Do you concede abortion should be banned at some point?[W:415]

Bucky said:

At some point my friend you have to concede a fetus is fully evolved.

Click to expand...

FACTS ARE FACTS. At birth the umbilical cord gets cut, which cuts the connection between a no-longer-a-fetus and the placenta, the tool a fetus uses to commit assaults. Therefore at birth the no-longer-using-a-placenta human entity is not committing assaults; it is acting innocently.

Bucky said:

At some point during the pregnancy, that fetus has a heart beat, can feel pain, is essentially a human and could be a human via a c section.

Click to expand...

IT IS A 100% HUMAN ENTITY FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION --a Fact which actually means absolutely nothing. A hydatidiform mole is also a 100% human entity from the moment of conception, and its human-ness doesn't-at-all stop the need to kill it, because of the ASSAULT it commits. And serial killers are full-fledged human persons, but their human-ness means nothing when sentenced to death for the assaults they commited.

Bucky said:

Any doctor performing an abortion when the fetus is fully formed should be ashamed of themselves and go to prison.

Click to expand...

YOUR OPINION IS, AS USUAL, A CONSEQUENCE OF STUPID FACT-DENIAL. There is no such thing as a potential that **must** be fulfilled. It is well-known that new-born babies have a better chance of surviving if they are not born prematurely --and therefore, even hours before birth, an unborn human is only potentially ready, not actually ready for birth. If it was actually ready for birth, it would be getting born!

Bucky said:

The fact you support this legalized form of a murder makes me sick to my stomach.

Click to expand...

THE FACT THAT YOU CONTINUE TO STUPIDLY DENY FACTS, INCLUDING FACTS REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF "MURDER", SHOULD MAKE ANY INTELLIGENT BEING CRINGE. Because you support horrible slavery. You think women should be treated like toilets, forced to have toxic biowastes dumped into their bloodstreams.

FutureIncoming said:

FACTS ARE FACTS. At birth the umbilical cord gets cut, which cuts the connection between a no-longer-a-fetus and the placenta, the tool a fetus uses to commit assaults. Therefore at birth the no-longer-using-a-placenta human entity is not committing assaults; it is acting innocently.


IT IS A 100% HUMAN ENTITY FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION --a Fact which actually means absolutely nothing. A hydatidiform mole is also a 100% human entity from the moment of conception, and its human-ness doesn't-at-all stop the need to kill it, because of the ASSAULT it commits. And serial killers are full-fledged human persons, but their human-ness means nothing when sentenced to death for the assaults they commited.


YOUR OPINION IS, AS USUAL, A CONSEQUENCE OF STUPID FACT-DENIAL. There is no such thing as a potential that **must** be fulfilled. It is well-known that new-born babies have a better chance of surviving if they are not born prematurely --and therefore, even hours before birth, an unborn human is only potentially ready, not actually ready for birth. If it was actually ready for birth, it would be getting born!


THE FACT THAT YOU CONTINUE TO STUPIDLY DENY FACTS, INCLUDING FACTS REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF "MURDER", SHOULD MAKE ANY INTELLIGENT BEING CRINGE. Because you support horrible slavery. You think women should be treated like toilets, forced to have toxic biowastes dumped into their bloodstreams.

Click to expand...

I personally do not know any women that would put her life over the life of her child.

Bucky said:

At some point

Click to expand...

How about before that point and WHEN is that point?

you have to concede a fetus is fully evolved.

Click to expand...

What is fully evolved? Isn't that when birth takes place?

At some point during the pregnancy, that fetus has a heart beat, can feel pain, is essentially a human and could be a human via a c section.

Click to expand...

Not when a hear beat starts.

Any doctor performing an abortion when the fetus is fully formed should be ashamed of themselves and go to prison.

Click to expand...

When is that and who does that type of abortions and why?

The fact you support this legalized form of a murder makes me sick to my stomach.

Click to expand...

Some doctor that you would not send to prison could help.

Bucky said:

I personally do not know any women that would put her life over the life of her child.

Click to expand...

So you believe that a woman who has already a child or more, should rather die and leave her children without a mother in order to attempt to save a fetus?

Bucky said:

HIPPOCRATIC OATH: CLASSICAL VERSION...

Click to expand...

By that logic we should not have surgeons either.

Bucky said:

HIPPOCRATIC OATH: CLASSICAL VERSION

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him,...

Click to expand...

Are you even aware the classic version of the HIPPROCRATIC OATH is over 2,000 years old?

The original oath was written in Greek, in the late Fifth Century BC.

The classic version even called apron the Greek gods and goddesses, "I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:"

It is way outdated. It did not allow doctors to use surgery to help a patient. (" I will not use the knife...")

The newer version is almost always used in the US now.

I like my fetus with some fava beans Mmmmm

Bucky said:

I personally do not know any women that would put her life over the life of her child.

Click to expand...

THAT IS OFTEN TRUE WHEN THE WOMAN WANTS OFFSPRING. When she doesn't want offspring, the **ONLY** reason she needs, to seek an abortion, is the Fact that her mindless animal womb-occupant is committing assault that she does not have to tolerate. There is absolutely nothing any abortion opponent can offer, to prove she must tolerate that assault!

FutureIncoming said:

THAT IS OFTEN TRUE WHEN THE WOMAN WANTS OFFSPRING. When she doesn't want offspring, the **ONLY** reason she needs, to seek an abortion, is the Fact that her mindless animal womb-occupant is committing assault that she does not have to tolerate. There is absolutely nothing any abortion opponent can offer, to prove she must tolerate that assault!

Click to expand...

Stop with dramatics. No sane person is going to call a pregnancy an assault - It is a natural part of life. Without women going through pregnancy, humans wouldn't exist.

Bucky said:

I personally do not know any women that would put her life over the life of her child.

Click to expand...

That is your point of view. You are welcome to your opinion.

I think most women would put their child's life first over their own. The problem is that you expect others to believe a fetus is equal to a born child.

calamity said:

I don't care if the fetus is 8 months and 25 days old, if it jeopardizes the life of the mother, kill it. Just like any one of us can shoot and kill anyone who threatens our life.

Click to expand...

And yet I know at least several women who - if in that position - would rather their child lived and they died, than the other way around.

Any woman who would deliberately choose to kill their seemingly healthy, full term child just so they could live...I would lose a TON of respect for. They are pathetic mothers and horrible cowards, in my eyes.

I am a guy and would gladly give my life to save the life of a little baby - especially one related to me. Not because I am heroic (I am not), but because I could not live with myself if I didn't.

Bucky said:

Stop with dramatics.

Click to expand...

FACTS ARE FACTS. Get used to it!

Bucky said:

No sane person is going to call a pregnancy an assault

Click to expand...

IT DOESN'T MATTER, BECAUSE NOW YOU ARE LYING ABOUT WHAT I WROTE. It is not "pregnancy is an assault"; it is "unborn humans commit assault". THAT'S the Fact! And we have plenty of data proving the Fact that they steal biological resources from the bodies of their hostesses (and theft IS a type of assault!), they dump toxic biowastes into the bloodstreams of their hostesses (and no sane person would say such action is NOT an assault!), and they infuse addictive and mind-altering substances into the bloodstreams of their hostesses (not even drug pushers tend to commit THAT kind of assault!).

WHERE IS ANY DATA FROM YOU SHOWING THAT UNBORN HUMANS DO NOT COMMIT THE ASSAULTS DESCRIBED ABOVE?

Bucky said:

- It is a natural part of life.

Click to expand...

SO WHAT? HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A NATURAL PART OF LIFE. And here is another. There is absolutely no requirement in Nature that an unborn mammal must be carried to term!

Bucky said:

Without women going through pregnancy, humans wouldn't exist.

Click to expand...

THERE ARE PLENTY OF WOMEN WHO WANT OFFSPRING. For any woman who wants offspring, the price is to tolerate (if she can) the assaults committed by her womb-occupant(s). Do keep in mind that despite something like 30 million abortions worldwide every year, global population is still increasing by something like 80 million extra mouths-to-feed every year. There are plenty of women who want offspring!!! And so there is absolutely no reason to force enslavement upon any woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.

DA60 said:

And yet I know at least several women who - if in that position - would rather their child lived and they died, than the other way around.

Any woman who would deliberately choose to kill their seemingly healthy, full term child just so they could live...I would lose a TON of respect for. They are pathetic mothers and horrible cowards, in my eyes.

I am a guy and would gladly give my life to save the life of a little baby - especially one related to me. Not because I am heroic (I am not), but because I could not live with myself if I didn't.

Click to expand...

Would you say the exact opposite if someone shot a burglar?

FutureIncoming said:

FACTS ARE FACTS. Get used to it!

Click to expand...

That may be...but you are responding in a rather overly dramatic way.

IT DOESN'T MATTER, BECAUSE NOW YOU ARE LYING ABOUT WHAT I WROTE. It is not "pregnancy is an assault"; it is "unborn humans commit assault". THAT'S the Fact! And we have plenty of data proving the Fact that they steal biological resources from the bodies of their hostesses (and theft IS a type of assault!), they dump toxic biowastes into the bloodstreams of their hostesses (and no sane person would say such action is NOT an assault!), and they infuse addictive and mind-altering substances into the bloodstreams of their hostesses (not even drug pushers tend to commit THAT kind of assault!).

WHERE IS ANY DATA FROM YOU SHOWING THAT UNBORN HUMANS DO NOT COMMIT THE ASSAULTS DESCRIBED ABOVE?

Click to expand...

But is it assault? Yes mother's body will have to handle the extra biological load of the baby and yes resources are reallocated as needed. But is it assault, or what the mother's body does to accommodate the developing child? Assault implies intent. If I go right now and punch a random person in the face for no reason, that's assault. I could go up on criminal charges for such an act. But if I were simply carrying a 4x4x8 piece of timber through my local Home Despot, make a turn and whack another person in the head...they can't charge me with assault as there was no intent to do so. I might be held accountable for damages yes...but it would not be called assault.

So without intent, is it assault or simply that the fetus has an impact.

Besides there is also evidence that the developing fetus will have a positive impact on the woman's body as they can and often do send stem cells to weakening organs to bolster them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633676/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/12/fetal-cells-repair-strokes/5412383/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...to-mom-to-fix-her-damaged-heart/#.WRQ78tltm70

SO WHAT? HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A NATURAL PART OF LIFE. And here is another. There is absolutely no requirement in Nature that an unborn mammal must be carried to term!

Click to expand...

That's correct and that's why we have the abortion laws.

THERE ARE PLENTY OF WOMEN WHO WANT OFFSPRING. For any woman who wants offspring, the price is to tolerate (if she can) the assaults committed by her womb-occupant(s). Do keep in mind that despite something like 30 million abortions worldwide every year, global population is still increasing by something like 80 million extra mouths-to-feed every year. There are plenty of women who want offspring!!! And so there is absolutely no reason to force enslavement upon any woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.

Click to expand...

Who's claiming that?

There does not need to be a time limit for abortion.

Canada does not have a point when abortions are banned.
Yet abortions over 21 weeks gestation are rare.
And abortions over 24 weeks are extremely rare and they are for medical reasons just like in the US.

In fact there are no time limits in a few US yet abortions past 21 weeks yet the rate of abortions in those states is no greater than states that limit abortions to 24 weeks gestation or viability ( whichever comes first ).

The only exceptions past 24 weeks gestation is if the woman's life or irreparable damage to a bodily function ( such as, stroke, heart attack, paralysis from the neck down, kidney failure etc. ) would occur if the pregnancy continued.

There no 8 month gestation abortions ever .

minnie616 said:

There no 8 month gestation abortions ever .

Click to expand...

Likely because once the fetus gets to a certain point, the point where it can survive outside the womb...it's no longer an abortion and it becomes pre-term delivery.

[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #65]

Hypnotoad said:

That may be...but you are responding in a rather overly dramatic way.

Click to expand...

OPINIONS DIFFER ON THAT. I have a specific reason for this "style" of posting, and have explained it before. I don't use this style when I post stuff on the Internet under my real name.

Hypnotoad said:

But is it assault?

Click to expand...

YES. The definition of "assault" is quite broad, and includes such things as digging a tunnel under the wall of a fortress, or poisoning a water supply. If you consider classic fiction tales of "vampires", note that they are fully person-class entities that are condemned for simply ONE of the assaults that unborn humans commit (stealing biological resources from unwilling victims). And ordinary parasite-animals are condemned for just two of the assaults that unborn humans commit (theft of resources plus dumping of toxic biowastes into their victims' bodies).

Hypnotoad said:

Yes mother's body will have to handle

Click to expand...

FALSE. There is no such thing as a potential that *must* be fulfilled, and about 2/3 of all new zygotes Naturally fail to ultimately yield born-alive human bodies. There are various human wants regarding potentials, and if a woman wants offspring, then she generally has to do certain things to achieve that goal (could change in not-distant future, though). But if she doesn't want offspring, there absolutely is no "must".

Hypnotoad said:

the extra biological load of the baby

Click to expand...

INACCURATE. An unborn human is **provably** so very different from an ordinary "baby" that it should never be called that. It is only a "baby under construction", and usually when birth happens, the construction process is THEN finished enough that it can deserve to be called a "baby".

Hypnotoad said:

and yes resources are reallocated as needed.

Click to expand...

WRONG INTERPRETATION. The unborn human blastocyst, when it implants into a womb, injects hormones into the woman's body to **command** it to help construct a placenta, the tool it will use to steal biological resources from, and dump toxic biowastes into, the woman's body. The placenta makes all the difference between "unborn human" and "baby" --no ordinary baby steals biological resources from anyone! Furthermore, it is known that the unborn human doesn't care where it causes a placenta to start forming --wombs basically exist as places where placentas can (usually) form without causing a host's guts to be ripped out.

Hypnotoad said:

But is it assault,

Click to expand...

YES IT IS; see above.

Hypnotoad said:

or what the mother's body does to accommodate

Click to expand...

HER BODY IS ONLY RESPONDING TO COMMAND-HORMONES PRODUCED BY THE PLACENTA. The unborn human cares not-at-all what the \ can be, of those command-hormones.

Hypnotoad said:

the developing child?

Click to expand...

SEE ABOVE ABOUT "BABY" --an unborn human is not developed enough to be called either "baby" or "kid" or "child" or anything else that implies birth has happened.

[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #65]

Hypnotoad said:

Assault implies intent.

Click to expand...

INTENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE DEFINITION. See your nearest blood-sucking mosquito, or any animal parasite that we routinely kill because of its assaulting actions, independent of the brainpower associated with "intent". Such biological entities are simply acting in accordance with built-in DNA programming.

Hypnotoad said:

If I go right now and punch a random person in the face for no reason, that's assault. I could go up on criminal charges for such an act. But if I were simply carrying a 4x4x8 piece of timber through my local Home Despot, make a turn and whack another person in the head...they can't charge me with assault as there was no intent to do so. I might be held accountable for damages yes...but it would not be called assault.

Click to expand...

YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH BIOLOGICAL PROGRAMMING, EITHER. But an unborn human most certainly does act in accordance with biological programming, exactly like a mosquito or other parasite.

Hypnotoad said:

So without intent, is it assault or simply that the fetus has an impact.

Click to expand...

SEE ABOVE. It is just as much assault as what a mosquito or other parasite does.

Hypnotoad said:

Besides there is also evidence that the developing fetus will have a positive impact on the woman's body

Click to expand...

ASSAULT IS STILL ASSAULT. Side-effects don't change that. If you break the window of a jewelry store in order to put into the window a fancy watch, you can still be arrested for your primary action!

Hypnotoad said:

as they can and often do send stem cells ...

Click to expand...

INACCURATE. The cells are simply escapees from the hordes reproducing in the early stages of the pregnancy. And the cells are not as beneficial as a woman's own stem cells would be --a thing that will be available to both men and women when stem-cell researchers have achieved certain goals they are pursuing.

Hypnotoad said:

That's correct and that's why we have the abortion laws.

Click to expand...

NOT QUITE. Abortion is legal because unborn humans don't qualify as "persons", and therefore unborn humans are as killable as any other common/ordinary animal. It would be a much simpler argument to say, "Abortion should be legal because there is no valid reason to make it illegal" --but that is not actually why it is currently legal.

Hypnotoad said:

Who's claiming that?

Click to expand...

THAT'S NOT A VERY CLEAR QUESTION. But banning abortion is extremely equivalent to forcing women who don't want to stay pregnant to involuntarily serve (as in "slavery") mindless unborn human animals.

Hypnotoad said:

Likely because once the fetus gets to a certain point, the point where it can survive outside the womb...it's no longer an abortion and it becomes pre-term delivery.

Click to expand...

The real reason is safety for the woman's life.
When Roe v Wade was passed viability was 28 weeks gestation but aboutions past 24 weeks were still very very rare and to save the woman's life or irreparable damage to a bodily function.


Pregnant women do not have elective abortions after 20 weeks gestation unless they were held hostage , or are mentally ill/challenged.

After 20 weeks gestion there is a medical reason.
But I agree it is comforting to know that once the age of viably is reached abortion is only to safe the woman's life or save her bodily function from irreparable damage.( in the US these extreme cases are about 100 a year.)



The US does allow each state to choose whether or not to ban after viabilly.
Abortions past 24 were/are only performed if continuing the pregnancy put the woman' life in greater danger than an abortion.

Any abortion past 24 weeks gestation is extremely dangerous and puts the woman's life at high risk.

FutureIncoming said:

[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #65]ASSAULT IS STILL ASSAULT. Side-effects don't change that. If you break the window of a jewelry store in order to put into the window a fancy watch, you can still be arrested for your primary action!

Click to expand...

Dude...no need to shout in a discussion. You don't have to go ALL CAPS on us to get your point across.

And secondly, I still don't see it as an assault. There is a biological impact to the host mother...there's no denying that, but it's not an assault.

FutureIncoming said:

[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #65]FALSE. There is no such thing as a potential that *must* be fulfilled, and about 2/3 of all new zygotes Naturally fail to ultimately yield born-alive human bodies. There are various human wants regarding potentials, and if a woman wants offspring, then she generally has to do certain things to achieve that goal (could change in not-distant future, though). But if she doesn't want offspring, there absolutely is no "must".

Click to expand...

That's a bit nit picky. You're taking my use of "must" as if I was saying "She must do this because someone has a gun to their head". I'm using "must" as in "In order to deal with increased water demands of the new development on the city's water system, we must put in a new water tower."

If the mother wants a child, her body must make accommodations. That's biology.

WRONG INTERPRETATION. The unborn human blastocyst, when it implants into a womb, injects hormones into the woman's body to **command** it to help construct a placenta, the tool it will use to steal biological resources from, and dump toxic biowastes into, the woman's body. The placenta makes all the difference between "unborn human" and "baby" --no ordinary baby steals biological resources from anyone! Furthermore, it is known that the unborn human doesn't care where it causes a placenta to start forming --wombs basically exist as places where placentas can (usually) form without causing a host's guts to be ripped out.

Click to expand...

You do understand that the woman's body once a month gets ready for pregnancy regardless of whether or not the woman even is sexually active right? That the uterus develops a "landing pad" as it were for the fertilized cells to implant into? And then if it doesn't happen...the lining sloughs off causing menstruation?

The woman's body getting ready is a two way street of communication. Basically once a month the uterus says "I'm ready! Built a nice place to implant into. Anyone? Anyone? If no one shows up I'm chucking it in the bin." So it's not all the baby's fault.

Hypnotoad said:

That's a bit nit picky. You're taking my use of "must" as if I was saying "She must do this because someone has a gun to their head". I'm using "must" as in "In order to deal with increased water demands of the new development on the city's water system, we must put in a new water tower."

If the mother wants a child, her body must make accommodations. That's biology.



You do understand that the woman's body once a month gets ready for pregnancy regardless of whether or not the woman even is sexually active right? That the uterus develops a "landing pad" as it were for the fertilized cells to implant into? And then if it doesn't happen...the lining sloughs off causing menstruation?

The woman's body getting ready is a two way street of communication. Basically once a month the uterus says "I'm ready! Built a nice place to implant into. Anyone? Anyone? If no one shows up I'm chucking it in the bin." So it's not all the baby's fault.

Click to expand...

You realize, despite your comments on reproductive biology, that women aren't morally or legally obligated to proliferate the species.

What "baby" are you referring to?

Removable Mind said:

You realize, despite your comments on reproductive biology, that women aren't morally or legally obligated to proliferate the species.

What "baby" are you referring to?

Click to expand...

Yes I [smurf]ing understand this. I said...

"If the mother wants a child, her body must make accommodations. That's biology."

I used the word "if"

Why am I being attacked as if I'm forcing women into breeding camps when all I'm arguing is that I don't think that a fetus is guilty of assault?!?

Hypnotoad said:

Yes I [smurf]ing understand this. I said...

"If the mother wants a child, her body must make accommodations. That's biology."

I used the word "if"

Why am I being attacked as if I'm forcing women into breeding camps when all I'm arguing is that I don't think that a fetus is guilty of assault?!?

Click to expand...

Because a fetus is not guilty of assault. It is a natural part of life. Women by nature are breeders. By nature they are programed to breed and provide nourishment to their children.

A fetus should not be punished for things they have been doing.....forever.