Most conservative males keep reposting nonsense they know is not true about abortion.

[COTO]

#1. If you won't offer any discussion to any counter-arguments why are you surprised that people aren't interested in engaging you in a discussion?

I don't follow. I have offered and continue to offer discussion on counterarguments.

If you're referring to my not wanting to rehash debates on the two religious points, it's because I don't want to rehash debates on the two religious points. Even we dense conservative males can occasionally be self-aware enough to avoid paths we know lead to dead ends.

I didn't expect any answers from the conservative crowd, because (and this is unkind but true) none of you are self-aware enough to explain why you keep re-posting the same old tired lies.

Firstly, I don't post lies. I strive hard to ensure everything I post on DP, excepting satire, has a defensible basis in fact--or in scripture, when concerning moral judgments. If I fail in this objective and post something inaccurate or untrue (it can happen), it isn't deliberate.

Secondly, I don't re-post the same arguments unless I'm debating people I haven't debated before, or laying them down as a foundation for new arguments.

Thirdly, if endlessly repeating debates truly concerns you, I'd expect to see your name show up in a limited number of abortion-related threads. I joined DP in April of this year and my posts appear in 6 unique threads containing the word "abortion" in the title. A quick search reveals that you joined DP in June of this year and your posts appear in 341 unique threads containing the word "abortion" in the title. Does it not strike you as hypocritical that you're accusing conservatives of lacking self-awareness and reposting the same old tired arguments when you've personally argued your side of the debate at least 341 times in four months?

Finally, aside from the most obvious answer to your question on why conservative males are so stubborn--namely that your sampling of conservative males is largely going to consist of the zealots who have the time and wherewithal to debate you 341 times--have you considered the second most obvious answer to your question: that the conservatives you engage on a daily basis feel so strongly about the subject of abortion that, in their zeal, they seek to prevail in your debates by any and all means, including lying and stretching the truth?

Speaking frankly, I think you know perfectly well the answer to your question. You created this thread to demean and deride conservative men, which I presume is your way of venting after 341 fruitless debates. What you fail to realize is that you're deriding millions of men, myself included, based on the conduct of a handful of political wonks having as much zeal for debating the subject as you do. You're basically looking into a mirror and not liking what you see.

Rather than deriding conservatives and inviting others to do the same, you might want to step back and reexamine what it is you hope to get out of DP and whether your current approach is fulfilling that goal.

It's not your business. So why do you insist on making it your business, worse yet, why do you insist on legislating your noseyness?

Why do we make the litany of items in #314 our business?

Obviously, because we live in a society where moral concerns often intersect other people, including handling of their bodies.

I'm not arguing to legislate anything. Abortions were commonplace when they were illegal; man's laws don't change people's hearts and minds. I'm arguing that abortion is murder and that people should regard it as such when choosing whether or not to engage in it. That's all I've ever argued on DP.

 

[year2late]

I define relationships the way they should be defined. I married late so it's only been 25 years, how about you? My wife was the one who first came up with that "give and give" proposition - which is what you do when you want what's best for the other person, WHICH IS WHAT LOVE IS.

And because you don't even understand it, you lay this dysfunctional relationship crap on me when you don't know a damn thing about it and you're not willing to hear me out.

Now THATS dysfunctional.

By the way, the reality that a normal relationship that has healthy give and take does not negate your "give and give".

 

[it's just me]

By the way, the reality that a normal relationship that has healthy give and take does not negate your "give and give".

Duh....

 

[Wayne Jr]

Why do conservative males, when talking about abortion, continue to post stuff that simply isn't true, quote known liars, perpetrate old wives nonsense about women and refuse to believe any of the legal, scientific facts or studies about women and abortion?

What is it about the topic of abortion to causes intelligent males to become mental and moral midgets?

Telling the truth would mean admitting they're wrong.

 

[DarkWizard12]

If you mean, "to what degree" there is no reason to make abortion illegal...well, it comes down to the violation of a woman's rights to bodily sovereignty and self-determination and life. When it comes to abortion, no laws should allow that. None. How would you justify the unborn having rights that supersede those of women? Those exact same rights?

I don't think a baby born in the normal course of events violates her rights at all. All else being equal, demanding the unborn become born, does not, in any way, supersede any right that she did not first knowingly give up in the normal course of events.

As for why there's no reason to make it illegal, well I agree. There are no negative effects of abortion on society (not individual women, but society), unless you can list some? And they need to be sourced. Not just 'we need more people!' unless that's supported.

I think mentally ill women are a problem for all of society. This is on TOP of the obvious loss(Loss of cumulative human brain power, loss of cumulative life, decreased birthrates for society(we've already fallen below replacement).

Abortion tied to sharp decline in women's mental health - CBS News

 

[weaver2]

You have stated you don't know any lies being told by conservative anti-abortion males. And then post the lies themselves saying they are not lies. They are. And they've been posted many many times by other anti-abortion males. You yourself keep posting them.

1. ... PP is harvesting aborted fetal body parts and selling them. The only controversy is whether they're selling them illegally for profit, or simply recouping their costs. Numerous undercover videos have surfaced over the years showing individual doctors and technicians haggling over prices, ..... These videos and testimony based on them have appeared in courtrooms.

Lie #1 PP is harvesting fetal tissue. They are not. Every anti-abortion male posting here has claimed that and all of them have reposted that same lie. The fetal tissue PP donates to research labs, charging only preparation and shipping costs has been given to them by the woman who had the abortion. If the woman agrees to donate the fetal tissue and the tissue needed requires departure from standard abortion procedure the woman must consent to the departure.

Lie #2David Daleiden’s videos prove PP is harvesting fetal tissue and selling it for profit. They do not. His videos have been discredited by expert witnesses. They were taken illegally and they were extensively edited. Showing a video in court doesn’t mean it it is truthful. Criminal charges and contempt of court charges have been filed against him in California. The Supreme Court has rejected his plea for help. The jury for his trial was chosen October 16, 2019.

2. The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are easily preventable. ...majority of abortions for unwanted pregnancies aren't medically necessary. Perhaps "convenience" is ... the sacrifice of a human life to rid a couple of a burden they brought upon themselves by willful and reckless behaviour.

Lie#3 Most women who get abortions are immoral and willfully indulging in reckless and unprotected sex. That is one of the most often repreated lies told by anti-abortion males. And it’s not so. 51% of women that get abortions were using some form or contraceptive. Of those using the rhythm method 12 to 24% had unplanned pregnancies. 45% of the women getting abortions were married or in long term stable relationships and 59% already had one child.

Lie #4 Women murder their babies for convenience They do not. The Guttmacher Institute analysis of all studies says, “Most women in every age, parity, relationship, racial, income and education category cited concern for or responsibility to other individuals as a factor in their decision to have an abortion. In contrast to the perception (voiced by politicians and laypeople across the ideological spectrum) that women who choose abortion for reasons other than rape, incest and life endangerment do so for "convenience,"13 our data suggest that after carefully assessing their individual situations, women base their decisions largely on their ability to maintain economic stability and to care for the children they already have.

3. Abortion is murder, morally if not legally. A couple putting themselves in a position where they face heavy life consequences unless they commit murder is both immoral and irresponsible.

Lie#5 Abortion is murder. No it is not. You can make a personal decsioins to call abortion murder, but, neither the law nor the Bible nor science nor 75% of Americans agree with you. Being judgmental doesn’t turn a lie into a fact.

Lie#6 A woman or a couple getting an abortion are immoral and irresponsible. No they are not. The main reason cited for getting an abortion is responsiblitiy to family or other committments and lack of resources to support another child. Again, you can choose to call people immoral and irresponsible. That’s your opinion not a fact.

4. Some dismemberments occur after the nervous system has developed, meaning the baby has the capacity to feel pain. If you claim otherwise, perhaps provide a few examples.

A fetus does not feel pain until the 28 or 30th week. “According to a study published last summer in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until 28 to 30 weeks after conception, when the nerves that carry painful stimuli to the brain have developed. Before that, the fetal reaction to a noxious stimulus is a reflex that does not involve consciousness, they write (JAMA 2005; 294:947-954).” In 98.7% of all abortions the fetus does not feel pain. That's a fact. Implying that pain is felt by a fetus in most abortions is the lie

 

[Scrabaholic]

I don't think a baby born in the normal course of events violates her rights at all. All else being equal, demanding the unborn become born, does not, in any way, supersede any right that she did not first knowingly give up in the normal course of events.

Forcing a woman to gestate against her will violates her right to security of the person.



I think mentally ill women are a problem for all of society. This is on TOP of the obvious loss(Loss of cumulative human brain power, loss of cumulative life, decreased birthrates for society(we've already fallen below replacement).

Abortion tied to sharp decline in women's mental health - CBS News[/QUOTE]

From the link:

Previous research hasn't found a definitive link between an abortion and a woman's mental health.

In 2008, the American Psychiatric Association charged a task force to review scientific evidence on the link between abortion and mental health. They acknowledged women may experience sadness, grief, depression, and anxiety following an abortion, but could not find evidence abortions - and not other factors - caused these effects.

"The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion or deliver that pregnancy," Dr. Brenda Major, chair of the task force, said in a 2008 written statement. "The evidence regarding the relative mental health risks associated with multiple abortions is more uncertain."

 

[calamity]

One in five children in the US are born into poverty. You would think the pro-birth crowd cold speak out about that. Seems to me that they just want to save fetuses so that they can later suffer as children in poverty.

Rather self-defeating....not exactly an uncommon act for idiots.

 

[AGENT J]

Perhaps sirs would care to provide a counterargument? :coffeepap

no counterargument is needed when you got posting lies. Not to mention it would be YOUR job to prove YOUR claims to be true and factual that YOU made counter to the post your quoted and the OP . . but . . .you wont . . .cause you cant
BUT by all means if you disagree please do so now, we would love the further entertainment!!
here ill even make it easy for you, ill quote the quote YOU quotes then ill pick one of your failed claims specifically so you dont get confused . . . . or you know try strawmen and make up things that were never said

heres the already proved true quote you quoted:

A few basic examples:

--PP is selling aborted fetal body parts
--Most abortions are for convenience
--abortion is irresponsible
--Innocent babies are torn apart screaming in the womb, in pain
--Most abortions consist of dismemberment
--Democrats want to legalize post-birth abortion :doh

heres a part of your failed response

3. Abortion is murder, morally if not legally. Murder can be neither responsible nor irresponsible. A couple putting themselves in a position where they face heavy life consequences unless they commit murder is both immoral and irresponsible.

please by all means post the facts that make:
abortion = murder
abortion = immoral
abortion = irresponsible

. . . . . . . ready . . . . go!

opcorn2:

CRICKETS!

I mean if your only gripe is the type of dishonest stupidity pointed out in the OP and in Lurasa post should NOT be applied to ALL conservative males (only the OP did that not Lurasa) . . posters including myself already did that but its still true the dishonesty nutters say all that stupidity and your false claims still can not be supported

we are waiting, thanks!

 

[Lursa]

I don't think a baby born in the normal course of events violates her rights at all. All else being equal, demanding the unborn become born, does not, in any way, supersede any right that she did not first knowingly give up in the normal course of events.

OMG :roll: No, it would be the govt forcing a woman to remain pregnant and have the baby...what it took for the govt to do so by law would violate many of her Constitutional rights :doh

I think mentally ill women are a problem for all of society. This is on TOP of the obvious loss(Loss of cumulative human brain power, loss of cumulative life, decreased birthrates for society(we've already fallen below replacement).

Abortion tied to sharp decline in women's mental health - CBS News

And you didnt look very closely at the link you posted. Because it links to this research:

APA Task Force Finds Single Abortion Not a Threat to Women's Mental Health

There is no credible evidence that a single elective abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in and of itself causes mental health problems for adult women, according to a draft report released Tuesday by a task force of the American Psychological Association.

Your source said this:

Nearly 10 percent of the problems could be attributed to abortion, the authors concluded.
Abortion tied to sharp decline in women's mental health - CBS News

So less than 10% of their issues were related to the abortion. Can you possibly understand that for many of those women, some existing mental distress or health issues may have been *the reason* they felt that they could not care for a child and that's why they chose abortion? :roll:

Your source is only one of the many sources on this subject and nearly all (except pro-life sponsored ones) of the other studies show that there is no 'long-term' psychological harm done.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)I don't think a baby born in the normal course of events violates her rights at all.
2.)All else being equal, demanding the unborn become born, does not, in any way, supersede any right that she did not first knowingly give up in the normal course of events.
3.) I think mentally ill women are a problem for all of society. This is on TOP of the obvious loss(Loss of cumulative human brain power, loss of cumulative life, decreased birthrates for society(we've already fallen below replacement).

Abortion tied to sharp decline in women's mental health - CBS News

1.) what you think and what reality is are two different things. Your thoughts dont matter to rights. FORCING her would in fact violate her rights
2.) What? no rights are given up by women having sex
3.) do you actually understand the link you posted? you might want to dig deeper on that issue. Theres a boat lot of studies that have been posted here

 

[weaver2]

Answering the rest of your post:

6. The conservative outrage I've seen most often voiced in this regard was the condemnation of 44 Senate Democrats who voted against 2019's Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act ..... House Democrats similarly voted overwhelmingly against the bill.

Other abortionists and lobbyists have testified to congress that babies born alive during botched abortions have no inherent right to life.

The conservative outrage: 44 Senate Democrats who voted against 2019's S.130 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which required:
*A health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to another child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) immediately admit the child to a hospital. The bill also requires a health care practitioner or other employee to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement.
*A person who violates the requirements is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
*Additionally, an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.
*The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive for conspiracy to violate these provisions, for being an accessory after the fact, or for concealment of felony.
*A woman who undergoes an abortion or attempted abortion may file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill.
Other abortionists and lobbyists have testified to congress that babies born alive during botched abortions have no inherent right to life.

Enacting this anti-abortion agenda would essentially deny medical personnel the right use their professional training, experience and professional judgment. In short substituting the anti-abortion agenda for their right to practice. The bill gives anti-abortion groups or persons the legal right to accuse abortion providers. It allows a woman to sue a doctor for simply doing or attempting to do an abortion.

This bill is addressing abortions that happen after 24 weeks, the earliest that a fetus is viable. Only 1.3% of abortions are performed after 24 weeks and they are performed because of risk of maternal death. If the fetus is normal and viable it will be delivered live by caesarean section and cared for as a preemie. No medical professional would do anything different.

If the fetus is being aborted because of genetic aberration, physical or physiological abnormality and the fetus will die at birth or within a short time this bill denies the doctor the right to use his professional judgement and it denies the family the right to let the baby die a natural death comforted by parents or staff forcing it to suffer the pain of extreme medical measures until it dies. (I’m guessing anti-abortion advocates do not see the irony in their concern about fetus suffering pain in abortion and then demanding that a dying baby be subjected to extended pain of extreme medical measures.)

This bill is nothing more than a way to jail abortion providers for doing a legal procedure. Certain terms are deliberately left vague to facilitate prosecution, spying, accusations and suits.

It's a lie that PP said, " babies born alive during botched abortions have no inherent right to life." PP made the apparently erroneous assumption that people knew that a fetus aborted after 24 weeks was malformed and would die at birth or shortly after and they said the only sensible thing that matters: the decision should be left to the parents and the doctors.

 

[minnie616]

Please tell me what 'dogma' I adhere to? I am following the Constitution. I understand the science, I am open to new facts.

Please explain why you believe that I am willfully ignorant on this issue? How I am close-minded about it? I'd like to know, because I'm willing to learn.

"Following the Constitution"? You can't possibly be serious.

From Live Science:

Constitutional rights

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs

The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.


The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:



No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws | Live Science

 

[Bullseye]

From Live Science:



Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws | Live Science

And . . .?

 

[Lursa]

From Live Science:



Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws | Live Science

LOL This was his answer to further explanation:

LOL, pure jabberwocky. I've checked all those amendments and don't see a single word about reproduction or abortion.

Even after I posted about the 10th, which directly answers his claim, and made it even funnier.

 

[minnie616]

And . . .?

And Roe was revisited 10 times ( different Supreme courts ) and reaffirmed 10 times .
The latest was 2016 during the Whole Women’s Healthh vs Hellerstedt Case.

When Justice Kavanaugh was interviewed by Congress before he became Confirmed he said that Casey was precedent on precedent.

Let’s review that when Casey V Planned Parenthood was decided and many conservatives were hopeful that Roe would be overturned , it was not overturned. In fact the best the Conservative justices could give their conservative base was the made up undue burden clause.

Which actually came back to bite Texas conservatives a few years ago who tried to pass laws requiring all abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Look up :Whole woman’s Health v Hellerstedt


From the following:

Because the make-up of the Court had changed and become more conservative since Roe was first decided, many people believed that the Court might use this case to overturn Roe altogether.

In a 5-4 decision the Court reaffirmed its commitment to Roe and to the basic right of a woman to have an abortion under certain circumstances.

Justice O’Connor, who authored the majority opinion, argued that stare decisis required the Court to not overturn Roe. Stare decisis is the general principal that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from.

(However, the doctrine of stare decisis is not always relied upon. From time to time, the Court overrules earlier precedent that the Justices believe had been wrongly decided.) O’Connor argued that a generation of women had come to depend on the right to an abortion. Nonetheless, certain restrictions were upheld.

As a result of the case, a woman continues to have a right to an abortion before the fetus is viable (before the fetus could live independently outside of the mother’s womb). The Court held that states cannot prohibit abortion prior to viability. However, the states can regulate abortions before viability as long as the regulation does not place an “undue burden” on the access to abortion. After fetal viability, however, states have increased power to restrict the availability of abortions.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases | The Casey Case: Roe Revisited?

 

[JustHanging]

Why do conservative males, when talking about abortion, continue to post stuff that simply isn't true, quote known liars, perpetrate old wives nonsense about women and refuse to believe any of the legal, scientific facts or studies about women and abortion?

What is it about the topic of abortion to causes intelligent males to become mental and moral midgets?

These are people who sincerely believe they have a special relationship with a magical invisible being who is everywhere at once.

This special being busies himself with helping them find their lost car keys and whatnot, but he is too busy to help children being raped by his representatives.

 

[DarkWizard12]

OMG :roll: No, it would be the govt forcing a woman to remain pregnant and have the baby...what it took for the govt to do so by law would violate many of her Constitutional rights :doh

Provided that the pregnancy is healthy, the woman does not have the constitutional to not be inconvenianced by decisions she chose. No. She has absolutely zero constitutional rights to debate about here, all else being equal.

And you didnt look very closely at the link you posted. Because it links to this research:
Your source said this:

I realize what it said. Clearly, you didn't not pick up on my intent. I'm sorry you didn't get it While it is true that links between abortion and mental health are in need of more professional research, I think there is enough evidence to say there is a possibility of mental decline in women. However, as I stated, I am far more concerned about the effects of abortion on society as a whole, including loss of cumulative life, cumulative brain power, things you have never, at any point, argued despite my concerns. You seem more concerned with how abortion impacts women individually, and fair enough, I showed you a link which points to some connection between it and mental health; but as long as the pregnancy is healthy, I see no reason why it's a concern regardless. So you tell me, since you have utterly failed to address my points. Why are you not concerned with the loss of cunulative life and cumulative brain power?

So less than 10% of their issues were related to the abortion. Can you possibly understand that for many of those women, some existing mental distress or health issues may have been *the reason* they felt that they could not care for a child and that's why they chose abortion? :roll:

Your source is only one of the many sources on this subject and nearly all (except pro-life sponsored ones) of the other studies show that there is no 'long-term' psychological harm done.

[/quote]
As stated above, I agree, it needs to be research more thoroughly, and you need to address my posts directly instead of going on tangents. Again, why such a lack of concern for the loss of life and loss of cumulative brain power?

 

[Lursa]

Provided that the pregnancy is healthy, the woman does not have the constitutional to not be inconvenianced by decisions she chose. No. She has absolutely zero constitutional rights to debate about here, all else being equal.

You have been provided with all the COnstitutional evidence needed. That you ignore it is disturbing.

But you did say that the only authority you were using for the discussion was *your own opinion* and so then that's fine. But of course you cannot remotely expect me to believe it should be applied to any women that dont agree with you? Just your 'say so,' like you are some kind of a king? This is why we have a Constitution...to protect the people of the US from people or leaders that would force their personal feelings on others.

And the unborn are not persons/people...this is also a fact:

1 U.S. Code SS 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

I realize what it said. Clearly, you didn't not pick up on my intent. I'm sorry you didn't get it While it is true that links between abortion and mental health are in need of more professional research, I think there is enough evidence to say there is a possibility of mental decline in women. However, as I stated, I am far more concerned about the effects of abortion on society as a whole, including loss of cumulative life, cumulative brain power, things you have never, at any point, argued despite my concerns. You seem more concerned with how abortion impacts women individually, and fair enough, I showed you a link which points to some connection between it and mental health; but as long as the pregnancy is healthy, I see no reason why it's a concern regardless. So you tell me, since you have utterly failed to address my points. Why are you not concerned with the loss of cunulative life and cumulative brain power?

There's been no proof at all of any cumulative consequences on society. None were named in the article. Any individual negative consequences to some women are offset by the beneficial consquences of fulfilling her obiligations to society, working, taking advantage of her opportunities in life, raising the kids she does have/end up having better, etc. There was nothing there that showed these benefits to women were offset by mental issues.

And that loss of life...you seem to be reducing it to numbers. That's dehumanizing. In real life, those 'lives' would be good and bad, and range all across that spectrum. The effects of them in society would balance out, there'd be no difference except that more of them would be born into socio-economically challenging circumstances: security and finances are the main reasons women have abortions. There are many many studies that show that kids born into stress and poverty are at higher risk for criminal behavior, not going on to finish high school, not getting the same opportunities in life for college, professional training, etc. etc.

As stated above, I agree, it needs to be research more thoroughly, and you need to address my posts directly instead of going on tangents. Again, why such a lack of concern for the loss of life and loss of cumulative brain power?

I responded completely directly to your post. If you have a specific question or argument, make it.

 

[COTO]

Lie #1 PP is harvesting fetal tissue. They are not. Every anti-abortion male posting here has claimed that and all of them have reposted that same lie. The fetal tissue PP donates to research labs, charging only preparation and shipping costs has been given to them by the woman who had the abortion.

You seem to think the term "harvesting" implies a lack of consent. It doesn't. Harvesting simply means "gathering".

If some conservatives are claiming fetal tissue is harvested without consent, include the "without consent" when accusing them of lying.

Lie #3 Most women who get abortions are immoral and willfully indulging in reckless and unprotected sex. That is one of the most often repreated lies told by anti-abortion males. And it’s not so. 51% of women that get abortions were using some form or contraceptive. Of those using the rhythm method 12 to 24% had unplanned pregnancies. 45% of the women getting abortions were married or in long term stable relationships and 59% already had one child.

Abortion is murder regardless of whether contraceptives are used or a couple is married and already has children. Ergo, engaging in intercourse with non-negligible odds of a pregnancy that will be terminated is both reckless and immoral. If a couple can't manage another child, one or both should undergo voluntary sterilization. If neither is willing/able, they should abstain from sexual intercourse.

If your counterargument is that sterilization, abstinence, etc. are difficult, impractical, etc., I'll immediately point out that neither complaint is a valid rationalization for the risk of murder.

Lie #4 Women murder their babies for convenience. They do not.

You're ignoring my specific response here. The truth of the statement hinges on how we define "convenience". See #308.

Lie#5 Abortion is murder. No it is not.

Agree to disagree.

Lie#6 A woman or a couple getting an abortion are immoral and irresponsible. No they are not. The main reason cited for getting an abortion is responsiblitiy to family or other committments and lack of resources to support another child.

Again, you're ignoring my specific response. The act of abortion itself is murder and can be neither responsible nor irresponsible. The irresponsibility lies in having intercourse--protected or not--at a time when a couple knows they're incapable of supporting a child they may conceive.

In 98.7% of all abortions the fetus does not feel pain. That's a fact. Implying that pain is felt by a fetus in most abortions is the lie

Ergo my comments in #308: "One (Lursa/5) hinges on the word 'most'; that is, it's true of 'many' but not true of 'most'."

The conservative outrage: 44 Senate Democrats who voted against 2019's S.130 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act ... Enacting this anti-abortion agenda would essentially deny medical personnel the right use their professional training, experience and professional judgment.

...to kill a baby born alive. Great "professional judgment", doctor.

It allows a woman to sue a doctor for simply doing or attempting to do an abortion.

...and killing her living, breathing, born-alive baby.

If the fetus is being aborted because of genetic aberration, physical or physiological abnormality and the fetus will die at birth or within a short time this bill denies the doctor the right to use his professional judgement...

Deciding whether a baby born alive lives or dies should not be within the professional discretion of a doctor, much less an abortionist. The risks of abuse are far too great, to say nothing of the costs of misjudgment.

Certain terms are deliberately left vague to facilitate prosecution, spying, accusations and suits.

Like what. Give some examples.

It's a lie that PP said, " babies born alive during botched abortions have no inherent right to life." PP made the apparently erroneous assumption that people knew that a fetus aborted after 24 weeks was malformed ...

Ipse dixit.

Incidentally, even if doctors' judgments on viability were perfect (they aren't) and abortionists were perfectly objective in their judgment (they aren't), many children born malformed, even severely malformed, go on to live rich and rewarding lives. If they die shortly after birth, they die. If they're in pain, provide them with sufficient medication to make them comfortable. Neither an abortionist nor a child's parents has any moral standing to claim the life of the child based on the abortionist's imperfect assessment of viability.

 

[COTO]

@weaver2: Do you have a response to anything in reply #326?

You know... the one reply in this thread that's actually on-topic and not part of your (literal) 342nd abortion debate on DP?

 

[Logician Man]

@weaver2: Do you have a response to anything in reply #326?

You know... the one reply in this thread that's actually on-topic and not part of your (literal) 342nd abortion debate on DP?

You lost all credibility on the topic as soon as you claimed abortion is murder...End of story. End of Argument. Just concede that you are being intellectually dishonest and move on....

 

[Aberration]

Technically lynching a slave wasn’t murder. Being pedantic is stupid. It’s still homicide even if current law says it’s ‘legal’.

 

[weaver2]

You seem to think the term "harvesting" implies a lack of consent. It doesn't. Harvesting simply means "gathering".If some conservatives are claiming fetal tissue is harvested without consent, include the "without consent" when accusing them of lying

.
The term harvesting comes straight from anti-abortion web sites. I’m sure you understand, PERFECTLY, why the word ”harvesting “ is used, how it is used and what it implies. To state that PP harvests fetal tissue is a lie.

#2. LOL. Not anxious to reclaim that David Daleiden’s illegal and edited videos prove that PP is harvesting? I don’t blame you.

Abortion is murder regardless of whether contraceptives are used or a couple is married and already has children. Ergo, engaging in intercourse with non-negligible odds of a pregnancy that will be terminated is both reckless and immoral. If a couple can't manage another child, one or both should undergo voluntary sterilization. If neither is willing/able, they should abstain from sexual intercourse.If your counterargument is that sterilization, abstinence, etc. are difficult, impractical, etc., I'll immediately point out that neither complaint is a valid rationalization for the risk of murder.

There is no counter argument. You’ve stated that women are irresponsible, reckless and immoral. Those are weasel words. Just say ‘slut’ and save everybody some time.

You're ignoring my specific response here. The truth of the statement hinges on how we define "convenience". See #308.

Sure let’s use the word ‘convenience’ to cover all the reasons for abortions. It has a nice, judgemental ring to it. It’s just another meaning manipulation. Nobody is fooled. ll

Agree to disagree

.
No, I don’t agree to disagree. You are wrong according to the law; according to the Bible; according to science; according to common sense and custom.

Again, you're ignoring my specific response. The act of abortion itself is murder and can be neither responsible nor irresponsible. The irresponsibility lies in having intercourse--protected or not--at a time when a couple knows they're incapable of supporting a child they may conceive. Ergo my comments in #308: "One (Lursa/5) hinges on the word 'most'; that is, it's true of 'many' but not true of 'most'."

Even infinite time isn't long enough to answer all your "specific responses". Right, all women except your near and dear are sluts. They indulge in immoral sex then murder their little tiny unborn homunculus. PP harvests the body parts and sells them for profit.

Deciding whether a baby born alive lives or dies should not be within the professional discretion of a doctor, much less an abortionist. The risks of abuse are far too great, to say nothing of the costs of misjudgment.

So who do you think should decide; your church hierarchy, the president, the mailman, the stork?

In 98.7% of all abortions the fetus does not feel pain. That's a fact. Implying that pain is felt by a fetus in most abortions is the lie
Ergo my comments in #308: "One (Lursa/5) hinges on the word 'most'; that is, it's true of 'many' but not true of ‘most'."

If you want to pretend that 1.3% represents ‘many’ of a cohort; go ahead. Just don’t be surprised when someone calls you on your lie.

Incidentally, even if doctors' judgments on viability were perfect (they aren't) and abortionists were perfectly objective in their judgment (they aren't), many children born malformed, even severely malformed, go on to live rich and rewarding lives. If they die shortly after birth, they die. If they're in pain, provide them with sufficient medication to make them comfortable. Neither an abortionist nor a child's parents has any moral standing to claim the life of the child based on the abortionist's imperfect assessment of viability.

Many children with birth defects live rich and rewarding lives because a parent spent a great deal of time money and energy on that child. Most of the successful adults born malformed Keller, Hawking, came from healthy families. If a parent doesn’t have those resources and knows they cannot manage a child with many issues they have a responsibility to abort the fetus. they are not competent to raise. You think aborting a one inch long, non-sentient fetus is cruel. Abandonning a child that will never be loved or adopted is true cruelty.

I’m curious, why do you see a doctor, if a s/he doesn’t have informed judgement, no moral standing and imperfect assessment?

 

[weaver2]

@weaver2: Do you have a response to anything in reply #326?

You know... the one reply in this thread that's actually on-topic and not part of your (literal) 342nd abortion debate on DP?

It's impossible to keep up with all your demands for a reply.