Topic: Abortion is the leading cause of death during the pandemic, killing 37 million - page 4. (Read 1087 times)

Please, franky1. Learn how to think so you pack your chute right every time.

consent to sex. is not the same as consent to pregnancy
dang you must be a virgin

when people have sex. its got nothing to do with consenting to pregnancy.
allowing a penis in a vagina is not a pregnancy contract

please badecker. get a girlfriend. gain some real life experience

A woman's womb is no longer private property when she makes a deal with a man to let him have access to part of it. When she takes on the unwritten trust that she will be the trustee of whatever support she can give for the embryo/fetus/child beneficiary, this doesn't include murdering the beneficiary.

when you get into a taxi. the taxi driver is then not obligated to let you stay in the cab

he can say "sorry its my lunchbreak, get out"
he can say "no i dont accept euros. if you cant pay in dollars get out"
he can say "theres no room in my cab for your 20 wives and 30 children, go hire a minibus"

i know you want to feel like he should be obligated to service you but he is not.
his cab.. his terms of service. dont agree get out

..
in short its the mothers womb and the mothers terms of deciding if she wants to remain pregnant. end of
...

a womans womb is HER private property. so put your republican/freeman mindset to that.
..
a retail store is its own private property. they can set the rules of who is allowed in. same as strip clubs. if they want to make a rule that they can ask people under 18 to leave.. they can.
heck they can have the right to tell people to leave if they dont wear facemasks. thats their right

children dont get full rights until 18. which is why the parent becomes the decision maker about a childrens rights. this includes medical decisions about things like should a child in a vegetative state coma be taken off life support. again the parent decides
which is where a vegetative state embryo/fetus that has no conscious thought or ability to speak for itself nor able to survive without lifesupport system(womb) becomes the mothers choice to keep it or let it pass

A driver trusts other drivers on the road. You trust people you pass when walking on the street. The trust that a woman takes on when she becomes pregnant, might not be a formal trust. That's why enduring marriage is best to be involved... for the benefit of the youngin'.

if a republican places himself in a position whereby he might have a burglar/invaider/militia enter his house, even if he has taken precautions that happen to fail, and certainly if he hasnt taken precautions, what has he done?
he has voluntarily taken on the trusteeship for the beneficiary new occupant. the trusteeship includes caring for the new occupant for 9 months and then ensure that occupant gets a good home after this period.
if he shoots the occupant or evicts the occupant before it can be independant he has murdered aswell as broken the unwritten trust

.......

but
there is no contractual trusteeship
i dont think badecker even knows how contractual trusts work or he would realise his analogy fails


but lets play:
its obvious badecker "trying"(but failing) to use an analogy whereby, in his mind.. a man(settlor) sets up the trust(fertilisation) and obligates the trustee(woman) to administer(be pregnant) or dispose(abort) based on settlors(man) decision of the beneficiary(offspring)

badecker is trying to suggest that men should be the decision makers and woman have to be obligated to male rule

its kind of funny. badecker is obviously a man-child but pretends to be living the mindset of someone in victorian/colonian times.

badecker.. its 2020.. catch up. woman should not be obligated to men just like you dont want to be obligated to the government.

this is where your republican mind is fighting your mindless scripts you read and repeat.
actually try to stop just copying stupid sites scripts and realise where you fail by doing so.

if you truly think woman should be obligated to males. then really truly slap yourself on your face..

but getting to the point. putting badeckers machismo aside. trusts can be disposed of and dissolved.
have a nice day

As usual, o_e_l_e_o fails, so he has to go into lying.

Let's see. There were half a dozen people came from a fertilized egg. And they each started out with the same chromosome genetics at conception as they had at death after a long life. Oh wait... it was more like ten people. Oh, hang on again... it was really more like 20 people. Oh, I forgot about that 7.5 billion or so around the world.

Why don't you really be honest, and come right out and say that you enjoy murdering people, as long as you can get away with it.

BADecker's first argument was that it was a human life because it has 46 chromosomes. So does a skin cell, so that argument is nonsense.

His argument now is it's a human life because in the right environment it can eventually grow a human. Using nuclear transfer or inducing them to become pluripotent stem cells, so can skin cells, so that argument is also nonsense.

I'm keen to see what completely arbitrary and non scientific definition he comes up with next.

A skin cell is not human life. It is part of the life of a human, but it will not form into a sentient being.

I'm more moderate on abortion, meaning late term abortions are cruel and borderline murder, whereas terminating a zygote isn't that big of a deal to me.

If the woman voluntarily places herself in a position whereby she might have an egg fertilized, even if she has taken precautions that happen to fail, and certainly if she hasn't taken precautions, what has she really done? She has voluntarily taken on the trusteeship for the beneficiary new life. The trusteeship includes caring for the new life for 9 months, and then seeing that the baby gets a good home after it is born. If she terminates that new life, she has murdered, as well as, broken a sacred unwritten trust.

She doesn't have the right to murder the new life. But she may have the ability to use corrupt laws and get away with it even though she doesn't have the right.

The only times it is not murder, is when there is a rape (possibly), when there is certain danger and death for the mother, or when she accidentally does something that she doesn't realize will abort or kill the child in her womb.

The free choice of not having a baby doesn't include a case where there has been a fertilized egg. It includes all cases to keep a fertilized egg from happening. But she better make darn sure that she isn't going to get a fertilized egg out of it. 'Cause if she kills a fertilized egg (or an embryo, or a fetus, or her baby) intentionally, it's murder.


The difference is, if it will grow into a new person, naturally, then it is killing a life. As it is, we haven't for sure advanced to the point where we can clone anyone from some average cell out of a person's body. It certainly doesn't happen naturally regarding people.

If, however, we could clone a person out of some cell, once the process was started, it would be murder to intentionally disrupt the process so that the clone would die... at any stage.


This is correct. But it is not the point. The point is voluntarily placing one's self into the position of getting pregnant, and then killing a new person. Stop the process before you have to murder to keep yourself from becoming pregnant. Abstain, or use a right kind of contraceptive, that doesn't kill the conception, and is foolproof.



Approximately the only time that it is their only option is in certain cases of rape, or in cases of certain death for the mother if she brings the child to birth. If it isn't rape, if the mother is healthy, they have the right/duty to abstain. If they get pregnant, they have the job of bearing the child. If they don't want the child at birth, they have the duty of finding a suitable home for the child. They never have the right to murder, even though they might be able to get away with it.

by the way badecker
a species of deer has 23pairs(46) chromosomes.

so no more deer hunting. and yea go tell your republican buddies that too.. no more AR-15's because 'hunting is murder'

so what would you say to deer vs human. knowing they have same chromosome numbers. how would you next differentiate a human vs deer.
remember in other topics you say you cant see anything at the chromosome level. you been saying that all year so you cant rely on chromosome ID.

so no nano level explanation. tell us at macro level. how would you identify what is human and what is not

is it human if it has a tail
is it human if it has webbed feet
is it human if it can communicate in hill billy american slang as a minimum

be careful how you answer. you may end up debunking yourself

So does a skin cell, so by your logic, exfoliating is genocide.

QFT

Sometimes that is their only option, because scientific illiterate backwards thinking religious nuts like BADecker here are in government.

Every woman has the right to abortion regardless of her reason for doing so. Many females out there need to be educated concerning the risk factors and contraindications of aborting an embryo. Abortion clinics also need to emphasize more about other alternatives to abortion, for example giving the baby up for adoption and also strongly suggestion of taking contraceptives .

This is however a complicated/sensitive issue whether it's a zygote or an embryo, the decision solely depends on the body which carries it 'The woman'. We shouldn't judge or attack those who have chosen not to have a baby because of our belief or cultural differences. I also believe if anyone decides to have an abortion done in an illegal or incompetent clinics, they know the risks involved and still continue negligently.

badecker is happy that if someone enters his property and is not wanted to remain but refuses to remain for a period of 9 months. then he can shoot them. or seek methods to get rid of them
so on that bases if a mother does not want a pregnancy she can end it

funny how badeckers mindset can be used against him so easily.

if badecker think its a adults right to protect their own property(body) and decide on issues involving their dependants in their property(body). then badeckers arguments fall flat, straight away

badecker remember you dont want government telling you what to do involving gun control and freedoms of humans own body.

as for the argument about human life. well if badecker is so 'prolife' even in cases where there is a 'human'(in his mind) that has no vocal/mental ability to make decisions for themselves and no ability to self control their breathing.
should government/law decide or should the next of kin/guardian/parent be in control of it.

if badecker suddenly wants government control of family decision. then lets make it law
all people in coma's or a vegetative state or new born from unwanted mothers.
send them all to badeckers house for him to take care of for decades
..
or will badecker revise his argument to think that those closest and most involved in the 'life' should be the decision makers

Making mistakes by allowing or not allowing things into one's life is common. My link shows that at the time of fertilization of the egg by entry of the sperm into it, both the sperm and the egg are each only half of a human cell regarding chromosomes. Once the connection is made, a complete, new, living cell is created. This new cell will turn into a new person walking about in life (provided it isn't damage in some way). However, it has within it the full pattern for and of the human being.

So, where can one separate it from a real human being, since it is only a stage in the life of the new human? Any suggestion that it is not a human being is an arbitrary suggestion, because the life of a human is constantly changing, even though the life of, say, a 35-y-o night have only tiny changes.

If one can find facts that show that the fertilized egg is not a human, great. But the fact of the whole pattern of its life existing in the new cell at conception, is the fact of a new life.

I'm afraid I can't allow that argument because it is an arbitrary judgement.

A skin cell is just as much a human life as a fertilized egg i.e. not at all.

A sperm is not its own human life. By your logic, we dare not kill any blood corpuscles or any other cells of a human.

Only when a sperm is joined to an egg as one does it become a human being.

Consider https://phys.org/news/2012-04-sperm-eggs-precisely-chromosomes.html to show why neither the sperm or the egg is a human life. They are different than other cells in humans.

By your logic, so is a sperm cell, therefore masturbation makes you worse than Hitler.

I can use completely moronic and baseless statements too! Isn't this fun!

according to your logic its not immoral to enslave you and harvest your labour you are an NPC anyway.

and beat you up every time you try to escape the plantation

The idea that a fertilized egg is not a human being is faulty thinking. Why? Because this is simply a stage in the life of a human being.

For example. If somebody turns 35-y-o today, tomorrow is a different stage in his life. The difference might not be much, but slight as it is, it is a different stage.

The point is, a fetus, an embryo, and a fertilized egg are all bigstages in human life. Destroying anyone at any stage is killing a human being.

When a woman accepts the sacred trust of harboring and maintaining a fertilized-egg/embryo/fetus within herself, killing that person is killing a human being and breaking a sacred trust. Sure, she might have tried to not get pregnant, but the best way is to abstain from sex. A woman can get pregnant by other forms of semen injection into her womb. but this seldom happens. Sex is the way it is normally done.

When BADecker or anyone seems to want to control a woman's life with regard to her active pregnancy, it's only to keep her from becoming a murderer for her own benefit, and for the baby's benefit, as well.