• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cause of Death FB Meme

Scrabaholic said:
Considering the number of sex acts that take place in a year, it's a pretty low number.
Click to expand...

In the day and age of easily accessible birth control? It's kind of a sad reality that so many people fail to use it.
 
JayDubya said:
I fall under the "scientifically well-informed" and "actually cares about human rights" categories, and you wouldn't on either count.

Referring to those you hate and want to see dead as "mindless animals" and "parasites" is just your despicable bigoted ranting and has no place in statistical objectivity.
Click to expand...

Oh, knock it off. You don't give a **** about human life or human rights. You just want to bitch about abortion. You've proven that time and again. You've admitted that you would rather see a born child starve and go without medical care than spend a single government dollar to feed or medicate them.
 
calamity said:
I agree, and what bothers me is that those who are against abortion are also against providing birth control free and en masse. It boggles the mind.

My take on abortion is a bit more than just pro-choice. For example, if someone who does not want a baby gets pregnant or if two people who are a social mess conceive, I would recommend an abortion. But, of course, I am not in favor of forcing them to have one.
Click to expand...
me neither but when one considers the ramifications of the child involved well then it gives me pause
 
calamity said:
Oh, knock it off. You don't give a **** about human life or human rights. You just want to bitch about abortion. You've proven that time and again. You've admitted that you would rather see a born child starve and go without medical care than spend a single government dollar to feed or medicate them.
Click to expand...

How about you knock off your lying and your socialist bull**** tangents?

I get that you think healthcare is a right and not just a service - but a) it is just a service and you're wrong, and b) this garbage you're on about has ****-all to do with the topic of this thread or subforum.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
How about you knock off your lying and your socialist bull**** tangents?

I get that you think healthcare is a right and not just a service - but a) it is just a service and you're wrong, and b) this garbage you're on about has ****-all to do with the topic of this thread or subforum.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you'd let born babies die rather than dole out a buck to have the government feed them. I rest my case.
 
calamity said:
Like I said, you'd let born babies die rather than dole out a buck to have the government feed them. I rest my case.
Click to expand...

No like I said, you like socialist bull**** and this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You want a nanny state to wipe our asses from cradle to grave - good for you.

The only thing you have conclusively proven is that you have no case.
 
JayDubya said:
No like I said, you like socialist bull**** and this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You want a nanny state to wipe out asses from cradle to grave - good for you.

The only thing you have conclusively proven is that you have no case.
Click to expand...

And, you'd let born babies starve rather than pay for a social program to help feed them. Like I said, you are anti-abortion, but you could not give **** one over supporting life.
 
calamity said:
And, you'd let born babies starve rather than pay for a social program to help feed them. Like I said, you are anti-abortion, but you could not give **** one over supporting life.
Click to expand...

I don't support any "social programs" for anything - get that through your skull somehow and stop the bull****.

While you're at it, try to step outside of your little left-wing box where taxes are the only way to support anything.

It would be great if you could manage something that isn't a trashy boldface lie. Try to accomplish that in your next post.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
And, you'd let born babies starve rather than pay for a social program to help feed them. Like I said, you are anti-abortion, but you could not give **** one over supporting life.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Jay only gives a **** about unborn children. But once they're born, then he couldn't care less about them.

It's just like what George Carlin said:

"If you're pre-born your fine, if you're pre-schooled your ****ed!"
 
TheGoverness said:
Exactly. Jay only gives a **** about unborn children. But once they're born, then he couldn't care less about them.

It's just like what George Carlin said:

"If you're pre-born your fine, if you're pre-schooled your ****ed!"
Click to expand...

Wow. This is just too stupid, even for you.

This is just an endemic problem it seems with most leftists being unable to rationally distinguish stances on different issues.

If your standard for "caring," slanderer, is supporting socialist schemes for someone than I "care" for no one.
 
JayDubya said:
I don't support any "social programs" for anything - get that through your skull somehow and stop the bull****.

While you're at it, try to step outside of your little left-wing box where taxes are the only way to support anything.

It would be great if you could manage something that isn't a trashy boldface lie. Try to accomplish that in your next post.
Click to expand...

Exactly, you'd rather kids starve than compromise on your ideological beliefs. So, you are not pro-life, just anti-abortion.

Why don't you just admit it and move on? Skeered?
 
TheGoverness said:
Exactly. Jay only gives a **** about unborn children. But once they're born, then he couldn't care less about them.

It's just like what George Carlin said:

"If you're pre-born your fine, if you're pre-schooled your ****ed!"
Click to expand...

Yeah, feeding hungry children and treating their illnesses is socialist, but telling women they can't do with their bodies as they choose is libertarian. Absurd.
 
calamity said:
Exactly, you'd rather kids starve than compromise on your ideological beliefs
Click to expand...

No you're just too dedicated to the nanny-state to see what a corrupt failure it is.

That's your damage, pal, not mine.
 
From Guttmacher:

CONTRACEPTIVE EFFECTIVENESS

• When used correctly, modern contraceptives are very effective at preventing pregnancy. The two-thirds of U.S. women (68%) at risk of unintended pregnancy who use contraceptives consistently and correctly throughout the course of any given year account for only 5% of all unintended pregnancies (Figure 1). The 18% of women at risk who use contraceptives but do so inconsistently account for 41% of unintended pregnancies, while the 14% of women at risk who do not use contraceptives at all or have a gap in use of one month or longer account for 54% of unintended pregnancies. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states
 
calamity said:
Yeah, feeding hungry children and treating their illnesses is socialist, but telling women they can't do with their bodies as they choose is libertarian. Absurd.
Click to expand...



Yes you are being absurd by stupidly suggesting that supporting the human rights to life, liberty, and property consistently is somehow inconsistent.

You are being absurd by calling the deliberate and premeditated homicide that occurs with each abortion is merely "doing something with one's own body..." I suppose that could be technically true but only in the same sense that one can use one's body to do other needless killing acts, like firing a gun at an innocent bystander.

And the use of one's body in such a manner, to deliberately kill an innocent third party, does not somehow constitute any kind of rational defense for that killing.
 
JayDubya said:
I fall under the "scientifically well-informed"
Click to expand...
FALSE!. If you were actually well-informed, then you would have not trouble accepting Facts, such as the Fact that Legal Personhood is entirely independent of scientific data about personhood. Such as the Fact that doctors and scientists and lawyers all agree persons are minds, not bodies (see the part about death certificates). Such as the Fact that human brains are the equivalent of computers, with the advantage of being able to write their own computer programs. Such as the Fact that before birth, those brains begin to get an Operating System installed --but a mere Operating System does not make a computer a person. Such as the Fact that it takes more than a year after birth for human brains to start developing software associated with personhood. Such as the Fact that unborn humans are, Per Measurable Facts And Simple Logic, only mindless animals, nonpersons.

Such as the Fact that unborn humans steal nutrients from the bodies of their hosts, just like a parasite. Such as the Fact that unborn humans dump toxic biowastes into the bodies of their hosts, just like a parasite.

Such as the Fact that Measurably Accurate Descriptions are Objective, and hence are neither bigoted nor hateful nor hatemongering nor ranting nor despicable.

Such as the Fact that just because a potential exist, it doesn't have to be fulfilled.

JayDubya said:
and "actually cares about human rights"
Click to expand...
SO YOU ADMIT TO BEING STUPIDLY PREJUDICED!! Because person rights are, Universally speaking, far more important than Stupidly Prejudiced blather about "human rights". Accepting person rights is the only way to prevent interstellar war with nonhuman intelligent beings.

JayDubya said:
categories, and you wouldn't on either count.
Click to expand...
FALSE FOR THE FIRST; GLADLY TRUE FOR THE SECOND. See above!
 
FutureIncoming said:
FALSE!. If you were actually well-informed, then you would have not trouble accepting Facts, such as the Fact that Legal Personhood is entirely independent of scientific data about personhood. Such as the Fact that doctors and scientists and lawyers all agree persons are minds, not bodies (see the part about death certificates).
Click to expand...

You seem to be presenting two contradictory statements here.

And even if you cap the "f," saying that "doctors and scientists and lawyers all agree" is not a fact. In fact, it's untrue.
 
calamity said:
consistently and correctly?
Click to expand...

Not sure of the numbers who have abortions but 65 percent of US women of child bearing years use artificial birth control correctly and consistently.

All artifical birth control has a failure rate.
 
FutureIncoming said:
YOU MEAN YOU ARE STUPIDLY PREJUDICED ABOUT HUMANS? Why? Perhaps you should read The Cuticle Cell Argument, to see the error of your ways. Persons matter. Human life doesn't. Except when, and only when, a human life is also a person's life. A hydatidiform mole, for example, is 100% "human life", and 0% person --even abortion opponents agree with that FACT!
Click to expand...

You're not quoting facts, you're pushing an arbitrary definition based on ideology that holds no more validity than the pro-life side. The concept of personhood is purely philosophical in nature.

It's hilarious to see so many people bitching about the abortion numbers, which really doesn't change the overall point that deaths by gun are much lower than many other causes that people aren't running around with their hair on fire, freaking out about.
 
minnie616 said:
Not sure of the numbers who have abortions but 65 percent of US women of child bearing years use artificial birth control correctly and consistently.

All artifical birth control has a failure rate.
Click to expand...

And of the 35 percent who are not using contraception, some of them are trying to conceive or are pregnant.

Most people would agree that everyone who doesn't want a pregnancy should be using birth control. However, we are human and humans make mistakes. Hormones get raging and people get carried away. How many of us can say we never had sex without b/c when we didn't want to conceive or cause a pregnancy?
 
nota bene said:
You seem to be presenting two contradictory statements here.
Click to expand...
I SEE A TYPO. "have not trouble" should have been "have no trouble". I was in a bit of a rush, and didn't have time go into better detail. Legal Personhood is arbitrarily assigned to mindless human animals at birth, entirely independent of all scientific data about personhood. (But since the Law existed long before the data was discovered....) At the other end of life, though, at least with respect to a brain-dead adult on life-support, the Law and the Science are in complete agreement (with the doctors making a diagnosis that is consistent with the others). The "death certificate" stuff in the linked article is the key. When the doctors verify brain death, at that time the death certificate is filled out, regardless of the fact that the rest of the human body is still alive (though on life support). When the brain is dead, the mind is dead and the person is declared dead. The still-living status of the rest of the body is totally irrelevant to personhood; it is Officially a corpse, and that's why it is OK to unplug the life support.

So I can take that data back to the topic of unborn humans, and note that they don't have Legal Person status, and they don't have minds yet; their brains are still developing. It Logically Follows they cannot possibly qualify for personhood in accordance with the scientific data. Each unborn human is just another example of a living but mindless human animal body.

nota bene said:
SAnd even if you cap the "f," saying that "doctors and scientists and lawyers all agree" is not a fact.
Click to expand...
I COULD HAVE PHRASED THAT BETTER. I was referring to the Professions more than to the individuals; I know there are abortion opponents in all three fields. Nevertheless, the Professional declaration of "dead", by the doctors, is in accordance with the Professional Declaration of "persons are minds" of the scientists, and also is in accordance with Professional Legal Procedure, which accepts both the medical and scientific "state of personhood" of the brain-dead human on life-support.
 
Fishking said:
You're not quoting facts, you're pushing an arbitrary definition based on ideology
Click to expand...
SEE MSG #74. Also, there is a particular thing that is part of English Language Heritage, that most abortion opponents don't seem to realize how relevant it is. It involves the word "being", which has multiple definitions. One of them is used very consistently by members of both sides of the Overall Abortion Debate. While not common (nor is it especially rare), phrases such as "intelligent being", "alien being", and "extraterrestrial being" are recognized by every reasonably educated human as referring to nonhuman persons. Meanwhile, no one ever uses phrases like "turtle being", "swan being", and "lobster being" --they are not persons. Logically, the phrase "human being" refers to a person that happens to be human (instead of, say, an extraterrestrial). But that doesn't mean the phrase applies to every human!

You might call a zygote a "person", but I'm not stupid enough to do that, when some fail to start dividing and thereby become morulas. You might call a morula a "person", but I'm not stupid enough to do that, when some fail to crack open the zona pellucida and escape to become blastocysts. You might call a blastocyst a "person", but I'm not stupid enough to do that, when some fail to implant into a womb and become embryos --and some might implant and become hydatidiform moles, instead. NO ONE calls a hydatidiform mole a "person", yet before that 100% human and alive entity began to exist in that form, it was a zygote that became a morula that became a blastocyst. On what basis can a living person become a living non-person, just by developing further, following its built-in genetic instructions?

The concepts of "human" and "person" are fundamentally different and distinct concepts. Just because something is human, that doesn't mean it is also a person, and just because something is a person, that doesn't mean it is a human. Consistent Language Use requires us to call unborn humans "humans", but to never call them "human beings" (meaning "human persons")


Fishking said:
that holds no more validity than the pro-life side. The concept of personhood is purely philosophical in nature.
TELL THAT TO THE SCIENTISTS STUDYING DOLPHINS. It is a concept associated with characteristics that can be measured! Which means you are totally mistaken.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom