state of human life that begins with organic matter. All different but intertwined.
I get it though. You're deciding factor is consciousness whereas mine is I have a problem with not allowing consciousness to develop. However, consciousness is not present until leaving the womb and has only been proven in infants as young as 5 months old but possibly occur as early as 2 months old.
Would it be okay to give birth to a child, change my mind and toss it into the trash? Of course not because that is murder because the child is a human life even though it does not yet have consciousness.
With that being said, would you agree that a child is not a child until it leaves the moves and achieves consciousness?
Acorns also fall to the ground to be picked up and eaten, while they can still develop into an oak tree.
I honestly cannot tell you at what point a mother cannot kill her child just because she does not want to raise it. Definitely not after birth, I think most will agree that would be murder, because at that point the child is a human being. Is the act of the child exiting the womb and getting the umbilical cord materially change the child's status from a dumb fetus to a human being. Also probably not. But neither the moment of sperm injecting genetic material into an egg change the status of human cells into a human being. So, that point is somewhere in between, and one way or another it would somewhat arbitrary. Some point of compromise, by general consensus and common convention. Not great, but that is how it is.
That is except for case of rape, incest or grave defect of the fetus. No woman should be forced to carry and give birth to a child imposed on her against her will. The child in that case will be the victim of the rapist, there is no justification for victimizing the woman twice.
Yeah, the points you raised I struggle with too. However, I have to admit that I don't see the wisdom regarding exceptions. If somehow it's determined that we consider a fertilized egg to be a human upon conception, how do you justify abortion based on how it was conceived? This is a very complicated issue.
CashMoney wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:CashMoney wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:CashMoney wrote:
That's exactly my point. IMO regardless of when the abortion takes place, the end result is the killing of human life.No, just because there is no objective measurable definition of when human life begins, it does not mean that terminating the reproductive process at any given point is tantamount to a killing of human life.
Life begins at the fertilization of an embryo. It's not an opinion it's scientific fact. It's a reproductive process as you wrote. Depending on the source pregnancies whether intended or not are successful between 85 to 90% of the time.
How is purposely interfering in the process not tantamount to killing life when a life is being killed?
That narrow interpretation leads to a more dangerous line of thinking. If life begins when an egg is fertilized, then aren't I committing murder I when knowingly prevent fertilization by wearing a condom? Is my attempt at stopping life akin to me knowingly preventing someone from breathing? Is procreation only for the purpose of breeding? We should make laws that state that only married couple can procreate. Are fertilized eggs covered by Good Samaritan laws?
Taking preventative measures to ensure pregnancy doesn't occur isn't murder bro.
It could be viewed that way if every time a male ejaculated into a female the event resulted in a pregnancy 100% of the time and we both know that isn't the case. Of course, this is from a legal perspective and based on reality.
Your questions are separate and apart topics but I'll admit I find your questions amusing especially "Is procreation only for the purpose of breeding?"
Religion aside, men and women have reproductive organs for a reason and I can never know for sure but with logical reasoning, I believe it's for the purpose of procreation.
You're a funny dude.
We've been able to determine that animals suchs as dolphins and primates do not engage in sexual activity purely for procreation. You open a door, it's hard to crack it or close after you've let a couple undesirable individuals rushed. You gave you're reasoning and you should be prepared for the philosophical and ethical questions that follow. If you can't, maybe you should admit that you're stance might be flawed? Did you know, pre Roe v Wade, there was a time not so long ago when women, married or not, didn't have the right to obtain birth control. Heck, it's going to becomes reality in some states today. There are people out there who do think contraception is akin to murder.