Has anyone here been involved in an abortion?

[jehurey 3,228]

Just now, madmaltese said:

 

You know nothing because everything you say is so devoid of actual real life experience.

No............I'm sorry.

 

But your anecdote.........no matter how personal it is, simply doesn't make universal nationwide policy.

 

I will never trust you over the science.

 

Ever. Do you understand that?

 

The fact that you THOUGHT your own personal anecdote compares to a INTENSELY RESEARCHED subject is quite arrogant of you.

 

You, standing besides the opinions of medical and biological experts.............carry ZERO WEIGHT.

 

And you always will.

[madmaltese★ 2,553]

Nice deflection of every point.

After you were already back peddling too. 

Now it's 'im okay up to 24 weeks', when your first post was that you're okay with it because it was humane and the kid would be suffering. They look so happy on fb now 

 

 

[madmaltese★ 2,553]

But since you want to talk medical and legality.

 

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."^[1]

 

It is considered MURDER of the unborn child, regardless of age (including well below 24 weeks) if someone (outside of the mother) was to perform an act that results in the death of that child.

 

So it's murder if someone else kills it, yet perfectly acceptable if you do it yourself. Great logic. 

 

Which is it? Again, you wanting to keep it or not bears ZERO basis on whether something is a human or not. 

[jehurey 3,228]

12 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

Nice deflection of every point.

After you were already back peddling too. 

Now it's 'im okay up to 24 weeks', when your first post was that you're okay with it because it was humane and the kid would be suffering. They look so happy on fb now 

 

 

Where did I say that:

 

A.) I supported abortion all the way up to full term.

 

and

 

B.) The people that I mentioned in my story had allowed the pregnancy to exceed the legal limit of 24 weeks?

 

???????

 

I didn't. As far as I know, the ex-girlfriend must have gotten the abortion sometime soon after she realized she was pregnant, which would've probably have been before the end of the first term.

 

For some reason, you start talking like a rational adult, and then your responses start feeling like those of a 13 year old.

Edited April 13, 2019 by jehurey

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

4 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

But since you want to talk medical and legality.

 

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."^[1]

 

It is considered MURDER of the unborn child, regardless of age (including well below 24 weeks) if someone (outside of the mother) was to perform an act that results in the death of that child.

 

So it's murder if someone else kills it, yet perfectly acceptable if you do it yourself. Great logic. 

 

Which is it? Again, you wanting to keep it or not bears ZERO basis on whether something is a human or not. 

It poses the same amount of logic that people like ghostz have on abortion up until birth. Literally no difference between the baby in or out beside location yet you can legally kill it while it's still in.

 

Logic, these people don't have any. 

[jehurey 3,228]

3 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

But since you want to talk medical and legality.

 

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."^[1]

  

It is considered MURDER of the unborn child, regardless of age (including well below 24 weeks) if someone (outside of the mother) was to perform an act that results in the death of that child.

 

So it's murder if someone else kills it, yet perfectly acceptable if you do it yourself. Great logic. 

 

Which is it? Again, you wanting to keep it or not bears ZERO basis on whether something is a human or not. 

No if the mother wants to keep it, then it does have bearing from the perspective of mental suffering.

 

Are you trying to make a BIOLOGICAL ARGUMENT???????????

 

Because you really aren't making it difficult for me..............the answer is easy.

 

If that fetus had no central nervous system to feel pain and it was damaged in the accident...........then it wasn't living at the time of the accident.  Did you honestly think you were asking a SUPER CLEVER question????

[madmaltese★ 2,553]

Jerry, you've been flip flopping so many times that you're nearly going to be nominated for a political position. You have changed your definition of what achild is and what circumstances are ok for you, meanwhile my argument is incredibly clear.

 

Your initial post was all about how humane it was given the effects it would have on the mother and the type of life the child would lead. There was ZERO mention of length of pregnancy. You said it was humane because of the suffering the child would be in when born and what a hard life they would have. Don't go back on your words now. Those effects are irrelevant of age of the child. Being over 24 weeks or under doesn't change anything you said in your first post about how 'humane' it was to have the abortion. So using that logic it's ok depending on what exaclty... wealth of the mother? Money? Certainly not biology because external life factors have ZERO basis on if a child is a child or not. A child is no less of a living child whether they are born in the poorest parts of africa or born as part of the Royal English Family. 

 

Then to counter the legal Unborn Victims of Violence Act you say it has to do with the mental suffering of the mother. WTF. that is not what the act is about at all. This isn't about legally charging the person with 'pain and suffering' of the mother, it is about legally charging them with the death of a human, regardless of age. It's not about psychological effects on the mother. Again, the mother's want or lack of want for the unborn child changes nothing biologically. The exact way whether it is a child or not isn't changed by who is committing the act of ending it (whether it's the mother or someone else in an unplanned occurrence)

 

'If that fetus had no central nervous system to feel pain and it was damaged in the accident...........then it wasn't living at the time of the accident. '

No, by your very own prior words you are wrong.

 

'But your anecdote.........no matter how personal it is, simply doesn't make universal nationwide policy.'

You can't flip flop now. You said my opinion doesn't change anything so guess what, neither does yours. Your definition here doesn't change nationwide policy that is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. In that very case, YES, the unborn child killed in the accident WAS LIVING. it is exactly what the Act is about. Everyone is very happy to define the unborn child as such in that case, because the person committing the act isn't the mother but a 3rd party. So your definition of what makes life is irrelevant here.

 

Lastily, your argument is now to define life by whether someone can FEEL pain or not? Is that what you're sticking with now? Simple yes or no. Not whether they have a beating heart, or any brain activity, but 'feeling pain'? You happy to stick with that now or going to flip flop all over the place once that laughable excuse gets destroyed too. 

[JonDnD 2,608]

Lots of people don't feel pain. Can we kill them? lol

 

Jerry retarded

[Purist 134]

.

Edited April 13, 2019 by Pureis

[Tears of the Cows 1,206]

3 hours ago, madmaltese said:

Why not just kill it the day it's born? Literally zero difference in the development of the child from Week 40 to Day 1 of birth. In fact, the care needed just quadruples. 

The difference is it is not born. Pretty clear to me. 

[Tears of the Cows 1,206]

My sole reasoning is it’s not my body. That’s it. Nothing else. No one on earth will tell me what to do with MY body, so I’m not going to tell others. Simple as that. Has nothing to do with human life or any of that, just.....not my choice to make for someone. 

[Tears of the Cows 1,206]

Not saying I WOULD abort a child if I was a woman, but umm... I would have the right. If you told me not to, I’d just find another way. Pretty obvious. 

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

18 minutes ago, ghostz said:

Not saying I WOULD abort a child if I was a woman, but umm... I would have the right. If you told me not to, I’d just find another way. Pretty obvious. 

If you were told you can't the chances are you would think deeper about it and come to a better resolution. 

[Tears of the Cows 1,206]

9 minutes ago, Nya` said:

If you were told you can't the chances are you would think deeper about it and come to a better resolution. 

....and chance are if I wanted one, I’d still go ahead and get one. 

[jehurey 3,228]

53 minutes ago, Nya` said:

If you were told you can't the chances are you would think deeper about it and come to a better resolution. 

,,,,,,,,,,do criminal think deeper about it on the subject of guns???????????

 

See, I love it when the anti-abortion people try to make this argument, because they essentially fuck themselves when I turn it around on them with their OWN gun arguments.

 

Pick your poison.

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

,,,,,,,,,,do criminal think deeper about it on the subject of guns???????????

 

See, I love it when the anti-abortion people try to make this argument, because they essentially fuck themselves when I turn it around on them with their OWN gun arguments.

 

Pick your poison.

This isn't an argument, this is just a dumb tie in that doesn't actually mean anything or work. Holy stupid shit 

[jehurey 3,228]

2 hours ago, madmaltese said:

Jerry, you've been flip flopping so many times that you're nearly going to be nominated for a political position. You have changed your definition of what achild is and what circumstances are ok for you, meanwhile my argument is incredibly clear.

 

Your initial post was all about how humane it was given the effects it would have on the mother and the type of life the child would lead. There was ZERO mention of length of pregnancy. You said it was humane because of the suffering the child would be in when born and what a hard life they would have. Don't go back on your words now. Those effects are irrelevant of age of the child. Being over 24 weeks or under doesn't change anything you said in your first post about how 'humane' it was to have the abortion. So using that logic it's ok depending on what exaclty... wealth of the mother? Money? Certainly not biology because external life factors have ZERO basis on if a child is a child or not. A child is no less of a living child whether they are born in the poorest parts of africa or born as part of the Royal English Family. 

 

Then to counter the legal Unborn Victims of Violence Act you say it has to do with the mental suffering of the mother. WTF. that is not what the act is about at all. This isn't about legally charging the person with 'pain and suffering' of the mother, it is about legally charging them with the death of a human, regardless of age. It's not about psychological effects on the mother. Again, the mother's want or lack of want for the unborn child changes nothing biologically. The exact way whether it is a child or not isn't changed by who is committing the act of ending it (whether it's the mother or someone else in an unplanned occurrence)

 

'If that fetus had no central nervous system to feel pain and it was damaged in the accident...........then it wasn't living at the time of the accident. '

No, by your very own prior words you are wrong.

 

'But your anecdote.........no matter how personal it is, simply doesn't make universal nationwide policy.'

You can't flip flop now. You said my opinion doesn't change anything so guess what, neither does yours. Your definition here doesn't change nationwide policy that is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. In that very case, YES, the unborn child killed in the accident WAS LIVING. it is exactly what the Act is about. Everyone is very happy to define the unborn child as such in that case, because the person committing the act isn't the mother but a 3rd party. So your definition of what makes life is irrelevant here.

 

Lastily, your argument is now to define life by whether someone can FEEL pain or not? Is that what you're sticking with now? Simple yes or no. Not whether they have a beating heart, or any brain activity, but 'feeling pain'? You happy to stick with that now or going to flip flop all over the place once that laughable excuse gets destroyed too. 

No, I'm not flip flopping.

 

You're trying to take two different aspects and trying to say that I'm flip-flopping on ONE aspect of the issue.

 

Here's how you know its TWO SEPARATE ASPECTS that I've made in those two different posts.

 

14 hours ago, jehurey said:

Quite possibly one of the best practical real-world examples for having an abortion. The most humane decision was made.
 

You notice that sentence?  That's me speaking about abortion in terms of responsibility and major life decisions that affects people's lives. I'm talking about financial responsibility.

 

I........am..............not.............making...........a............science........argument. Am I?

I........am..............not.............making...........a............medical.......argument. Am I?

 

I'm making a PRACTICAL argument.........I even said so.

 

Now notice in the other post I talk about Roe vs Wade determining 24 weeks as when a fetus is viable. I talk about a central nervous system having been developed. I talk about CONTINUAL research to confirm the science.

 

Now. Do you think I'm FLIP-FLOPPING?

 

OR

 

Do you think I was talking about two different aspects of this issue?

 

Its obvious when you know you've messed up on an argument, because you turn juvenile in your responses, almost like as if someone flipped a switch.

 

So, onto your other lame argument.............some law. Its not based on a scientific or medical consensus. Its based on the issue of how the victim views their suffering.

 

If I punch a random person.........there's a law against that. It comes with a certain punishment.

 

If I punch a person of specific color, and they have reasonable suspicion that I punched them because of the basis of their race.......according to the law, I committed something more serious. Its more serious because the victim has more mental anguish over why they were attack compared to the random person. I didn't magically punch somebody harder........but the law dictates that the punishment for a "hate crime" carry more weight than a standard assault charge. It speaks nothing to the science of whether a punch from a random assault is PHYSICALLY different than a punch coming from somebody committing a hate crime.

 

That would silly ass-backwards logic.  Laws are created by man based on their attitudes. Science isn't based on that.

[jehurey 3,228]

17 minutes ago, Nya` said:

This isn't an argument, this is just a dumb tie in that doesn't actually mean anything or work. Holy stupid shit 

No it does.

 

You have the argument that if we ban guns..............then only the GOOD PEOPLE don't get guns, and criminals will still get bad guns.

 

You already know the COMPLETE IRONY in you trying to ban abortions and pretending that women will just "think harder" about the morality................and SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY..........these women will see that its correct to keep the baby.

 

You are a complete hypocrite.

 

And I used YOUR OWN GUN ARGUMENT to beat your abortion argument.

 

A women having something growing in her every second of every day for months?????????? And you don't think she's not going to muster up the courage for an illegal abortion at any cost?

 

You're simply not that stupid to believe that.

 

You are nothing more than another pathetic right-winger.

 

You don't want to FIX PROBLEMS..............you just want laws passed to make yourself feel better even though it won't solve the things you consider to be problems.

Edited April 13, 2019 by jehurey

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

No it does.

 

You have the argument that if we ban guns..............then only the GOOD PEOPLE don't get guns, and criminals will still get bad guns.

 

You already know the COMPLETELY IRONY in you trying to ban abortions and pretending that women will just "think harder" about the morality................and SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY..........these women will see that its correct to keep the baby.

 

You are a complete hypocrite.

 

And I used YOUR OWN GUN ARGUMENT to beat your abortion argument.

 

A women having something growing in her every second of every day for months?????????? And you don't think she's not going to muster up the courage for an illegal abortion at any cost?

 

You're simply not that stupid to believe that.

 

You are nothing more than another pathetic right-winger.

 

You don't want to FIX PROBLEMS..............you just want laws passed to make yourself feel better even though it won't solve the things you consider to be problems.

You really are retarded, we don't want laws passed, we want laws which were revoked to be reinstated. We want to stop you people from constantly meandering around existing laws and trying to have them changed to suit your stupid agendas. That is what the left is all about, altering and bending the law.

 

Abortion is as care free of an endeavor as getting your oil changed, its frequency is as high as it is because there's virtually no imposed restrictions so people avert responsibility with a simple procedure.

 

If it were illegal or legally controlled it wouldn't stop abortion completely but for those that are adamant about being law abiding or are scared to have it done unlicensed they would have to accept their poor decisions or accidents and take responsibility for them which would result in a massive decline in abortions. This would also decrease the slut ridden society we've now descended into as women just sleep around carelessly because worst case scenario they can abort. 

 

That's not comparable to guns and you're so feeble minded you brought them up as a means of scapegoating because you can't stay on point. 

 

 

[jehurey 3,228]

9 minutes ago, Nya` said:

You really are retarded, we don't want laws passed, we want laws which were revoked to be reinstated. We want to stop you people from constantly meandering around existing laws and trying to have them changed to suit your stupid agendas. That is what the left is all about, altering and bending the law.

 

Abortion is as care free of an endeavor as getting your oil changed, its frequency is as high as it is because there's virtually no imposed restrictions so people avert responsibility with a simple procedure.

 

If it were illegal or legally controlled it wouldn't stop abortion completely but for those that are adamant about being law abiding or are scared to have it done unlicensed they would have to accept their poor decisions or accidents and take responsibility for them which would result in a massive decline in abortions. This would also decrease the slut ridden society we've now descended into as women just sleep around carelessly because worst case scenario they can abort. 

 

That's not comparable to guns and you're so feeble minded you brought them up as a means of scapegoating because you can't stay on point. 

 

 

They're permenantly revoked.

 

Row vs Wade is an ruling on the practice of abortion as being constitutional.  Its DEFAULT POSITION is "constitutional"

 

So, no you're quite wrong. You need laws to limit that constitutional right.

 

Sweetie..............you attempting to use morality as leverage is pointless. Because I could simply throw your immigration policies in your face.

 

The United States government does not legislate morality, unless it is a real threat to society.

 

The body kills fertilized eggs when a women is pregnant. It does so NATURALLY. To use YOUR WORDS...........every day, mother nature kills fertilized eggs in thousands, millions of women's wombs...............all care free. More common than oil changes.

 

Abortions do not decline when it is outlawed. History has proven this.
 

Quote

If other countries are a guide, abortion restrictions won’t reduce the number of abortions that take place: According to the Guttmacher Institute, abortion rates in countries where abortion is legal are similar to those in countries where it’s illegal. In parts of the world where abortion is illegal, botched abortions still cause about 8 to 11 percent of all maternal deaths, or about 30,000 each year.

 

Stop trying to pretend that you give a shit about other people.

 

You don't...............you only give a shit about yourself, and your worthless feelings. Like a said, you're nothing more than a petty narcissist on this issue.