If anti-abortion, would you support other forms of population control?

jmotivator · Jan 15, 2019

minnie616 said:
I am not willfully denying anything to the unborn. I sincerely believe abortion is a private matter left up to the pregnant woman her family and her faith.

Again, you can only do this by first disregarding and dehumanizing the unborn child. You would not make the same statement -- or I sincerely hope you wouldn't -- about a mother and a newborn.

jmotivator · Jan 15, 2019

Lursa said:
Not projecting anything, just pointing out reality. You would rather see women's rights violated and reduced to 2nd class citizens, with the unborn's needs taking priority, by use of govt force against our wills.

Not everyone elevates basic, common animal physiological processes (breathing, heart beating) above people's lives...but you do...that's your choice. (And by definition that's dehumanizing)

I get it. I just want to make it clear, again, that you dont hold any moral High Ground in doing so.

You absolutely are. You sadly attempt to claim that I am dehumanizing a pregnant woman, which I am not, while rejecting the right to life of the unborn because you dehumanize them.

One day I hope you will see what a morally bankrupt and disastrous ideology you have adopted for mere convenience.

OKgrannie · Jan 15, 2019

jmotivator said:
You absolutely are. You sadly attempt to claim that I am dehumanizing a pregnant woman,

You are absolutely dehumanizing a pregnant woman by reducing her to a breeding animal or a incubator. Women have plans, dreams, ambitions, none of which a zef has, and to deny her the reality of that just for a possibility is dehumanizing.

which I am not, while rejecting the right to life of the unborn because you dehumanize them.

The unborn is not "dehumanized" by pro-choicers, zefs are always recognized as being of human DNA. Pro-choicers simply fail to "personify" zefs, and that personification is necessary for you to view the zef as equal to a pregnant woman.

One day I hope you will see what a morally bankrupt and disastrous ideology you have adopted for mere convenience.

There you go again, reducing the risks and disabling qualities of pregnancy/childbirth to a mere "inconvenience." If you cannot even be honest about the sacrifices a woman makes to bear and birth a child, there is no reason we should give respect to your opinions about morality. Furthermore, it is not the business of government to regulate or enforce anyone's view of morality. The government exists to maintain order in society, and no pro-lifer has yet to provide any evidence that abortion creates disorder in society.

jmotivator · Jan 15, 2019

OKgrannie said:
You are absolutely dehumanizing a pregnant woman by reducing her to a breeding animal or a incubator. Women have plans, dreams, ambitions, none of which a zef has, and to deny her the reality of that just for a possibility is dehumanizing.

No, I'm absolutely not. The pregnant woman is indeed a human being. I just see pregnancy as a lesser imposition than death.

The unborn is not "dehumanized" by pro-choicers, zefs are always recognized as being of human DNA. Pro-choicers simply fail to "personify" zefs, and that personification is necessary for you to view the zef as equal to a pregnant woman.

LOL!!! You say you don't dehumanize, then you dehumanize. You seem to need a dictionary.

There you go again, reducing the risks and disabling qualities of pregnancy/childbirth to a mere "inconvenience." If you cannot even be honest about the sacrifices a woman makes to bear and birth a child, there is no reason we should give respect to your opinions about morality. Furthermore, it is not the business of government to regulate or enforce anyone's view of morality. The government exists to maintain order in society, and no pro-lifer has yet to provide any evidence that abortion creates disorder in society.

Nope. I am comparing them on equal terms. How much of a woman's life is lost to pregnancy? Given that the vast majority of women work right up until their water breaks, I'd say it is considerably less than a month, on average. How much of a child's life is lost through abortion? All of it.

So, assuming an averal life expectancy of 78 years... that is 0.1% of the woman's life "lost" versus... 100.0%.

I'm not even claiming that pregnancy isn't a hardship, I'm just pointing out that death is a greater hardship... an argument that would be self explanatory in a sane world.

minnie616 · Jan 15, 2019

jmotivator said:
Again, you can only do this by first disregarding and dehumanizing the unborn child. You would not make the same statement -- or I sincerely hope you wouldn't -- about a mother and a newborn.

False I do not dehumanize an unborn. I just do not view the unborn as a child.
A human egg is alive and human just as a human sperm is alive and human.
When joined together they form a human unborn ....not a human being/ person/child/ individual.

Once born an infant/ preemie takes it’s first breath ( the breath of life ) and is now a human being/person/child/individual.

jmotivator · Jan 15, 2019

minnie616 said:
False I do not dehumanize an unborn. I just do not view the unborn as a child.

Ummm... Minnie, I hate to break it to you, but you just described the act of dehumanization after saying you don't do it.

A human egg is alive and human just as a human sperm is alive and human.

False. Neither the egg or sperm qualify as a living organism. From fertilization they become a living organism. That living organism has human DNA so therefor it is a living human.

When joined together they form a human unborn ....not a human being/ person/child/ individual.

Now you just jump into anti-science semantics. I get that you living with a lot of cognitive dissonance that forces you into these illogical rationalizations.

Once born an infant/ preemie takes it’s first breath ( the breath of life ) and is now a human being/person/child/individual.

An arbitrary line between life an death that you draw for the purpose of killing the unborn.

minnie616 · Jan 15, 2019

jmotivator said:
Ummm... Minnie, I hate to break it to you, but you just described the act of dehumanization after saying you don't do it.

False. Neither the egg or sperm qualify as a living organism. From fertilization they become a living organism. That living organism has human DNA so therefor it is a living human.

Now you just jump into anti-science semantics. I get that you living with a lot of cognitive dissonance that forces you into these illogical rationalizations.

An arbitrary line between life an death that you draw for the purpose of killing the unborn.

I know a bit more biology than you give me credit for.

A human unborn before viability is not yet yet a living organism since it cannot yet perform hemostatsis on its own until the liver is formed. The pregnant woman’s liver performs hemostatsis for the unborn before viability.

Lursa · Jan 15, 2019

jmotivator said:
You absolutely are. You sadly attempt to claim that I am dehumanizing a pregnant woman, which I am not, while rejecting the right to life of the unborn because you dehumanize them.

One day I hope you will see what a morally bankrupt and disastrous ideology you have adopted for mere convenience.

LOL no, I claimed you dehumanized the unborn.

You just dismiss and disrespect women. You place all unborn before all women. That's what your desire to end abortion means...legally, practically, morally.

You would completely dismiss the consent and rights of women to allow the govt to force us to remain pregnant against our will.

Just own it...unless you cant confront your own words and their meaning?

So nope, you dont hold the moral High Ground here, no matter how much that is a surprise to you.

Lursa · Jan 16, 2019

jmotivator said:
Ummm... Minnie, I hate to break it to you, but you just described the act of dehumanization after saying you don't do it.

There are categorized stages of human development. The unborn is factually not a child. It's not dehumanizing to refer to the proper stage of a human...it's fact.

Lursa · Jan 16, 2019

jmotivator said:
An arbitrary line between life an death that you draw for the purpose of killing the unborn.

There are religions and many cultures that recognize that line. Including your own.

Please explain why your opinion should be imposed on a woman against her will regarding a pregnancy?

jmotivator · Jan 16, 2019

Lursa said:
LOL no, I claimed you dehumanized the unborn.

I must have missed that because it is so absurd. I dehumanize the unborn? Oh brooooother. :roll:

That is some bat-signal grade projection on your part.

You just dismiss and disrespect women. You place all unborn before all women. That's what your desire to end abortion means...legally, practically, morally.

Nope, I don't disrespect women. I have issue with women you kill their unborn children, though.

You would completely dismiss the consent and rights of women to allow the govt to force us to remain pregnant against our will.

Because the alternative is to deny their child everything.

Just own it...unless you cant confront your own words and their meaning?

It's amazing seeing you try to navigate a debate with your world so pock marked by blind spots. My comparative argument of what a woman loses when pregnant versus what a the child loses when killed inherently accepts that there is potential loss on both sides

You side justifies the death of the innocent through potential gain in the moment for someone else. Your's is a ghastly ideology and always will be. There is clearly elemental of sacrifice that is wholly absent in the pro-abortion heart.

So nope, you dont hold the moral High Ground here, no matter how much that is a surprise to you.

Oh, I absolutely do. You are wallowing in the moral gutter with the corpses of millions of dead, argument that it makes women's lives better while, by all objective measures, women are growing more miserable, less healthy and less fulfilled.

jmotivator · Jan 16, 2019

Lursa said:
There are categorized stages of human development. The unborn is factually not a child. It's not dehumanizing to refer to the proper stage of a human...it's fact.

It factually is a living human which you want to be able to kill, so you rationalize away its humanity. It's what all genocides do.

Obscurity · Jan 16, 2019

jmotivator said:
What is legal and what is moral are not always the same thing. I'm sure your understand that in all cases but the destruction of those in the womb.

Hence why abortion is legal. Morality is not something that you ought to legislate, especially when that morality is based on the religious spark of the catholic church. If you study the origins of the anti-choice movement that's where it lay.

As far as "those" in the womb, I disagree. I reject the assertion personhood begins at inception. Personally, I believe personhood begins with viability - non-interventionist viability, not some scam like "Oh, put the embryo in an artifical womb."

The general gist of rights are that your rights end where my body begins. Full stop. Hence the Roe ruling.

Abortion must remain legal. If not, this country will tear itself apart, and, I assert, that conservatives who are anti-big government are absolutely hypocritical on the pro-life movement. Morality police is something you see in Saudi Arabia.

We are not, and should never become the christian theocracy so many of you covertly desire.

I would bleed to stop that.

tecoyah · Jan 16, 2019

Morality is an inherently subjective concept which would make any state mandate a form of discrimination. In addition this would by its very nature single out a specific gender and therefore doubly so. Backlash from an attempted ban would be incredibly divisive and damaging to perceived rights in this country and the SCOTUS knows this.

OKgrannie · Jan 16, 2019

jmotivator said:
No, I'm absolutely not. The pregnant woman is indeed a human being. I just see pregnancy as a lesser imposition than death.

But you make the pregnant woman LESS of a human being when you eliminate her life choices. How you see pregnancy is unclear because of your lack of understanding and your willful lack of desire to understand.

LOL!!! You say you don't dehumanize, then you dehumanize. You seem to need a dictionary.

Perhaps you could use a dictionary. Possession of human DNA does not make A human. Perhaps understanding the word "person" would aid you.

Nope. I am comparing them on equal terms. How much of a woman's life is lost to pregnancy? Given that the vast majority of women work right up until their water breaks, I'd say it is considerably less than a month, on average. How much of a child's life is lost through abortion? All of it.

So, assuming an averal life expectancy of 78 years... that is 0.1% of the woman's life "lost" versus... 100.0%.

I'm not even claiming that pregnancy isn't a hardship, I'm just pointing out that death is a greater hardship... an argument that would be self explanatory in a sane world.

Lack of understanding of pregnancy. Many women cannot work until immediately before birth and those who do manage it, do it enduring hardship. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, that time being pregnant, recovering from pregnancy, rearing the resulting child, say 20 years, is not her time anymore, her life is not her own. A change in life of such magnitude should certainly be a choice to the person affected. Death of an organism which has never known life is not a hardship on any but parents who possibly desperately wanted a child. A zef does not have a life of its own; it only has the life that a woman GIVES it, and no woman should be required to make that sacrifice.

Obscurity · Jan 16, 2019

OKgrannie said:
But you make the pregnant woman LESS of a human being when you eliminate her life choices. How you see pregnancy is unclear because of your lack of understanding and your willful lack of desire to understand.

Perhaps you could use a dictionary. Possession of human DNA does not make A human. Perhaps understanding the word "person" would aid you.

Lack of understanding of pregnancy. Many women cannot work until immediately before birth and those who do manage it, do it enduring hardship. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, that time being pregnant, recovering from pregnancy, rearing the resulting child, say 20 years, is not her time anymore, her life is not her own. A change in life of such magnitude should certainly be a choice to the person affected. Death of an organism which has never known life is not a hardship on any but parents who possibly desperately wanted a child. A zef does not have a life of its own; it only has the life that a woman GIVES it, and no woman should be required to make that sacrifice.

I always love the anti-choicers who try to minimize the impact of pregnancy and delivery on a woman's physical body and life choices for convenience to their argument.

My wife and I have 2 children. I am getting a vasectomy so we have no more children. I have seen the physical consequences on pregnancy - and they are long lasting. Permanent issues that will not get better. Do they ruin her life? No. But, they change her life irrevocably.

The anti-choice crowd is hypocritical.

Your rights end where my body begins and that goes for women also.

As the late, great Hitchens says - we know the cure for poverty; it is the empowerment of women.

Lursa · Jan 17, 2019

jmotivator said:
I must have missed that because it is so absurd. I dehumanize the unborn? Oh brooooother. :roll:

Of course you do. When the significant and unpredictable risk of women losing their lives to pregnancy/childbirth is brought up, you attempt to justify your valuing the unborn more than women by reducing your argument to numbers...'more' unborn die.

Merely a number, nothing about the actual life itself. Because to do that, then you have to state a subjective reason for your position, thus exposing the fact that you do indeed value the unborn more than women.

(Or we get the 'innocent unborn' cliche but then no one ever tells me what the woman is guilty of.)

Nope, I don't disrespect women. I have issue with women you kill their unborn children, though.

The only alternative would be that you are too stupid to realize that any laws making abortion illegal and those that would be needed to track and identify women in the enforcement of such laws would apply to ALL women and girls of reproductive age.

So I gave you the benefit of the doubt and based my opinion on pretty much everything you've written, that you just value the unborn more than women.

Lursa · Jan 17, 2019

jmotivator said:
It's amazing seeing you try to navigate a debate with your world so pock marked by blind spots. My comparative argument of what a woman loses when pregnant versus what a the child loses when killed inherently accepts that there is potential loss on both sides

No one (unless committing suicide) gets a choice when they die. Why should the unborn be any different?

Unless you are just focused on dehumanizing numbers, please recognize the fact that every single pregnancy is a risk to a woman's life.

"Compare it" all you want, the fact remains that since it's not predictable or preventable, laws making abortion illegal would mean the govt forcing women to take those significant risks against their will. And many would die.

So please explain what *besides numbers* (dehumanization) makes this ^^^ acceptable to you?

(And btw, no one forces you to go to the Dr, no matter what kind of health care you have. Going to a Dr is a choice)

Lursa · Jan 17, 2019

jmotivator said:
Oh, I absolutely do. You are wallowing in the moral gutter with the corpses of millions of dead, argument that it makes women's lives better while, by all objective measures, women are growing more miserable, less healthy and less fulfilled.

Wow, look at the explosion of hyperbole! ha ha ha. Seems like a good sign you are failing to make any advancement in your argument.

And you also seem to have a pretty sick imagination...that's a gross fantasy of yours...and not remotely realistic.

(Since 97.5% of all abortions take place when the unborn is smaller than a pea, there'd be no such abhorrent waste pile as your imagination allows you to wallow in self-indulgently.)

Lursa · Jan 17, 2019

jmotivator said:
It factually is a living human which you want to be able to kill, so you rationalize away its humanity. It's what all genocides do.

Science=fact=objective.

But science applies no value...value is subjective.

Society applies value to a human life stage.

Value, morality.

Who says it's immoral to kill humans in the pre-birth stages of development?

jmotivator · Jan 17, 2019

Lursa said:
No one (unless committing suicide) gets a choice when they die. Why should the unborn be any different?

Nobody should get to choose when someone else dies...

Unless you are just focused on dehumanizing numbers, please recognize the fact that every single pregnancy is a risk to a woman's life.

Nope, you are the one arguing death for dollars.

"Compare it" all you want, the fact remains that since it's not predictable or preventable, laws making abortion illegal would mean the govt forcing women to take those significant risks against their will. And many would die.

Again, accidental, rare death versus near absolute certain death. Which would you choose for yourself? Every day you wake up and make it all the way to bedtime without killing yourself you have chosen the former over the latter. Who are you to choose the latter for someone else? Because they may burden you? That is sociopathic... that is Rae Carruth/Scott Peterson level barbarity.

So please explain what *besides numbers* (dehumanization) makes this ^^^ acceptable to you?

You don't understand words and are now imagining definitions as you flail your way through your cognitive dissonance fueled rationalizations.

They are living humans. That is the argument.

(And btw, no one forces you to go to the Dr, no matter what kind of health care you have. Going to a Dr is a choice)

Would you limit abortion only to cases where you were forced to get pregnant? :roll:

jmotivator · Jan 17, 2019

Lursa said:
Wow, look at the explosion of hyperbole! ha ha ha. Seems like a good sign you are failing to make any advancement in your argument.

And you also seem to have a pretty sick imagination...that's a gross fantasy of yours...and not remotely realistic.

(Since 97.5% of all abortions take place when the unborn is smaller than a pea, there'd be no such abhorrent waste pile as your imagination allows you to wallow in self-indulgently.)

Not hyperbole, just the truth. I am on the side supporting life, you are on the side advocating for death of the innocent. That is just the facts.

minnie616 · Jan 17, 2019

jmotivator said:
Not hyperbole, just the truth. I am on the side supporting life, you are on the side advocating for death of the innocent. That is just the facts.

Not facts. Many people/religions/and the US government do not believe the Unborn is a human being/ person/child/individual.

We believe that life for a human comes with the first breath after birth.

jmotivator · Jan 17, 2019

minnie616 said:
Not facts. Many people/religions/and the US government do not believe the Unborn is a human being/ person/child/individual.

We believe that life for a human comes with the first breath after birth.

And they are simply wrong. A human life is a continuum from fertilization until death. We tend to frown on premature cessation of that life... so we dehumanize the ones that we really want to kill.

Many do, and they're wrong to do it.

Take that video and change the sound track to some death metal anthem and you have the pro-abortion movement in a nutshell.

Lursa · Jan 17, 2019

jmotivator said:
Not hyperbole, just the truth. I am on the side supporting life, you are on the side advocating for death of the innocent. That is just the facts.

And I'm advocating for the lives of all women and girls.

So again, who says you're right?

You are clearly on the record for valuing an 'innocence' of emptiness, a vacuum. The unborn is innocent only because it cannot act or even form intent. It's the same 'innocence' as a couch or a flower.

Hey, if you value that emptiness, good for you.

But it's meaningless to me and millions of other Americans.

If anti-abortion, would you support other forms of population control?

Computer Gaming Nerd

Computer Gaming Nerd

Computer Gaming Nerd

Computer Gaming Nerd

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Computer Gaming Nerd

Computer Gaming Nerd

Illusionary

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Computer Gaming Nerd

Computer Gaming Nerd

Computer Gaming Nerd

Tenacious