• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Total Ban on Abortion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
I think there is a difference... One life is coming out of another. In some way, that life is a part of the former and subject to the former. At least that would be my determination. The moment the actual separation takes place, I would say the life has become in and of itself it's own legal identity. But this is just my interpretation...
So in other words my location (not my being) determines if I’m murdered

In wildlife scientists have no problem distinguishing anything attached to another as a seperate life. But human babies?....
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
2. There exists a hierarchy of rights which states that a woman's rights supersede those of the unborn child. This hierarchy of rights gives a woman permission to terminate her pregnancy up to a point to be determined by law.
Not at the complete exclusion or expense of a childs rights. Negligence of a child is a criminal offence.
 

DreadfulCadillac

Well-Known Member
Just a thought, if the fires that bad you'll only be able to save one.... What's the chances the fire would have already rendered the embryos dead from the rising temperature?

And if you take the embryos out of the freezer do you know how to keep them viable once you save them or did you just kill both the 10k and the 5-year dead?

The scenario was obviously designed the same as if there was an elderly and a child in danger. How do you pick which one to save? It's fine for situations where everyone's lives are in absolute danger to decide which is the best to save. However saving one over the other in a life or death situation doesn't excuse killing one when their life was never in danger.
the child obviously IN both situations mentioned.
#1 as you pointed out, the fire tempatures could have killed the embreyos already..
also the already 5 year old child has more potential to society as a whole then 10k of *we arent sure if they are alive* embreyos.
In the elderly/child situation..
the child wins every time, cause it has a higher of chanceof benifiting socieciety then a almost dead person does.
Logic can solve anything!yey!
also, i forgot who was talking about disabilities earlier, but what level of disability are we talking about here.
cause if we are talking about ALL disability, then 3-4% of babies deserve to die each year!
I think that abortion should be banned, and that society needs to get some responsibility.
the fact that a underage person is saying this is weird, but commenting off other people:
Sex should not be a recreational activity, it should be only used when the need arises to procreate with your mate.
Also the person who said that all boys should get a vasectomy at puberty is Stupid.

Ohh a sidenote here:
if we killed all children with disabilitys, id be dead because i am level one on the autism spectrum, i have a condition which used to be known as aspergers syndrome before DSM-5.
(sorry for the run on sentence)
 
Last edited:
Not at the complete exclusion or expense of a childs rights. Negligence of a child is a criminal offence.

The child's rights are superseded by those of the mother simply by virtue of the fact she was here first. This does not dismiss the fact that a human life is being terminated. Mind you, this is based on pure logic, not emotion. Again, I'd wager that the number of abortions would drop the moment society as a whole must confess that abortion ends a life.
 
I find this kind of snobbish.

Not at all. Logical? Yes. Snobbish? Nope. My opinion is based on the facts. I recognize that it's a difficult pill to swallow and that it will likely never happen for that very reason. Infanticide has been around as long as human beings have walked the Earth and before that in the animal kingdom. It's nothing new, only our attitudes toward it are relatively new. My plan offers women the choice some of them crave, but makes it the real choice, not some watered down version concocted by the butchers at "Planned Parenthood". A great many women go through significant post-abortion mental trauma as it is. Take away the "it's not really a life" cover and I suspect it will change some minds. This is why PH works so hard to spread the lies about the humanity of the aborted. Take that away and everything changes.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
The child's rights are superseded by those of the mother simply by virtue of the fact she was here first. This does not dismiss the fact that a human life is being terminated. Mind you, this is based on pure logic, not emotion. Again, I'd wager that the number of abortions would drop the moment society as a whole must confess that abortion ends a life.

The child’s right to choose what’s for their wellbeing is superseded by the mothers responsibility of that child while under their care.

However the child’s right to live isn’t superseded by the mothers convenience. Convenience to self being what every abortion reason boils down to except for when it’s life threatening do-or-both-die. The only thing that supersedes any persons right to live (a child’s included) is if them living would kill someone else.

I think you underestimate my age, but I'm flattered.
Regardless of which of you is older the statement still stands. If age determines whether you have the right to terminate someone else and one of you is older....
 

DeletedUser40473

less solders have been killed or have died in battle in the past 200 yrs than the amount of babies killed in the past 40 yrs. with the amount of babies killed in the past 40 yrs there would be 2 babies killed every 2 mins and they are HUMAN no matter what people say
 
Last edited by a moderator:

time4coffee

Active Member
My thoughts on this are pretty straight forward. Any women should have the choice to abort if she wants to.
1. I would never have one myself but there are other women and situations, so many I can't name.
2. It always seems like those who want to restrict abortion also want to restrict contraceptives -you can't have it both ways.
3. Late term abortion is late 2nd term - 22-23 weeks and this keeps getting pushed back as technology lets us save smaller and smaller premies. Reputable doctors won't do them later except in very rare cases like the baby is already dead and the mother getting dick from it.
4. Reputable doctors brings me to my last point - abortions will still happen whether legal or not. The choice becomes do you want a safe procedure or a back alley location where all bets are off while the rich can fly their mistresses off to wherever to get an inconvenient pregnancy. I only bring this up because I see story after story of anti-abortionist men who (oopsies) got someone pregnant and decided abortion was ok for her because it inconvenienced his life and his "message" to other women. Gag.
 

time4coffee

Active Member
As a side note here, not a big fan of contraceptive either. Regardless of what it does or doesn't do at the time of reproduction, in the event they fail (and they're more likely to fail then succeed especially with the pill having little to no leeway of missing a dose) then you're already in the kind of mental space that leads to getting a abortion. Of course not everyone who takes the pill will abort, but it would get you used to the idea of getting rid of it before you have it which makes it a slippery slope

You don't like abortion.
You don't like contraception
You stated you want to save sex for marriage and procreation.

Fine, get married and have 10 kids while having sex only 10 times but your choices and beliefs are YOUR choices and beliefs. Don't force them on others. They definitely weren't my choices.

You talk of consensual sex leading to abortion and trying to avoid consequences. I find that distasteful too but often it could just be the guy not wearing a condom. Boy will they try to get out of that. And then there is non-consensual sex - rapes, incest, any girl under 13, she can't objectively be consensual. What then?

Using contraceptives is a strong way of saying you DON'T want to have have an abortion. It's not a slippery slope unless you think pulling out or the rhythm method are contraceptives.

Since you are waiting for marriage, I suggest you fall in love and be with that person before making sweeping statements like sex is for procreation alone. Sex also holds marriage together, after 30 years of marriage I can attest to that.

BTW pleasure in sex is NOT just a lucky by-product. It is an early biological way of making sure the species would continue on since unlike other animals we do not go into heat. If sex was unpleasant and gave no benefit, would we have even progressed to Erectus man?
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
What's next? Here's an idea.

This woman was possibly mentally ill, so are you making fun of her for that? She was also discovered to be a trump supporter attempting to derail AOC’s townhall meeting to which she failed as AOC was able to de-escalate the situation.

Were you expecting the senator to condemn the words of that lady and deny her free speech? Regardless, what lunatic expects someone to vocally condemn eating babies?
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
@CompassionateSwan559 i said I wasn’t a fan of contraception due to the mind space it has capacity to entertain, don’t recall saying contraception should be banned outright. Unlike abortion which truly shouldn’t be allowed because that’s killing the child

What happens when the contraceptive fails? If your entire plan hinges on “no child” then contraception is setting yourself up to fail because it fails more then it succeeds. When people are desperate they take drastic measures

Using contraceptives is a strong way of saying you DON'T want to have have an abortion
No that’s a strong way of saying you don’t want a child. If someone is using a contraceptive they need to know where they stand on abortion beforehand as otherwise they may end up facing having a child. It can’t simply be used as a easy way out
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser

2. It always seems like those who want to restrict abortion also want to restrict contraceptives -you can't have it both ways.
So the fact that some people are against contraceptives makes abortion okay? No connection there that I can see. And there are plenty of us that are against abortion and think that use of contraceptives is perfectly acceptable.
3. Late term abortion is late 2nd term - 22-23 weeks and this keeps getting pushed back as technology lets us save smaller and smaller premies.
Oh, please. If abortion is not to save the mother's life, whether the baby can be saved doesn't even enter into the decision to have an abortion or not. They are concerned about their own convenience, not the welfare of the baby.
abortions will still happen whether legal or not. The choice becomes do you want a safe procedure or a back alley location
And this is the worst argument of all. By this logic, we should have "safe" options for any illegal/unethical/immoral action. Prostitution? Let's set up some legal brothels in every state. I mean, they're going to do it anyway, why not make it safe for them? Absolutely ridiculous.
I only bring this up because I see story after story of anti-abortionist men who (oopsies) got someone pregnant and decided abortion was ok for her because it inconvenienced his life and his "message" to other women
Really? I'm not saying it's not happening, because it undoubtedly is. But "story after story"? You must be talking stuff you've heard on the street, because I don't see those on any news outlet on a regular basis. Once in a blue moon one might make the news, but let's get real here.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
Fine, get married and have 10 kids while having sex only 10 times but your choices and beliefs are YOUR choices and beliefs. Don't force them on others. They definitely weren't my choices.
That’s assuming it’s successful 10 times and only when you’re in child bearing age and no hysterectomy

BTW pleasure in sex is NOT just a lucky by-product.
did I say otherwise?

And then there is non-consensual sex - rapes, incest, any girl under 13, she can't objectively be consensual. What then?
You can’t justify your own actions by what someone else did. Either abortion is wrong outside of saving lives or it’s not. The difference is one is destruction for the sake of destruction, the other is destruction as an unavoidable result in order to save a life
 
Last edited:

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
contraception is setting yourself up to fail because it fails more then it succeeds.
This is just flat out not true, they definitely succeed more than they fail.

Having scoured the internet, I find no evidence of your assertion. You know this how?
What if I said “Do your own homework”? Or “I don’t play this game”? See how that works when you do it?

Anyway, LaRouche PAC took credit for it. This literally took 5 seconds, but you wouldn’t dare read WP, would you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top