Topic: Abortion is a God Given Right of Females like the right to bear Arms - page 3. (Read 990 times)

Well in a Stage 1 country birth and death rates are high. Death rates are high because of the lack of clean water, food, environment, etc, so birth rates have to be high to keep the population growing. See the demographic transition model:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi68rzS7Y7cAhVLi1QKHcTiB4cQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.emaze.com%2F%40ATWFLFQQ&psig=AOvVaw0rQzzBv9raigxb4RmAXMsw&ust=1531117044590007

The views on abortion are mostly subjective as it all depends on the angle you are looking at it. I live in a country where abortion is viewed as immoral, against religion and illegal yet the nitwits keep breeding and having 5 to 6 kids that they can hardly feed. Same kids grow up (if they survive at all) to compete for the small and/or inexistent resources available in the country. I have seen worse cases where young females are raped by armed robbers and get pregnant and are advised to keep the pregnancy. No one is bothered about the well being of the female whose life aspirations just became truncated.

People like us, who try to preach the right for abortion for females and how abortion is necessary in instances where it can serve as family planning are quickly shut down by the majority. It is sickening!

Oh, absolutely. Amniocentesis carries a 1 in 200 risk of miscarriage. Coupled with the fact that it is time consuming and expensive, it is only offered when there is suspicion of serious chromosomal abnormalities. As you say, ultrasound is the only routinely offered test for gender, which is very, but not 100%, accurate.

Chloroplasts have said to have done similarly if I'm not mistaken in merging with plant cells.
I assume whatever came before mitochondria was probably not very efficient in producing energy as a single cell organism or maybe it was once smaller than mitochondrea and "stole" some energy from it.


I was always informed that finding information by extracting DNA posted quite a lot of risks, not enough to be offered by healthcare professionals but enough to try to avoid it if you can - hence why the gender is usually found by doing scans at around 24 weeks.

There always one who goes too far...

We could also throw mitochondrial DNA in to the mix, which is inherited exclusively from your mother. As a side note, the evolutionary origins of mitochondria are truly fascinating if you are interested in this sort of thing - that is, they were a species of bacteria (likely Rickettsiales) that were taken up by other more "advanced" cells and utilised in a symbiotic relationship. Over time the two organisms evolved to where we are today, such that we cannot live without one another and are now recognised as a single organism.



I'm not sure that's correct. Amniocentesis creates a profile of the baby's chromosomes, and therefore sex can be determined by looking for the X and Y chromosomes.



Appreciate it. I tend to get a bit soapboxy on topics like this, so apologies in advance. 

My man.  No criticism here for telling it more precisely than I did.  Didn't know you were a doc, either--that's pretty cool.  Great to hear your opinion, especially in a thread like this one.

Dammit, I meant nuclear DNA!  *sigh*  It's been too long since I've been in school.  I've gotten so rusty on the basic stuff.

I can break this even further and say that only 87% of DNA is inherited on average (there was a study done on it, however, the study was only done very resently so I think they're still going through analysing the statistic and folding other information on it before they release their paper - the other 13% is mutations) - I'm not entirely sure I'm supposed to be sharing this information but...

Also, there isn't really a way to prove the gender of a foetus with 100% accuracy until it is born and in the first few weeks a large number of organs are generated in pairs and can look similar to each other.

That's really interesting that there was survival even below that point, 21+4 is really something.

I'm going to have to be a pedantic asshole here and point out since the human Y chromosome is significantly smaller than the human X, males receive slighty more than 50% of their nuclear DNA from their mothers.



This is known as the limit of viability. Although most developed countries still use a cut off of (around) 24 weeks to initiate neonatal resuscitation, there are frequent cases of more premature survivors. I've personally been involved with a 23+1 who survived, and here is a case report of a 21+4 who is apparently developing normally: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/10/31/peds.2017-0103.

It is said in a lot of countries that the limit is 24 weeks because the foetus cannot survive until that point on it's own.

However, a baby was born fairly recently before that 24 weeks which means that it could technically survive on its own normally at that point in some extreme cases. ref. This is actually quite a surprising read as he was 23 weeks and 6 days old when he was born (yes it's a bit pedantic one day before but still it means they could potentially have survived before then).

You are not killing any person as what you abort is a ball of cells, there aren't even neurons formed yet, its just a collection of cells. In fact, its less than killing say a rat for experimental purposes because the rat will feel pain, its alive, these cells aren't. And its  best to abort than believe it will be fine because that new person needs more than just air, or water or food! Abortion SHOULD be LEGAL and a human right

No. Apparently if you can't bear a child then you have no right to discuss this issue or post here somehow.

Maybe we should also limit this to people who have been raped and gone pregnant from that point as everyone else is worthless in this discussion under that basic principle.

I'm sorry, do trans-gender, non-childbearing capable, queers get a say in this?
Yeah, that was my unstated point.  That comment he made was nothing but male-bashing SJW feminism.

Oh by the way, 50% of the DNA in that child is daddy's.  And 50% of daddy's is grampa's, and so on--same math for the female side, which I'm sure most people here are aware of, but I don't assume everyone knows basic biology.  Genetics is the craziest natural bitcoin-type mixer in existence.

B1tUnl0ck3r is right about what he says.

God is used to refer to nature, much like "Mother Nature" is used to express something that exists that exists just because it does and not because it is added by anything.

And the "stupid" one is the biggot who is open to nothing. You're a biggot here for not considering that everyone who thinks a god could exist is stupid. I'm not entirely sure why we have theist biggot and atheist biggots who both have an issue with each other but both don't realise that they have the same stupidity. You must make yourself more open and accepting of other people's views and opinions: if someone says there is a god, maybe they're right; if someone says there isn't a god, maybe they're right; if someone says there could or couldn't be a god then obviously they're right as it's either one of the two.

Let me try to explain it to you kindly, this stupid expression "God given right" is used to try to express the concept that those rights aren't given by any gov, admin or regime, but exist without any form of authority. Those "rights" are inherent condition of humanity and you just have to be a human being to have them. For example paul revere did speak what ever he wanted, met with who he wanted while caring weapon all of this before the creation of the united states of america.

now about the "being stupid part" you seem to be the stupid one... but maybe a little less now, that you understand the "god given right" nature of it. I can't imagine how hard it must be for an anti life to see that the issue of the right to bear arms is so close to the right for female to be master of their own body.

cognitive dissonance much?

Why in 2k18 we still use expression "God given right"? Just stop being stupid.

So this ask the question of when the legal life on the child begin. For me it is clear, as long as it is in the stomach of the mother there is no other owner than her, as he is part of her body, the child breath through the mother, is feeded with her, and is in sync with her. there isn't her and the other. it's a whole.

because I understand the argument that the unborn child deserve life protection. However it is from outside of the mother, from poisonning, violence, what ever.

but if the mother doesn't want it, for any reason she wishes but make money selling it, it is clear that she does what she wants.

I believe in the will, others don't and say that as soon as the conception is made, the mother lose all her rights and as an alien that doesn't belong to her in her stomach, sucking her energy like a little vampire. if already at the conception the child isn't the sole properiety of the mother, what will happen later on? this plant is toxic? by the way lot of plants across the continents can be used for "abortion", but some seem to have forgotten their basic pharmacopeia... reducing the world to ice berg lettuce is a little short sighted.

then some say, rightly so, as it isn't in the federal constitution it should be regulated by the representatives inside the state, or some will say by vote inside the state. again it is an infrigement on the will of the mother. If she doesn't want, her will, her life take precedent.

it's about the question of who gives life.

again, I am strongly against getting pregnant and seeing pregnancy as a way to make money by selling foetus or foetus body part to various industries, that is very nasty of a fallen woman, I don't like to see around, but it is maybe me. some will say, that she does what she wants, even feed the foetus death industries... but frankly, it is just gross... but at least this is a question, because the goal isn't to abort to be free, but simply to procreate to make money fast. there I think there is a disrespect of human life... but again it's her body...

this is a good question for debate for the solid stomach... but consumption of human foetus is clearly of limit for me...

this is the problem of focusing on the old debate, shall the woman be free or not, to chose to give life, fully.

and what are the others civilized nations saying? for example I saw that in japan they build little remembrance things for each foetus a woman lost or aborded... as a sign of rememberance, of a life that existed, but couldn't for various reason be born.

but for me telling that a woman should be forced to keep an alien inside her, play on her ocytocin, game her and force her in bound to a child she doesn't want, is really criminal, total slavery even.

it just the foetus trading I am unconfortable with... futures on foetus parts... it become too gross for me. I don't want to be related to such practices...

what I don't like is getting pregnant with the intention to kill... this is murder... however getting pregnant involuntarly and even later on not wanting is perfectly fine with me.

but again who cares, it's the woman choice to decide her future and to whome she will be mother.

and the little funny question, should the mother of pol pot have aborted him?

Because it is, look, it's the only logical statement : Abortion is God given right to females, like the right to bear arms.

Remember the black market offers lot of opportunities to end anything inside the body a female, if she wishes so.

it's about who owns the body of a female. her or society? it's the biggest liberation issue.

Remember you shouldn't have fear that your wife will end intentionally your mutual creation if she loves you, and you don't betray her.

Otherwise, why should she carry the product of a fallen love?

Anti abortion is brain washing part of the matrix control created by priest to permit kings and their courts to use rape as a form of locking the females they chose. Nothing else.

Forget all the rethoric, and fake moral high ground.

If you can force a female to keep a baby inside her she doesn't want, what is the next step? declaring plants of the earth illegal?

LoL some are so brainwashed and conditionned, but don't worry, once your daughter get impregnated in rape by an illegal alien, you will too accept her will to abortion, specially if she waits to tell you because she feel that you are mentally captured.

 

Before reading more, I was radically against adoption, advocated against it everywhere.

With more knowledge, common sense came. When I understood that all the human body is created and designed to maintain and feed the brain and the nervous system and that the fetus start to develop nervous cells only after 6 months I understood the difference between a baby and a fetus.

Killing a baby after 6 months is crime. Before that time it is not.

I fail to understand why a thread exhibiting the both the words "abortion" and "God" in the title is in the "Serious discussion" category instead of in "Politics & Society".

I think we all should be responsible enough when we have sex. We need to face all the consequence. And if you don't want to carry a child or to become a father. Don't have sex.  Our babies is a gift and they have the right to live and see our beautiful world. And any people have no right to abort them.