Topic: Abortion is the leading cause of death during the pandemic, killing 37 million (Read 1111 times)

1. So somebody might have said. But where can anybody find selection in cause and effect? Oh, that's right. In the Great First Cause. Everybody defines words in any way they want. Before evolution theory, the idea of natural selection was barely heard as a definition as evolutionists use it nowadays.

6. Not sure what that means. Laws are made based on the way they are stated. The results of making bad laws often cause harm to many people. But if you mean laws of nature, the laws of nature are to save human life, not murder it.

1. "Natural selection is the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change." - nat.geographic
"Natural selection is one of the central mechanisms of evolutionary change and is the process responsible for the evolution of adaptive features." - https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1

Oh yeah, I forgot, that you made your own very definition of words, my bad. I've forgotten that even the definition of words are false for you.

4. Right, point proven indeed

5. Ohhhh, another point proven, can't even manage to prove your point aren't you? silly

6. ohhhh, ergo, we should diminish all kinds of law, as it results to contrast within each other. Nice idea einstein.

1. Oxford doesn't go deep enough. Natural selection is the selecting that people make by cause and effect... based on how they feel because of all kinds of things... like the food they ate last night.

The ability to abort a child doesn't make it right. The promise of life to a person through conception is the breaking of a promise if there is abortion.

4. No use responding/replying to a zygote. English isn't understood by a zygote.

5. You are playing games replying like that. But, it is amazing that you can even reply, being in zygote form. Super-zygote, right?

6. Situations in life deprive people of all kinds of freedoms. A woman who aborts her own child, has deprived that child of the freedom to live, a freedom that she is accepting for herself. Try jumping to the moon, sometime. People are prohibited from doing all kinds of things in life. Regarding the person she is carrying, if there is no real danger to her life, the mother should bear the child, and give it up for adoption if she doesn't want it... not murder it.

1. "Natural Selection is the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring." - Oxford Dictionary,

Oh nooo, I think I should wake up 

And by your own definition, really? woman have the ability to naturally abort a child? WOW

3. Welcome

4. Point proven, given that is your response 

5. But you said "Don't you see that there is a difference between maliciously destroying somebody's limb through amputation, and saving a person's life through amputation?" right? when were discussing about if Amputations are murder or not.

You are proving another point while disproving your previous one. 

6. Wait, so you are saying that she is required to take the responsibility of raising a child she was forced to carry, and live life from it?

In that case, you are depriving that woman from her rights and liberty as she didn't consent in the process in the first place, and being pregnant limits a persons actions as she is "responsible" to be healthy for the safety of the unborn child. Ergo, you are committing a criminal act.

^^^ Just remember that f-1 uses the determination idea rather than what is really happening. That's part of the reason why so many of his posts end up in circular referencing. He's caught like a tiger chasing its tail.

ok so 7.8bill people =3.9bll females
with the age range from 1-100 if you broke it down as 390m per 10year age bracket
you can discount off 6 age brackets of 0-10 and 50-100. meaning
=1.56bill woman of 'conception possible age'

so badecker wants to think 2% of woman able to conceive are murderers each year. meaning
2% kill in year 1 (37m of 1.56b)
2% kill in year 2(another 37m of 1.56b)
2% kill in year 3(another 37m of 1.56b)
and so on for 35 years of 15-50
well add that up for all the woman from 15-50. would mean that 70% of all conceptionable age women have killed atleast once in 35 years,

70%.. um. no just no. us figures are more like 24%. uk figures are under 20%. so if the 70% math based on badecker sources was correct some other countries must be in the high 90% just to balance out to 70%
..in my opinion the 37m(70%) is just too high a number to even be accurate
..
i must bring back the argument that badecker does not understand:
the definition of murder.
what gestational state 'life' is determined as.
the legal rights a woman has over her body.
.. also to note
also a high majority of 'abortions' occured in the first 12 weeks. involving swallowing a pill and having a heavy period to clearout. so not exactly a story that sounds like murder

That other report  - the OP - was just plain wrong. That is, let's hope it was wrong, and that abortions aren't increasing this fast.


Abortion Leading Cause of Death Worldwide in 2020 -- Killing 42.6 Million People, Study Finds

1. The only selection that there is comes from people choosing. It's something that all people have the ability to do naturally. Wen they use their natural selection to select abortion, abortion is done by natural selection. Wake up!

3. Well, thanks. It's nice of you to join me in our circular referencing.

4. When you get as silly as stating something like that, they only thing possible is that you are still in zygote form.

5. No, we don't agree on that. What we might agree on the idea that it is, possibly, the lesser of two evils in some cases... very few cases.

6. You are driving on a winding mountain road. You go around a curve, and there is a rock in the road that slid down the mountain. Because it was around the curve, you didn't see it on time to swerve or brake. Bang! You get a flat.

What do you do? You get out of the car, you take your hunting rifle with you, and you shoot the heck out of the rock, right? Once you have killed it really dead, you go over and give it a good kick, just for good measure, and you break your foot. So, you reload, and shoot it some more.

Stuff happens. Abortion from rape is still abortion, and the woman will have to live with the fact that she killed a baby, all her life... even though she may be comforted by the idea that she did some kind of justice... even though she may harden herself against the idea that she killed another person.

Aborting for any reason other than a serious threat against the life of the mother is murder... even when it is the lesser of two evils.

1. Yeah, the one who said that abortion is natural selection, maybe dumb or what

3. hmmmmmmmm, well I proved my point, and you just go back in circles, so feel free to.

4. Researches proves that there is no response nor associate actions done as you poke or whisper in the "zyogte", ergo as far as the researches states, it is not living.

5. So we agree that abortion is not a murder, if it is medical related, right?, Okay that's a good run, very nice progress.

Okay how about abortion related to rape. Can you say that aborting the child from this situation should be consider as murder?, cause it is kind of correlational as the raped victim will experience different kinds of mental disorder as she can remember the past trauma from the rape just by looking the bump in his tummy, or just by knowing that a criminals seedlings are inside hers.

1. I wonder whose topic it is?

3. Are you asking if we should drop #3? Just say it plain out. Or do you want to fill up the pages with continous countering?

4. Did you ever ask a zygote in its language if it has feelings, emotions, consciousness? However, it's obvious that even if you knew its language, you would have enough sensitivity to formulate the questions properly.

So you think that seeds are not alive, but simply are some form of inanimate object, right? But do you have proof? The point is being sure of what you are doing in abortion, so that you don't risk murdering a person.

5. You ask such silly questions. Don't you see that there is a difference between maliciously destroying somebody's limb through amputation, and saving a person's life through amputation? We are not talking about aborting to save somebody's life. Abortion for that has its place. We are talking about arbitrary abortion. We are talking about abortion in general.

1. Guess who put sentences with no relevance to the topic.

3. back to definition I already counter argued, are we?  

4. Life doesn't mean of body parts, it is about the principle of life itself, the consciousness as I've mentioned long before. Zygotes doesn't have feelings, emotions, consciousness, and even parts as you mentioned. The only thing you can justify is the chromosomes which is just part of growing.

given your argument, Seeds have sets of chromosomes, and you consider them as life form? no. This is same with zygote, yes they have chromosomes but you don't consider them as life form yet.

5. Who would harm a person by fun anyway. Amputations is part of medical procedures, and if done correctly, it can save lives. If you're saying that amputating a body part is murder, then healthcare professionals are murderer?

you must be living in the 1500's
its the womans body. the woman goes through the procedure. its the womans choice.
if men could get pregnant. then yea men can then make that choice. but no man should have power over a woman

no contract is formed between a man and a woman when they have sex, in regards to children.
you must be either a 15yo kid that has yet to have a sexual relationship. or a really repressed old guy that just hates women and never wanted a relationship. because its obvious you have no personal experience of sex

i can imagine you stupidly walking up to a woman in a bar and handing her a contract for her to sign talking about pregnancy.. but here is a tip. talking about pregnancy and contracts on first date is not a good pickup line

when a woman verbally consents to sex. that is an agreement. which is different from a contract. the agreement is for sexual pleasure. its not based on life long/life altering commitments

That's where your problem exists. You simply scan something that is written, and miss a whole lot of what was said, and then you think somebody else flip-flops, when it is really you who is flip-flopping by jumping from point to point without thinking. Isn't it about time that you slow down a little so you can really learn something?

You might even find that when a woman voluntarily - or negligently - gets pregnant, that she has formed a lawful trust with the man as the creator, herself as trustee, and the coming child as beneficiary. It's in the standard setup of her pregnancy.

People can do lots of things. For example, ISIS can go out there and decapitate people. The can do it. But the simple fact that they can do it doesn't necessarily make it right.

The woman can abort, but that doesn't make it right. If the man finds out that she is actively aborting his child against his approval, he would be more right than she to execute her for killing his child. After all, the agreement was to make a child. By aborting, she is not only breaking her agreement, but she is killing a human life.

If she or they didn't want the child in the first place, there is a little thing called abstinence that works real well.

back in those days. there was no civilisation. women got treated like animals. they were raped and some brave women would find ways to end the pregnancy by their rapist.

yes abortion is not a modern process. its been around longer than you think
as for nature.. now your throwing your god principals away and instead invoking your darwin principals.
you are a funny man. you can never actually understand a topic and form a concrete opinion that will stay.

heck you even say nature should take care of it and not laws. then you say you want laws to take care of it and not nature

well in nature. before laws woman could end their pregnancy. as it was their body.
well in law. abortions are a thing

i find it funny how your nature mindset actually wants more laws to control human decision about their body
i find it funny how your antigov oversight mindset wants more laws to control human decision about their body

you flip flop so much that you are not even making any valid points any more.
so take some time and work out which side of the fence you sit on eg nature or gov oversight.
then come back with a concrete opinion that does not waiver

1. Seems that we lost the gist of this, somewhere along the line.

2. Exactly! Check the pinks^^.

3. That's a very interesting religion you have there! [religion... "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice" - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t

4. Same chromosomes at the base. In other words, the same pattern is in it all. Just because the pattern for the arms and legs hasn't been executed, yet, doesn't mean that the zygote isn't a person. You are limiting the person's life in a way that is not a certainty.

You don't go out hunting, see a patch of brown in the bushes, shoot without knowing exactly what it is in the bushes, and then wonder why your spouse is late bringing the wild onions to prepare dinner.

When you can prove that a zygote is NOT a stage in the life of a person, then come back with the proof.

5. The studies are wrong, but mostly based on the desire to be wrong. The promise for an adult life is there in the life of the zygote. How long does it take a sperm and egg to combine their chromosomes after the sperm enters the egg? You have about that long before it becomes a person.

6. So, be careful not to harm a person in any way, because it might be considered murder. Dr. Martin Luther of the Lutheran Church explained the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment this way. "We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need [in every need and danger of life and body]." How much closer of a neighbor can you have than the new life supported in Mommy's tummy?

1. What do you imply in your statement? something irrelevant I see, and go see a psychiatrist as you may seem to need it. Cause you really go to and ask non-living organisms a questions, fr.

2. ---------dumb---------

3. part of my personal religion is to believe that your personal religion is not a religion, and your religion is not needed for any arguments  8

4. If it is arbitrary judgement in the first place, you are simply deciding from your whim and assumptions. When in fact, 100 year old and a zygote is far different from one another as I've mentioned above

5. The complexity that you mentioned have been studied for time and time, and research shown it is does not have feelings as this zygote only will have "living capability" after 9 -11 weeks which are now called as "FETUS"

Another thing, if you are just comparing chromosomes to be the point of reference and justification in your definition of "MURDER", then amputating someones arm when needed can be considered "MURDER" from your definition as it has full sets of chromosomes in it 

1. Just because you naturally select to not naturally select your personal, natural selection, doesn't mean you don't. Go to the rock and ask it to select something. Go to the blade of grass and ask it to naturally select something. Go to the fish or the elk or the bird and ask them to naturally select something. If they select anything for you, it is by programming - instinct - not by selection. However, if you select to abort, you have selected... the only natural selection we know about.

In other words, nature has programming selected by the Programmer of the Universe. Nature doesn't select. It only follows the complex programming. But since you have a touch of the Great Programmer in you, you can naturally select, a thing nature can't do.

2. You like pink? Here and two places above.

3. Part of my personal religion is to believe nature isn't religious. But it seems that you have a religion of non-religion. Are you really trying to declare yourself to not have any meaning?

4. Same chromosomes in the zygote as the hundred-year-old, and every stage in between. Unsafe, arbitrary judgment that murdering one is not murdering the other.

5. A zygote feels. How do we know? Because we can watch it react, under the microscope, when it is poked. Because of how complex it is, we call this feeling sensing. How cruel you are to poke at a zygote under a microscope, not caring if you have killed a person or not.

1. what? abortion is part of natural selection? ohhhhhh then why did it became a murder?

2. just pure dumb, so cute

3. Nature, then became religious, As I said, your religious comments will not have any meaning in this arguments

4. I agree when it became a "FETUS" it would be a murder, but the topic is when it is a zygote, that is if aborted, it won't be a murder.

5. Zygote and a 100 year old is not correlated to one another when you topic what life is. A 100 year old person is a person who lived 100 years of his/her life as a human being, as a living organism with organs intact, while a zygote isn't. Zygote is not a person as this cell doesn't have senses at all, a fetus does, but a zyogte doesn't.

1. But in the case of abortion, the natural selection is murder, or there isn't any abortion.
    Got a tummy ache? Maybe if you treated that dis-ease with dinner, the tummy ache would go away, naturally.

2. I will highlight for you, above.

3. The complexity of nature is way beyond what could happen by the odds. We are starting to understand a little about the complexity of it. As you explain, nature doesn't have a mind for thinking. But the Creator did, so He made nature for us. And just to point us into an understanding of Him, He made nature so complex that only stupidity can deny Him.

4. You lump everybody together when you say "countries." Average people trade and barter. It's the leaders who make fiat so that they can use the fiat to leach off the people. People see an advantage in using fiat, so they use it without realizing that the leaders are making a fortune off them thru their use of it.
    If your interfering with the property of others isn't in a big way - like chemtrails interfering with the lives of everybody who the chemtrails are sprayed over - any inappropriate interfering will be dealt with by your neighbor, when he asks you to stop interfering with his property.
    Abortion is interfering with the property of the new person who can't easily ask you to stop. But when a fetus at later stages of the pregnancy realizes that it is being aborted from the outside, it fights as much as it can to live.

5. Some of the abortion is just as you say. But all of the abortion is murdering a person. If we agree to disregard the fact of the chromosomes being the same in the fertilized egg as they are in the hundred-year-old person, we would still only be guessing if we suggest that the zygote is not human. We don't have the ability to determine if the zygote is simply a stage in the life of a person... without chromosomes, that is.
    If we throw in the chromosomes, we see that the zygote is absolutely a person, and that the zygote stage is simply one of many stages in the lives of people.

Abortion is murder.

1. That's why people adopt while if they get sick, they just die from "Natural selection" aren't they. There are many diseases that can't be treated, and if we will see history, "Oh shit" they just die cause they don't have medicine.

2. For the second time, who even said about murdering someone to reduce the population?

3. Nature here nature there, as if like they have mind of their own. Your argument is pretty stupid to be honest, to say that nature knows what they are doing. Natures doing their natural way of healing and other things, but it is us "HUMANS" who cultivate the learnings with regards to the process on how shits happen in our "NATURE"

4. You do know how the world works right?, capitalism is what most of countries adopted, and do you think in this point in time, there are places in this world who you can live freely without interfering other peoples properties?, and don't get me wrong this 4th statement is just to debunk your 4th sentence in your reply.

5. abortion is just disposing of zygote which is not human, ergo it is not killing