Has anyone here been involved in an abortion?

[JonDnD 2,622]

24 minutes ago, Nya` said:

A brain dead person can be disconnected from life support as they're already legally deemed expired, they're not in the process of building as a life, they've had it and lost it. "Life support" isn't keeping a brain dead person alive, it's keeping their body functioning in the event they're an organ donor.

Jerry is braindead but they keep him alive

[jehurey 3,230]

32 minutes ago, Nya` said:

A brain dead person can be disconnected from life support as they're already legally deemed expired, they're not in the process of building as a life, they've had it and lost it. "Life support" isn't keeping a brain dead person alive, it's keeping their body functioning in the event they're an organ donor.

Thank you. Same rules apply to a fetus incapable of being viable.

 

And no you are wrong...............families keep their loved ones on life support because THEY BELIEVE they are still alive

 

Don't try and play stupid on this. You know that there are people who believe that.

 

Madmal is trying to avoid this............I'm going to color the bullshit that he uses to try and conditionally get out of it in color red.

 

14 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

We've already been through this you moron, been answered and moved on cause it's as moronic an argument as the others here yet you somehow think it's genius.

A brain dead person is on 'LIFE SUPPORT'. Do you know what life support is? Meaning they are already being kept alive by unnatural means which otherwise would've ended their life. No one in the world is against someone dying naturally.  Anything that is in favour of keeping life is good. Abortion is the complete fucking opposite of life support dumbass. It is literally killing someone who is otherwise naturally growing and alive. The literal definition of murder. 

 

Now why don't you answer why you're here arguing with me and not ghostz or McWicked when they are both pro killing a child till birth, something which in your very definition that you have repeated over and over is killing a child because it is WELL PAST 24 weeks. At worst our differences is we disagree on a person's morality of their choices, meanwhile your difference with ghostz is about literal murder, yet you're fine with that. You'd rather argue with pro lifers and not other pro abortion ppl who are committing murder in your own definitions. Hypocrite

And why? because as I and everyone here has said a million times, you don't actually give a shit about anything or anyone. You are just here always arguing anything and everything with anyone and everyone. 

That condition that you decided to pull out of your ass is irrelevant.

 

A fetus is on LIFE SUPPORT. The mother does not want to carry the fetus, it is the right of the person carrying that fetus.

 

The fetus cannot grow without the person knowingly providing support to it.

 

You seem to think that women lose the right to their uteruses, for some reason. You don't have an argument for that.............you don't control their uterus, the government doesn't, nobody does except the owner of the uterus. Period.

 

I think only ghost is seriously making that argument.........and I argued against what he said.  I would imagine that a person who has carried a fetus to its third trimester is aware and has knowingly decided to care for the fetus (or else they would've never reached the third trimester).

 

See you actually share something with ghost......................an ABSOLUTISTS' black-and-white attitude.

 

Both of you are equally stupid and misguided.

 

Life does not begin at conception (which is what you believe). And Life also does not begin at the end of the 36th week, and can be avoided by simply having an abortion a day before the "deadline". (which is what ghosts believes).

 

Sorry, your efforts to try and paint me as not caring, simply aren't working. I'm the only making a good faith argument that respects:

1.) Women

2.) The Science

3.) The Biology

4.) What's best for society on a realistic level.

 

That's ALOT OF CARING that I'm doing that none of you are even close to taking into consideration.  I don't see you talking about horrific events happening in other countries, and the people suffering. I do that plenty in the politics thread.

Edited April 15, 2019 by jehurey

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

4 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Thank you. Same rules apply to a fetus incapable of being viable.

 

Madmal is trying to avoid this............I'm going to color the bullshit that he uses to try and conditionally get out of it in color red.

It's not at all the same, a fetus is alive, there's brain activity, it's a viable developing life. A person with brain death is dead, there's no blood flowing into the brain, no electrical signals, zero activity. There's no viability for life, they're dead and are not coming back from it.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Nya`

[jehurey 3,230]

8 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

 

 

Literally answered instantly on page 2 on this thread 

 

but but I've asked you 3 times and you wouldn't answer 

Nope. That's you inventing some ARBRITRARY condition for trying to avoid answering it.

 

Didn't work then..............doesn't work now.

 

You were talking about LIMBS, EYEBROWS, EYELASHES, ORGANS.

 

You were making a BIOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. Now you are trying to get out of it by saying

 

Quote

"ummmmmmmmmm.......well, the life support system is unnatural, so that's the technicality I'm using to not compare the biology of a fetus versus the biology of a brain dead person"

 

Sorry, that ain't working.

[JonDnD 2,622]

Jerry is very passionate about killing babies .

[jehurey 3,230]

2 minutes ago, Nya` said:

It's not at all the same, a fetus is alive, there's brain activity, it's a viable developing life. A person with brain death is dead, there's no blood flowing into the brain, no electrical signals, zero activity. There's no viability for life, they're dead and are not coming back from it.

Sorry:

 

Quote

 

1. Brain development

When does consciousness begin? For most people it is a functioning brain that defines a human being, as this is where our thoughts, feelings, and conscious minds come from. Some people are concerned with abortions after six weeks of pregnancy because that is when a basic spinal cord and nervous system first develop, but it is not until week eight (six weeks post-fertilisation) that the first rudimentary brain activity – the kind that is observed in organisms as simple as insects – can be observed. The very beginnings of our higher brain structures only start to appear between weeks 12 and 16. Crucially, the co-ordinated brain activity required for consciousness does not occur until 24-25 weeks of pregnancy. We cannot say when consciousness first emerges, but it cannot rationally be called before the end of the second trimester at 24 weeks of pregnancy.

 

That is from a letter signed by 1,500 Scientists that make up Ireland's advocacy group for passing laws to allow abortions just last year.

 

Called Scientist for Yes. That is the consensus of the average sicentist who is more smarter than you will ever be in 20 lifetimes. You don't stand a chance.

[madmaltese★ 2,558]

3 minutes ago, jehurey said:

 

 

That condition that you decided to pull out of your ass is irrelevant.

 

A fetus is on LIFE SUPPORT. The mother does not want to carry the fetus, it is the right of the person carrying that fetus.

 

The fetus cannot grow without the person knowingly providing support to it.

 

You seem to think that women lose the right to their uteruses, for some reason. You don't have an argument for that.............you don't control their uterus, the government doesn't, nobody does except the owner of the uterus. Period.

 

I think only ghost is seriously making that argument.........and I argued against what he said.  I would imagine that a person who has carried a fetus to its third trimester is aware and has knowingly decided to care for the fetus (or else they would've never reached the third trimester).

 

See you actually share something with ghost......................an ABSOLUTISTS' black-and-white attitude.

 

Both of you are equally stupid and misguided.

 

Life does not begin at conception (which is what you believe). And Life also does not begin at the end of the 36th week, and can be avoided by simply having an abortion a day before the "deadline". (which is what ghosts believes).

 

Sorry, your efforts to try and paint me as not caring, simply aren't working. I'm the only making a good faith argument that respects:

1.) Women

2.) The Science

3.) The Biology

4.) What's best for society on a realistic level.

 

That's ALOT OF CARING that I'm doing that none of you are even close to taking into consideration.  I don't see you talking about horrific events happening in other countries, and the people suffering. I do that plenty in the politics thread.

No, as simply as can be, just no. A fetus is not on Life Support. Life Support is quite literally going out of your way to keep something alive that otherwise is naturally dead. Yes, we are talking about nature and biology. There is nothing natural or biological about abortion. Zero. It is a human act or ending a life. 

Obviously an unborn child requires the mother to grow and live, again that's fucking biology. You love to bring it up when you think it benefits you. That's life. It's how it works. Someone deciding they want no part in it and ENDING another life, not their own, it's biology. Once someone is pregnant it isn't just their body. The choice isn't only effecting them. It is effecting the most vulnerable of all human life. They aren't choosing to end their life, they are choosing to end another. It's not complicated.

 

You have again reverted back to a Women's want or lack of want dictating whether it's defined as a living child or not. Which is completely wrong. It doesn't fucking matter whether the mother is willing or not, none of that changes the biology of there being a human child in her. A Child that is growing naturally and would continue to do so without external means. A child that will continue to be dependent on the parents for food and care even after birth. 

 

You have zero good faith arguments. None of your points are pro women, in fact vastly opposite. A woman's choice does not outweigh another woman's life.

Your science and biology points are irrelevant because NONE provide an exact definiton of what someone considers life, which is why even in the Pro Abortion camp there is everyone arguing when it is or isn't acceptable. You believe 24, others here believe till birth, others believe only in first trimester, others believe it's life after a heartbeat, etc etc, Science and biology provide us with information of what functionality occurs and when, not when that constitutes a person's definition of life, hence the multitude of differing opinions I mentioned.

 

[madmaltese★ 2,558]

As long as you kill someone who doesn't consciously know it at the time then it's fine. Got it.

[jehurey 3,230]

13 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

No, as simply as can be, just no. A fetus is not on Life Support. Life Support is quite literally going out of your way to keep something alive that otherwise is naturally dead. Yes, we are talking about nature and biology. There is nothing natural or biological about abortion. Zero. It is a human act or ending a life. 

Obviously an unborn child requires the mother to grow and live, again that's fucking biology. You love to bring it up when you think it benefits you. That's life. It's how it works. Someone deciding they want no part in it and ENDING another life, not their own, it's biology. Once someone is pregnant it isn't just their body. The choice isn't only effecting them. It is effecting the most vulnerable of all human life. They aren't choosing to end their life, they are choosing to end another. It's not complicated.

 

You have again reverted back to a Women's want or lack of want dictating whether it's defined as a living child or not. Which is completely wrong. It doesn't fucking matter whether the mother is willing or not, none of that changes the biology of there being a human child in her. A Child that is growing naturally and would continue to do so without external means. A child that will continue to be dependent on the parents for food and care even after birth. 

 

You have zero good faith arguments. None of your points are pro women, in fact vastly opposite. A woman's choice does not outweigh another woman's life.

Your science and biology points are irrelevant because NONE provide an exact definiton of what someone considers life, which is why even in the Pro Abortion camp there is everyone arguing when it is or isn't acceptable. You believe 24, others here believe till birth, others believe only in first trimester, others believe it's life after a heartbeat, etc etc, Science and biology provide us with information of what functionality occurs and when, not when that constitutes a person's definition of life, hence the multitude of differing opinions I mentioned.

 

Yes a fetus is on life support.

 

A uterus can be removed from a woman and actually transplanted into ANOTHER women, and she can grow a fetus.

 

The fetus is on a life support system. The women has ownership of the uterus.

 

Period.

 

You are simply saying women have no rights...................that's easy for me to argue. You're wrong. Roe vs Wade made you wrong 40 years ago.  There's nothing you can say that justifies the statement "women should not have this right with their bodies" (and you said that I am not "pro-woman" LOL after what you just typed).

 

None. Its a non-starter.

 

A fetus who exists outside of the woman's body prior to 24 weeks has no viability on its own. Remember you established your OWN RULES. "Unnatural" Life support doesn't count.

 

And then you tried to compare it to a child who needs to be fed and cared for after birth. Another BAD FAITH ARGUMENT that you've made before. The child would try to survive on its own.........it continues breathing as its starving. It KNOWS its suffering because it is plainly conscious of its suffering.

 

You lose that argument. Plain and simple.

 

Sorry, you're not escaping the SCIENCE and the MEDICAL argument. That, alone, proves that you know you don't have a good faith argument against mines.

 

Me speaking about the SCIENCE and MEDICINE is what helps make me stay fair to all sides of the argument. Because it SCIENCE or MEDICINE were to say that I should change my mind from 24 weeks to an EARLIER date, then I would follow that. I even said that the SCIENCE and MEDICINE should always continue to seek and re-affirm the truth. Maybe in the future the science improves and finds out something we didn't know. I even acknowledge that.

 

That's what keeps my argument strong and in good faith..........and your argument weak and in bad faith.

Edited April 15, 2019 by jehurey

[jehurey 3,230]

5 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

As long as you kill someone who doesn't consciously know it at the time then it's fine. Got it.

Logical Fallacy: Strawman

 

I'm going to love pointing these out.............you're generating them like a factory, at this point.

 

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

 

 

33 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Sorry:

 

That is from a letter signed by 1,500 Scientists that make up Ireland's advocacy group for passing laws to allow abortions just last year.

 

Called Scientist for Yes. That is the consensus of the average sicentist who is more smarter than you will ever be in 20 lifetimes. You don't stand a chance.

What is developed of the brain is sending and receiving electrical impulses in 4-5 weeks regardless of consciousness which is generally 2-3 weeks before most women even realize that they're pregnant. Also the point has nothing to do with cognitive brain function in a fetus, it will develop it, a brain dead person won't. This is something root to your own point which cannibalizes itself. 

Edited April 15, 2019 by Nya`

[madmaltese★ 2,558]

13 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Yes a fetus is on life support.

 

A uterus can be removed from a woman and actually transplanted into ANOTHER women, and she can grow a fetus.

 

The fetus is on a life support system. The women has ownership of the uterus.

 

Period.

 

You are simply saying women have no rights...................that's easy for me to argue. You're wrong. Roe vs Wade made you wrong 40 years ago.  There's nothing you can say that justifies the statement "women should not have this right with their bodies" (and you said that I am not "pro-woman" LOL after what you just typed).

 

None. Its a non-starter.

 

A fetus who exists outside of the woman's body prior to 24 weeks has no viability on its own. Remember you established your OWN RULES. "Unnatural" Life support doesn't count.

 

And then you tried to compare it to a child who needs to be fed and cared for after birth. Another BAD FAITH ARGUMENT that you've made before. The child would try to survive on its own.........it continues breathing as its starving. It KNOWS its suffering because it is plainly conscious of its suffering.

 

You lose that argument. Plain and simple.

 

Sorry, you're not escaping the SCIENCE and the MEDICAL argument. That, alone, proves that you know you don't have a good faith argument against mines.

 

Me speaking about the SCIENCE and MEDICINE is what helps make me stay fair to all sides of the argument. Because it SCIENCE or MEDICINE were to say that I should change my mind from 24 weeks to an EARLIER date, then I would follow that. I even said that the SCIENCE and MEDICINE should always continue to seek and re-affirm the truth. Maybe in the future the science improves and finds out something we didn't know. I even acknowledge that.

 

That's what keeps my argument strong and in good faith..........and your argument weak and in bad faith.

Again, NO.

 

You are literally making a biological argument at the bottom of your post and a rights argument at the top, when they are polar opposite views and you don't even realise it.

Again Life Support systems are an artificial means to keep something 'alive' that otherwise is already dead. The complete opposite to pregnancy which is a NATURAL memes of creating life and growing that life through purely biological and natural means. 

You continue to try make variations on this but there is NONE to make. If there was ZERO human intervention in both cases the result of both cases would be:

-Nature: Brain dead person = dead (without the Human intervention of Life Support or Human Intervention of putting them on Life Support = 'alive')

-Nature: Human child growing, being born and continuing to grow (with nature possibly killing them at any point from conception to 100 years old). (Human intervention is performing an Abortion = dead)

 

Human actions are changing those outcomes, not biology. So again you're more than happy to completely ignore and counteract biology in favour of 'rights' in that case.

 

Yet again, science is providing all the information of what happens and when. YOU and everyone else individually interprets it how they wish as to when it constitutes 'life'. You have chosen 'functional nervous system, feeling pain and consciousness' as the time you believe constitutes life. Others believe the same. Many more believe otherwise, in fact you are in the minority even within the ppl who are Pro Abortion in this very thread. Because as I said, the pro abortion argument ISNT a medical one. Your own argument doesn't even hold up with others that are also Pro Choice 

 

 

 

[jehurey 3,230]

2 minutes ago, Nya` said:

 

 

What is developed of the brain is sending and receiving electrical impulses in 4-5 weeks regardless of consciousness which is generally 2-3 weeks before most women even realize that they're pregnant. Also the point has nothing to do with cognitive brain function in a fetus, it will develop it, a brain dead person won't. This is something root to your own point which cannibalizes itself. 

Nope.

 

No consciousness = no human life.

 

This is easily universally agreed upon.  Brain dead people can still have their heart beat, liver and kidneys function while the brain is dead. That means muscles are twitching. Which means electrical pulses are still occurring within the nervous system.

 

You're not winning an argument with 1,500 scientists.  I mean...............I'm almost curious to see if you are THAT STUPID to try.

[jehurey 3,230]

Just now, madmaltese said:

Again, NO.

 

You are literally making a biological argument at the bottom of your post and a rights argument at the top, when they are polar opposite views and you don't even realise it.

Again Life Support systems are an artificial means to keep something 'alive' that otherwise is already dead. The complete opposite to pregnancy which is a NATURAL memes of creating life and growing that life through purely biological and natural means. 

You continue to try make variations on this but there is NONE to make. If there was ZERO human intervention in both cases the result of both cases would be:

-Nature: Brain dead person = dead (without the Human intervention of Life Support or Human Intervention of putting them on Life Support = 'alive')

-Nature: Human child growing, being born and continuing to grow (with nature possibly killing them at any point from conception to 100 years old). (Human intervention is performing an Abortion = dead)

 

Human actions are changing those outcomes, not biology. So again you're more than happy to completely ignore and counteract biology in favour of 'rights' in that case.

 

Yet again, science is providing all the information of what happens and when. YOU and everyone else individually interprets it how they wish as to when it constitutes 'life'. You have chosen 'functional nervous system, feeling pain and consciousness' as the time you believe constitutes life. Others believe the same. Many more believe otherwise, in fact you are in the minority even within the ppl who are Pro Abortion in this very thread. Because as I said, the pro abortion argument ISNT a medical one. Your own argument doesn't even hold up with others that are also Pro Choice 

 

 

 

Oh............you mean I'm taking EVERYTHING INTO CONSIDERATION???????????

 

Yeah, I am. That's what you would usually do when you CARE ABOUT AN ISSUE.

 

You just admitted that you want to REMOVE CONTEXT in trying to make your argument.

 

Thank you. You just fucked your entire argument.

[madmaltese★ 2,558]

Just now, jehurey said:

Oh............you mean I'm taking EVERYTHING INTO CONSIDERATION???????????

 

Yeah, I am. That's what you would usually do when you CARE ABOUT AN ISSUE.

 

You just admitted that you want to REMOVE CONTEXT in trying to make your argument.

 

Thank you. You just fucked your entire argument.

 Great way to dodge everything and answer nothing. 

 

[jehurey 3,230]

1,500 scientists signed a letter than specifically says:

 

Quote

Crucially, the co-ordinated brain activity required for consciousness does not occur until 24-25 weeks of pregnancy. We cannot say when consciousness first emerges, but it cannot rationally be called before the end of the second trimester at 24 weeks of pregnancy.

I didn't make that determination. 1,500 scientists did, and signed a letter just last year.

 

You're not going to beat Science and Medicine.

 

Consider me arrogant............but as long as I stick to Science and Medicine, I'm gonna keep beating you, here.

 

If you find yourself trying to NOT LISTEN to Science and Medicine.........that's not a good to be.

[Tears of the Cows 1,208]

2 hours ago, madmaltese said:

Because the decision and outcome being performed isn't just affecting that single person's body. How is that hard to understand? It's like you're suggesting this is like someone quitting their job, or changing their diet, something that SOLELY effects the person making that decision.

 

'Let them live their life'.... at the cost of another. 

'It's their body, their choice'... no, they aren't killing their body, their are ending another.

 

At 5-6 weeks there is a heart beat

Within the second month of pregnancy ankles, wrists, fingers, bones, already begin to develop

By 8-10 weeks most main organs have formed

During the 3rd month bones and muscles continue to grow.

By 18-22 weeks all skin is formed including eyelashes, eyebrows. Legs and arms can bend the child can swallow and HEAR.

By the fifth month the baby now sleeps and wakes up in cycles.

 

Do I need to continue?

The key word in all that is 'grow'. That's what a child is doing in the womb and exactly what it CONTINUES to do after it's birth. Birth isn't the start of the growing process or the completion, it's just a step along the way, just as everything in the womb was and all the growth after birth is. 

 

Have you ever been part of or seen a water birth? You brought up breathing before. Water breathes are fucking breathtaking. Child being delivered and completely out of the mother yet still fully breathing through the umbilical cord and can stay there. Then when you take them out they start to breathe through their nose and mouth and colour enters their skin. It's fucking mindblowing. So what is that to you? Are they unborn then or not? You're happy to kill up till birth. Are you okay with just murdering the child under the water when out of the mother before you take them out since they 'haven't had their own breathe' yet? So much of what you say is so clearly said by someone who just hasn't gone through the experience of a successful or failed pregnancy. You simply can't say the things and believe them you say if you have.

 

The cost of another...that is unborn and would affect the life of a LIVING person. 

 

I will side with the already born person every time. 

 

You cant be for abortion in the case of rape but against it for someone who simply doesn’t want a child. It’s the same thing. You’re “murdering”. 

[Tears of the Cows 1,208]

2 hours ago, ghostz said:

What happens here? Woman doesn’t want a child, tells man, is doing it doggy, and he rips it off mid way? 

 

[madmaltese★ 2,558]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

1,500 scientists signed a letter than specifically says:

 

I didn't make that determination. 1,500 scientists did, and signed a letter just last year.

 

You're not going to beat Science and Medicine.

 

Consider me arrogant............but as long as I stick to Science and Medicine, I'm gonna keep beating you, here.

 

If you find yourself trying to NOT LISTEN to Science and Medicine.........that's not a good to be.

So consciousness, self awareness and ability to feel pain.

That's your defintion of what constitutes life and anything outside of that is fine to kill? 

 

Yes or No?

 

Or you going to continue to dodge and weave.

[jehurey 3,230]

1 minute ago, madmaltese said:

 Great way to dodge everything and answer nothing. 

 

Sorry, that's what you have done for the past few pages.

 

Logical Fallacy #1:

 

Quote

 

appeal to nature

You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal.

 

Logical Fallacy #2:

Self-projection.