Show of HandsShow of Hands

goalie31 May 29th, 2018 11:19pm

A report from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (named after former Planned Parenthood president) found in a 2016 study that only 0.1% of abortions occur in cases of risk to the mother's life and rape/incest are only 0.33%. Are abortions healthcare?

18 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/30/18 7:38 pm

I thoroughly debunked your nonsense with the scenerio that you can't answer, but just for you I will do it again another way.

You claim that once loaned you have no right to take it back. The organs are clearly on loan beginning when the embryo attaches. So based on your own logic (deeply flawed as it is), the mother has no right to take back the organs unless the baby surrenders them volentarly.

You arguement collapses so many ways it is hard to pick just one.

So I am looking for you to find fault in the sleeping man, the breathing machine and now this issue.


PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/31/18 9:36 am

I am going to say clearly. One can tell because I redid the post in the proper place.

cowboy Proud Father
05/30/18 6:32 am

No. It’s murder of an innocent child obviously.

rons Thanks America
05/30/18 5:56 am

Nope, it’s correcting a mistake.

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/30/18 6:33 am

I personally don't consider life a mistake

KellyDimples Ultra MAGA deplorable
05/30/18 5:04 am

I pray for a time when abortion is looked back upon with the same disdain and disgust as slavery, women not being able to vote, and gays not being able to marry.

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/30/18 5:15 am

I disagree. I think it is way worse than all of those. It should be looked at with distain equal to North Korean labor camps, the Holocaust, and other genocides.

There have been more than 53 million abortions in the US since RvW. That makes other genocides look like nothing. We snuffed our a quarter of Generation X and the Millennials and are doing the same to Get Z. It is criminal and sad. 1/4 people you should've known, we're killed and it's celebrated. Abortion is the biggest black spot on human history and it isn't even close

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/30/18 2:40 pm

Explain the rationale behind equating an embryo or early stage fetus with the murder of a human being please.

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/30/18 2:44 pm

Because they are human...

Explain how you think it's okay to abort a 22week fetus that can feel pain, has it's own blood, heartbeat, and senses

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/30/18 3:01 pm

on't think it's OK. It's a horrible decision for a woman to be faced with. I truly feel for women placed in that position.

However, it is not a human being. We slaughter millions of lifeforms every day that meet those same criteria. Most support it without thought or consideration as collectively we view humans as more important. I feel the same here. The human mother is more important than the non-human fetus. Even at 22 weeks.

However, you're passionate about this, so we both also know that 99.9% of all abortions happen before the 21st week, and a 22 week fetus has way below a 50% viability.

evoecon nearest binary system
05/29/18 9:15 pm

Nope. Infanticide in the name of convenience and pleasure.

No different then when an ancient religion sacrifice the first born child to ensure prosperity for the parents. Barbaric.

Okie1967 Lets go brandon
05/29/18 7:31 pm

Abortions are how democrats get off. They’re sick.

chickencookie Biden crime syndicate
05/29/18 7:12 pm

Healthcare - the field concerned with the maintenance or restoration of the health of the body or mind.
Abortion: to poison, snip, suck out parts that result in the death of a growing baby.

Praetorianus Fair enough.
05/29/18 6:14 pm

@goalie31 : one statistic I'd also like to know: what is the percentage of unwanted pregnancies that result from contraception failure vs failure to use contraceptives?

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/29/18 7:23 pm

What does that have to do with healthcare. Sex has an innate risk if pregnancy. It's kind of the entire point of sex from an evaluationary perspective

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/29/18 7:37 pm

To answer your question it was in the study

not using contraception 46.40%
forced to have relations 0.6%
using contraception 53.60%
contraceptive failed despite proper use 16.9%

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/29/18 7:39 pm

Which implies over 40% of abortions are blantantly evil acts on poor decision making

Praetorianus Fair enough.
05/29/18 9:07 pm

Still not healthcare, I was just wondering. Pure curiosity.

Liberty 4,032,064
05/29/18 5:52 pm

Healthcare: The organized provision of medical care to individuals or a community.

No, it isn’t.

CoffeeNow Powderpuff Leftist
05/29/18 5:03 pm

As someone who is pro-choice, people need to stop with the ‘abortion is healthcare’ argument. It’s a weak argument and makes you look like a crazy person.

Praetorianus Fair enough.
05/29/18 5:20 pm

What choice does the baby have?

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 5:26 pm

None but it still has no right to a parents' body just as I need permission from my parents to use their organs.

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/29/18 5:39 pm

I am going to say that permission is granted when a person has unprotected sex. Everyone knows the potential exists.

Praetorianus Fair enough.
05/29/18 5:40 pm

There's a difference between an adult who needs a kidney transplant and a baby that's totally dependent on the mother.
Imagine a *born* infant.
The mother denies that infant her breast (it's my body, my breast), and the baby dies.
She'd be at least charged with negligent homicide.

CoffeeNow Powderpuff Leftist
05/29/18 5:44 pm

It’s not a choice for the fetus, baby, god’s little angel whatever you want to call it. If it’s part of the mother then it’s her call, because we own our own bodies.

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/29/18 5:45 pm

Coffee, while I severely disagree I respect the honesty. Thank you

Praetorianus Fair enough.
05/29/18 5:47 pm

Since it has its own recombined DNA, it's not part of the mother, just dependent on her. Some call a fetus a parasite, but it's not another species like a leech, it's human. No personality yet, but human life, not part of the mother's body, just attached to it.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 5:51 pm

No, just because a person has sex doesn't equate to giving permission to use another person's body. That's like saying that marriage means sex and you have a right to use your partner's body.

Consent exists and consent is removed when abortion occurs. You have a backwaters view of consent. Also not every person is pregnant from unprotected sex as some people use condoms and it breaks. So does that mean that it's okay to abort if your condom had broken? Seriously? Create a consistent worldview smh

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 5:54 pm

And Praet, we don't require women to breastfeed but you sign documents at the birth in essence creating a contract between the parents and the child and society. If not then they're adopted out. This contract is a declaration to society saying "I will be responsible for this future citizen".

You don't sign this contract or any contract as soon as you have unprotected sex.

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/29/18 5:55 pm

Sex is consent to risk pregnancy. Condom or no condom.

Driving a car is consent to risk an accident. Intent or not intent.

Live with the consequences of your actions. Murder isn't an alternative.

There is my consistent and logical reasoning

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 5:59 pm

So if I get into a car accident I can't sue or charge the other person?

If I consent to the accident then I consent to being hit and then I consent to having damages. See how your analogy is flawed? No one consents to an accident lmao, this is why the guilty party pays the price. If it was consent then you'd have no right to tell someone else "pay the damage".

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 5:59 pm

Again I tell you to please craft a more consistent worldview lmao.

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/29/18 6:01 pm

No you can sue for damages I parenthood... Ever heard of child support. My analogy holds water lol

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/29/18 6:01 pm

Coffee, yes it is your body, but the baby's body belongs to the baby. It isn't just your body once you become pregnant. You are sharing it at that point.

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/29/18 6:02 pm

They can pay for damages ie child support/lawsuit

You still have a baby/injuries and damaged car as a result

It is consent when you take a risk

Praetorianus Fair enough.
05/29/18 6:18 pm

- why not a contract at conception?
- if not, at least the biological father should also have a say in abortion, it takes two to tango and it's his child as much as hers.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 6:21 pm

You missed my point Goalie. You can sue for damages after birth, not before it. There is no current contract before birth but there is after, which is why you can sue (just like you can after birth). Your analogy still isn't remotely accurate or synonymous.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 6:22 pm

So now you're saying that a man has a right to a woman's body. Good job Prae, now you're asking for men to have dominion over half the body of women lmao

CoffeeNow Powderpuff Leftist
05/29/18 6:27 pm

Goalie - Thx

Phx - I see the argument, and I just don’t think people will ever all agree. For me, it’s part of the mother so she should decide. But I get the pro life argument. I did a poll once where I asked if it was proven that life begins at whatever the opposite what you previously believed (conception or birth) would it change your opinion on abortion. I think 95% of people said no


CoffeeNow Powderpuff Leftist
05/29/18 6:28 pm

It’s funny because people love to debate that point endlessly....but it doesn’t even matter to people ultimately, one way or the other

Praetorianus Fair enough.
05/29/18 6:31 pm

No, a woman can do to her body what she wants. Except if it kills an unborn baby. It's the product of two people, not part of the mother.

I probably should stop wasting time with that kind of debate where the opposing sides have so different premises they just talk past each other.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 6:33 pm

That's fair but be honest. You don't have to carry the offspring and the offspring doesn't use your body to function. This is why I don't agree with the premise. If somehow the offspring used both of your bodies to grow and develop and house, then I'd agree likely.

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/29/18 6:49 pm

Scenario, your position doesn't make sense. Do you think you can withdraw any consent ant any time? Let me help, the answer is no. You can't withdraw convent after the child is born. I think k we can agree with that. You can't just say, I have decided that I no longer want you around and drown him in the tub. In the same way you can't simply withdraw convent when you are pregnant. Someone else is dependant on that convent and has rights too.

And your comment about giving men control over woman's bodies is laughable. That is about giving father's joint control over the baby's body. The baby is a separate living organism and is not your body!

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 6:58 pm

You can't withdraw consent after the child is born because that's a violation of a contract you sign to be responsible for a future citizen that you're now raising. Although you could do this anyways by having your offspring adopted out. You can abdicate your responsibilities and many people do. Don't you realize that adoption is a think? Foster care is a thing? Deadbeat dads are a thing? You can withdraw your consent to care for a child once it's been born.

Who is the offspring dependent upon? The men's? No? It's the woman's. Therefore the woman has a right to tell the offspring "no, you don't have a right to use my body". That's abortion. Men going and saying "don't I have a right to joint control of the offspring?!" No! You're not carrying the offspring lmfao.

This is simple, please try to catch up. It's ridiculous to expect me to keep reexplaining the ideas of bodily autonomy to grown ups.

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/29/18 7:23 pm

What is rediclous is believing it is solely your body. There are two (or more) bodies involved. Not understanding that is willful ignorance.

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/29/18 7:26 pm

Based on your idea that whoever is caring for the offspring at that moment being in charge, would you support the idea that a father who has visitation and is caring for the offspring wants to put the child up for adoption and does, and since the mother wasn't caring for the child at that moment she has no recourse and must stand by and watch another family take her child?

That is one of the most absurd premises I have ever heard.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 7:30 pm

No you brainless dolt.

Two bodies are involved in sex. Two people must consent.
Two bodies are involved in the pregnancy phase. The mother and the child. The men doesn't do anything to incubate the offspring.
Three bodies are involved in raising a child, the Father, Mother, and Child.

At any point people opt out. That's why deadbeat dads exist. That's why adoption exists. That's why contraceptives exists. That's why abortion exists.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 7:31 pm

Do I have to keep explaining how this works or are you going to finally understand how this works?

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/29/18 8:07 pm

It is you who don't get it.

Deadbeat dads are punished, so a really poor example.

Sex is between two people with an understanding that it can create a 3rd.

I love that you identified pregnancy as 2 person so you do understand the baby is a separate being, but in actuality it is a 3 person event, just because the mother is taking care of the baby at that time doesn't mean the father doesn't count, just as in my example about a father who is caring for a baby putting it up for adoption.

I'm some cases consent can be withdrawn but I submit this is not one of those cases. Generally consent can't be withdrawn when another has relied on that consent to do something (like being conceived).

Even when convent is withdrawn (think of a landlord who no longer wants to rent his building), the person withdrawing must give the other party time to move, get their things. Etc. Seems like the most analogous event here would be birth, and in fact we do alow parents to withdraw at that time

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 8:18 pm

I know of many deadbeat dads who aren't punished lmao. If deadbeat dads were punished then you'd see a ton more fathers in prison.

I don't think that clicks with everyone. It definitely doesn't click with drunk people lmao.

The father doesn't physically do anything to take care of the child during pregnancy so it isn't really a 3 person process. Yes I view fetuses as people. This doesn't mean that I think they have the same rights as the mother and I don't think it deserves more rights than the mother either. By saying fetuses have rights to their mother's organs but that you lose that right after exiting the womb, you're giving it extra rights. Plus it's right to life doesn't surpass the right of a mother to have dominion over her own body.

So sometimes people have the right to withdraw consent yet sometimes you lose that right? If you can lose a right then it isn't a right.

If there was a way to move the fetus to an artificial womb then I'd agree.

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/29/18 8:34 pm

So you think that any time only one parent is caring for a baby that me and only 2 people are involved. Seems absurd to me. But ok, fine, then how would you reply to my earlier scenario where the father put the baby up for adoption?

Also, the logical outcome of this statement is that if a father doesn't visit the baby he isn't part of the equation after birth so shouldn't be expected to render financial support. Another result that is extraordinarily hard to accept.

I am flabbergasted that someone would think the right to life, the most critical of rights could be outweighed by some nebulous mother right to body autonomy (especially when it isn't just her body and when she had a critical role in creating the situation). You seem so somehow skip the mother's responsibility for the situation which isn't shared by the baby.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 8:41 pm

I'm stating that I'm okay with deadbeat dads but rather that that's what the reality is.
I'm also not "okay" with abortions. I think reducing the number of abortions with better contraceptives and making them more available would be great. I just don't think restrictions people's rights to their body is preferable. I'd actually be okay with men who don't wish to be a parent, signing away his rights but it's not something I care enough about to advocate for.

Yeah I wouldn't be against that.

And I'm flabbergasted that you think we have rights to our parents' bodies goes away after birth lmao.

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/29/18 9:00 pm

PRAE took part in an exchange on SOHs where this issue finally crystallized for me. I look at it from both a moral/Christian and rights of individual perspective.

From a Christian perspective, it's incredibly hard to argue abortion is immoral.

From an individual rights perspective is hard to argue the gov had the power to force a pregnancy to ten without justly compensating the mother (taking clause 5A).

I personally don't see much of an argument against permitting aborting an unwanted pregnancy for any reason the mother may choose.

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/29/18 9:00 pm

Rights begin and end all the time.

I have the right to spew whatever nonsense I want based on free speech, but that right ends when I enter your business. I can't insist you let me hand out leaflets. Same happens when I show up at your organized speech. I can be silenced.

I have a right to bear arms, but it ends as I walk through the door of a federal building or a local school.

All rights have beginnings and ends. Why is this such a hard xoncept. Seems pretty middle school to me.

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/29/18 9:03 pm

Further you seem to insist that they are your organs, but you base this on the fact that they are attached and support your life functions. Isn't this true of the baby too? One might argue that ownership of those organs are joint during pregnancy.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 9:07 pm

Your right to use the resources of an other individual ends when that person says no.

evoecon nearest binary system
05/29/18 9:21 pm

Scenario has learned in debate class about the concept of body autonomy to be used in the abortion debate. Yet Scenario has left the science out of the argument. The female mammals have evolved to not be autonomous during reproduction. Hence, the human female does not have a natural right to autonomy during reproduction. Her body has evolved to sustain the child during and after the pregnancy. It is an unnatural act to end a viable pregnancy. Actually, barbaric and homicide.

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/29/18 9:23 pm

EVO - That argument is totally without basis.

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/29/18 9:27 pm

Scenario - but, again, the yes is issued by having sex.

evoecon nearest binary system
05/29/18 9:30 pm

Shazam speaks. The female body has Not evolved to develop a human baby? What element of science is missing?

If rather female engages in a sexual act and becomes pregnant, how can she claim the child violates her right to autonomy?

Truly a basis exists for this argument.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 10:00 pm

Evo you're committing the appeal to nature fallacy. It's unnatural to develop shoes. It's unnatural to drive cars. It's unnatural to tell time with clocks, watches, and schedules. It's unnatural to wear clothes. It's unnatural to live in houses. Humans are literally built to do all sorts of things that we no longer do, does it mean that the natural way of doing things is something we should go back to? Of course not. I don't see how this is different. Also "rights" are constructs made my the masses in order to keep the leaders in check. We want the people to be able to defend itself against the government and be able to overthrow it, so we claim we have the right to bare arms and freedom of speech, petition, press, religion, etc. Nothing objective about this.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 10:02 pm

Phx, again not all sex is consensual and not all sex is done with the knowledge "hey this might produce a baby". Drunk people don't think about the consequences lmao

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/29/18 10:05 pm

EVO - your argument reduces the human experience to the level of every lower lifeform. Doing so ignores the capacity to shape the environment to better suit the wellbeing of the species. It's the same as if you were to argue that roads should not exist bc no other species had mastered the formula for concrete. It's pointless, baseless, and not founded in reality.

evoecon nearest binary system
05/29/18 10:09 pm

Scenario, So abortion is the equivalent of humans wearing shoes or clothing, nothing more. As you believe shoes and cloths are unnatural and allowed, the homicide is okay. It is a reasonable reaction to protect or feet or keep our bodies protected from the environment. So the sacrifice of the child is as okay as slaughtering and animal for its leather to make clothes and shoes? Good to know you would justify sacrificing your neighbor for the convenience of clothing.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 10:12 pm

No you moron.

As I've stated before: abortion is the equivalent to telling another person "No, you can't use my organs to sustain your body". Nothing more nothing less. Does this lead to the death of the fetus? Yes. Is this homicide? No and most abortions are painless as they're done before any actual nerves develop.

So maybe instead of strawmanning you'll come back next time with an actual argument against my position. Until then you aren't actually debating me

evoecon nearest binary system
05/29/18 10:13 pm

Shazam, I am not the person arguing abortion is a convenience, such as a road. You are a person indicating the road is paved with bodies of the children to create a more convenient avenue for men and women. Sacrifice the children for our prosperity.

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/29/18 10:19 pm

Scenario, that is like saying a stabbing is simply a knife cutting through meat. You can lable it anyway that makes you feel good about killing a baby, but that is what it is.

Your arguments are nonsensical and a play on language that even an adolescent can see through.

So do you think that if stranded with a baby a mother is within her rights to say the baby isn't aloud to drink the milk her body produced? If that baby dies of starvation while waiting to be rescued would you say the mom withdrew consent? I would say she is responsible for that baby's death and should be prosecuted!

evoecon nearest binary system
05/29/18 10:22 pm

Scenario, Nothing you said is scientific. It is just your opinion. Nature has created the womb for the child. It is an organ that serves no purpose for the woman. The child has a natural right to use this organ as it was the purpose of evolution. You are denying science.

You, again, dehumanize the child by declaring as,a fact that it can not feel pain. Science has never proven that, it is pure speculation. You even admitted to that in a previous discussion.

The child is a human to be protected,while in the environment it has evolved to survive and develop. You are just not honest about your desire to have the child aborted.

evoecon nearest binary system
05/29/18 10:26 pm

Looks like Scenario and Shazam will outside science to justify the destruction of a,human by dehumanizing that human.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 10:27 pm

You keep saying baby but I think the term you're thinking about is really fetus. Let's be honest though, even if contraceptives were 100% successful and used by every couple not trying to reproduce, you'd have some (probably Evo) saying "No! Sex is for reproduction only, no pleasure!" And demand the ban of contraceptives. This is the misogynistic view that women should only be child incubators and it's still prevalent in many areas.

Lmao yet a majority of Americans tend to agree with me. I guess a majority of Americans are children according to you.

Your scenario is nonsensical as we don't live in your hypothetical. We do have alternatives to breastfeeding. What if we lived in a world where no kids were born? What would you do then? See how pointless your view is? We do live in a world with alternatives, therefore a mother has a right to not breastfeed her child or husband.

evoecon nearest binary system
05/29/18 10:28 pm

Remember, it is just a mass of cell when aborted and can not feel pain. Scenario knows this for certain.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 10:31 pm

Evo, nature created? And I'm being unscientific? You just stated that nature created the womb just for one thing and that's child birth. Did it speak too? Did it tell you it's intentions? You just personified nature. Lmao nice unscientific paragraph.

Yes Evo, it doesn't have a nervous system therefore it is likely the case that it feels no pain as everything observed to experience pain also has a nervous system. Are you against killing spiders? Well spiders have more nerves than fetuses so...

And you have the desire to lock women up in chains and tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies. You strawmanned me so I'll strawman you. You like that? No? Then stop.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 10:32 pm

Yes, I do know that nothing has been observed to feel pain without having a nervous system. If I'm wrong then Evo should be against things like pulling weeds lmao

evoecon nearest binary system
05/29/18 10:35 pm

Scenario falling back on middle school tactics. Conception creates a life. If a person prevents conception, more power to them. I am just opposed to the wholesale slaughter of children as a contraception.

Always good to use the majority rule to justify abuse. The majority of Germans voted for Hitler and his destruction of Jews and other undesirables. Margaret Sanger was a fan of aborting the undesirables. Good to have death by majority rule.

Another middle school tactics to simply state a person argument is just non-sense. When you have no logic, always good to call you opponents argument stupid.

evoecon nearest binary system
05/29/18 10:38 pm

What are the other purposes the womb evolved to satisfy? Enlighten us with you non-existing scientific knowledge.

I am not chain women to child birth, nature has done that. You deny science, not me.

As you have admitted, science has not proven the absence of pain. You extrapolate a linear thought. I guess the comatose patient does not experience pain in the same way. In Scenario’s world, death to the comatose.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 10:44 pm

Evo, no I'm not. You personified nature which is why I called you on it. Nature doesn't give a damn if I violate it. It's not an entity. It doesn't do anything in response to abortion, which is also why we violate nature and nothing happens in response.

Great, you already violated Godwins Law. No, I quoted the majority as you were saying that I'm stupid. Therefore you must think everyone agreeing with me is stupid. Therefore you think the majority of Americans are stupid.

I didn't call your arguments stupid, I said that you were lying about what I was arguing and suggesting.

Nature isn't a person so it has no goals or purposes. It has capabilities, cause and effect, that's it.

Personifying nature is unscientific BTW.

According to you plants feel pain. Now prove it. Until then, it's safe to say that they don't and thus neither do plants.

evoecon nearest binary system
05/29/18 10:56 pm

Wow! Now you are desperate. I thought all debater ‘s know the argument on natural laws. It is not a personification of Nature. Maybe you will be exposed to this concept in High School debate.

I don’t think everyone is stupid, but it is stupid to indicate majority should rule on this issue. Since many societies have devalued humans to justify atrocities.

Just be honest, you would allow,homicide in the ninth month of a,pregnancy, just because the mother wants it.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 11:01 pm

Hey hun, you can personify nature all you want, you can assume natural laws exist, but I don't believe in objective rights so you're not going to be convincing me with any arguments like that lmfao.

I'm not stating that the majority is right on the issue for being the majority, I'm stating that the majority of Americans must be stupid as you lumped them with me when you stated that I was stupid.

Actually no. I'd be perfectly okay with banning abortions after the first trimester. The only case I'd allow it in would be the case of health risk to the mother. I'm many things but I'm willing to compromise.

evoecon nearest binary system
05/29/18 11:09 pm

Funny, you do not believe in objective rights, except the mother has the right to body autonomy. I guess you mean this is a,subjective right, and not really a right at all.

Second, I said you called MY argument stupid. I never called you or your argument stupid, just unscientific.

So you do recognize the child is a human after the first trimester. What “magical” moment imbued Life,into the child? Do you have a,scientific,fact or just an extrapolation from your vast middle school knowledge and experience.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 11:47 pm

Yes, I believe it's a subjective right as its based on opinion. I believe that if I was a women I'd want to have bodily autonomy just as men do. This is called empathy and this is why I hold my position. If I was a fetus, I wouldn't have any thoughts up till a certain point and I wouldn't feel pain so it's fair to say that I wouldn't care less. That's why I don't view it as such a tragedy as you do. My views are based on empathy.

Oh okay. Thanks for the clarification. My arguments are mostly based on philosophy but science comes from philosophy so I don't see how my views are unscientific.

You have it wrong. The fetus is always a human but the difference is pain and brain function. If you can't feel pain and you have no brain function, that's not a life to live. I can't say that putting a vegetable off of life support is anything but merciful. In this situation, the mother's desire to not reproduce supplants that of a fetus' destiny to grow up.

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 11:50 pm

And if I have a middle school based knowledge, you must have an elementary school knowledge as you keep claiming that nature has a goal which is illogical and not scientific, it's not darwinism, and it's personification an inhuman thing. You're acting like a child by suggesting I'm one. It's sad too as I likely have more of a background in education than you and if not then it's likely you're not using that background lmao

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/30/18 9:59 am

Scenario again the grounds for your position are absurd. You haven't responded to my past questions but I'm going to try again.

Your arguement is that because the baby doesn't feel pain and doesn't know what is happening it doesn't matter.

Based on that logic, if I shoot you in the head while you are sleeping, and you are therefore unaware and dead before your brain registers pain, nobody should care and it doesn't matter, and shouldn't be a crime. This seems completely untenable to me, but I would honestly like to hear your assessment of this situatuon. Is it murder, or a non event?

ScenarioNations California
05/30/18 4:42 pm

The fetus doesn't feel pain up till a point. That's why I'm fine with banning abortions after that point, with the exception of life of the mother. I'm fine with reducing pain in a compromise. I don't believe in absolute rights either, but to suggest that women don't have any right to bodily autonomy in the pregnancy phase goes too far in my opinion.

No. If I'm sleeping and I'm killed I'll still feel pain. If I'm a vegetable and I'm just there, sure go ahead. I won't care as I won't ever recover from a condition like that. Don't use a gun though, we have a system for that and it's called euthanasia. If I have a condition where I'm a vegetable just have the doctor use drugs and kill me. But yeah, you can still feel pain by shooting someone in the head. You can still also screw up that so if you're going to do it, don't use a gun. Also it'd be against my bodily autonomy for you to kill me without my permission. This is different from fetuses though as I'm not reliant on another's orgam

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/30/18 4:55 pm

The idea that you would feel pain if shot in the head while sleeping is fairly obviously wrong, but let's say I sedate you first, at that point it is a non event?

Also your belief that the life of a baby doesn't count because it is dependent on the mother's organs fails under even cursory examination. Let's say I own a breathing machine like Christopher Reve used to live after his accident. Your logic would suggest that anytime I wanted i could just shut it off and allow him to die and be completely within my rights. That is absurd.

ScenarioNations California
05/30/18 4:59 pm

Yes as it'd still violate my bodily autonomy.

If he was renting your machine and you decided to cut him off, you'd have to make Reeve find a new machine after the renting period was over. If you gave it to him as a gift then he doesn't have to give up the machine.
My views are still consistent. You don't have a right to another person's body.

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/30/18 5:47 pm

How are organs materially different than a life sustaining machine that belongs to me. It seems to me you are drawing a distinction without a difference.

Why does my sleeping example violate your body autonomy but abortion doesn't violate the baby's body autonomy? You can't have it both ways. Either an unaware non pain feeling being has a right to life or it doesnt.

ScenarioNations California
05/30/18 5:57 pm

You didn't respond to my argument at all. If you're renting the machine to the family then you have the right to unrent it to them and the can find a new machine. If you freely gave them the machine then you can't take it away as it was a gift to them and that'd be equivalent to stealing.

Because I'm an autonomous human being and a fetus isn't. I'm not dependent upon the property or organs of another person. A fetus is. Therefore you'd be violating my bodily autonomy as I am autonomous. A woman can say to a fetus "you're violating my bodily autonomy" as its not autonomous.

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/30/18 6:24 pm

Not renting not a gift. He is simple using my machine. I don't understand what your question is. He is every bit as dependent on my machine as the baby.

So again can I simply turn it off, or so I need to give him time to be ready to exist some other way (birth) before I can shut it off.

I submit that it would be murder to simply walk up and shut off his machine, and that is exactly what you are advocating for the baby.

ScenarioNations California
05/30/18 6:30 pm

If he isn't renting your machine, and it wasn't a gift, then his family literally stole your machine and they should be punished. That's not his fault though and they should transfer him to a hospital machine as soon as possible so he isn't using your property against your will. Then they could make the transfer so your property could be used by who you want it to be used by.

Considering he was hooked up by his family against his will, the best option would be to not punish him as it wasn't his fault. Switch him over to a public machine in a hospital, maybe the state could give you reparations, and the solution is there.

No I'm not as these situations are not synonymous. You're suggesting that your population was stolen by his family and that can be fixed and you can be repaid for the stolen property. He can be transferred over in no time. A fetus can't. Therefore you're stating that since no other option exists, her body should be used against her will. I wouldn't ever support it

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/30/18 6:44 pm

Please quit adding info that isn't in the Scenerio.

I allowed him to hook up (equates to having unprotected sex). He requires the machine to live. If the machine is shut off He dies almost instantly. He has no family, if I shut off the machine he will die. It wasn't a gift, it wasn't sold, it isn't rented. He is simply borrowing my machine. I suddenly decide that I don't want him using the machine (equates to deciding to have an abortion). Can I walk up and unplug the machine, or do I need wait while he makes other arrangements to sustain his life?

I believe that if I simply shut off the machine I would, and should be charged with murder. This is the equivalent of a pregnant woman suddenly deciding to "withdrawal consent ". Either both are murder or neither is. Can you argue that shutting off the machine isn't?

ScenarioNations California
05/30/18 7:00 pm

You created a scenario where there are 3 options. Either you rent the machine, you give him the machine, or he or his family steals the machine. He's ill so it's safe to say that his family stole the machine, no? See how silly your scenario is? That's why it's nonsensical and not a decent comparison.

If you give him the machine, if I give you or lend you a rake to use, that individual or their family doesn't have to give it back to you. In this scenario the family can say, "no, you cannot have it back, you let him use it and he's using it, it's no longer your property". Once you lend someone a thing, you're saying "you can have it but I want you to give it back to me". They don't actually have to give it back to you as its their property now technically. it's not like you signed a contract over this.

Well yes it would be murder as you're going into someone else's house and turning off their machine without their permission. Why would you touch their machine without their will?

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/30/18 7:20 pm

Are you being willfully ignorant because you know you can't support your past ranting?

Ownership doesn't pass when you let someone use your item. If I use your bathroom I can't unbolt your toilet and leave with it. If I let you borrow a rake and you don't return it the court will order you to because title doesn't pass.

I will take your inability to answer the question as asked as your acknowledgement that your argument is more rediclous than that of flat earthers.

The answer is obvious both are murder.

ScenarioNations California
05/30/18 7:26 pm

Nope. Your scenario has 3 options as lending is barely different from giving as you'd have to be a fool to think there's a 100% chance you're getting an object that you lended back.

Ownership does pass as I know it's quite likely I'll never get that object back. It's as good as gone. If I lend you my book and I don't get it back, what do I do? Break into your house and steal it? Kill you for it? Sue you for it? No. It may be different for things like cars and whatnot as my name is registered under it, but you don't have book registries or breathing machine registries. No one will care if someone says "no, I'm not giving you back the book". So for all intents and purposes it is basically you giving up the rights to own that object. Your toilet example is weak as I don't lend you a toilet. I let you use it in my house and only my house. If you take it out of my house then that's stealing as that's breaking the rules I gave to you to begin with. Your scenario is different as its portibl

ScenarioNations California
05/30/18 7:30 pm

Lmao nice ad hom. You're not attacking my position but calling it ridiculous and acting as if that debunks it. You're acting as though people sue each other over portable breathing machines Lmao and comparing that to unbolting a toilet!

The answer is obvious, one is a solvible situation and the other is dealing with bodily autonomy.

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/30/18 8:01 pm

I have thought debunked your arguement twice but just for you I will do it again.

You say that once loaned you have no right to demand return (deeply flawed logic, but I'll run with it).

The mother clearly loans the organs at the time the embryo attaches. Based on your latest s statements, she can't require them to be returned.

I am now waiting on responses to the sleeping man, the breathing machine and now this idea of loaned items.


Also, can I borrow your know given you ideas about loaned items.

wearemonkeys77 Lest We Forget... Hodor
05/29/18 4:31 pm

So we'll treat you as long as your condition is it rare...

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/29/18 4:32 pm

That is what the supreme Court said in RvW.

Safe, legal, RARE

ikeurban21 B L C
05/29/18 5:11 pm

Relating pregnancy to a dangerous disease is the most liberal garbage I’ve heard in a long time

ProudAmerican44 New Joisey
05/29/18 5:30 pm

Rare eh? I don’t consider 60,069,971 abortions since 1973 as being “Rare”

evoecon nearest binary system
05/29/18 10:40 pm

The government is not charged with protecting the life of weeds. I know this confuses you.

By the way, where is the wisdom of Shazam on this.

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/29/18 4:23 pm

"Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape, 0.3%; in cases of incest, 0.03%; in cases of risk to maternal life, 0.1%; in cases of risk to maternal health, 0.8%; and in cases of fetal health issues, 0.5%. About 98.3% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons and possibly 0.1% each for sex selection and selective reduction of multifetal pregnancies."

thatguy2 We tried to warn you
05/29/18 4:27 pm

This user is currently being ignored

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/29/18 4:38 pm

You're right they are irrelevant because if it isnt reported there is no proof that it happened.

kscott516 Revelation 5 6
05/29/18 4:44 pm

Pregnancy via rape is still not a healthcare issue.

thatguy2 We tried to warn you
05/29/18 4:46 pm

This user is currently being ignored

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/29/18 4:47 pm

Because murder helps 🙄

ScenarioNations California
05/29/18 5:28 pm

It definitely beats having to stare at the genes of your rapist every day.

I'm not saying that abortion is the best option for all people in a situation where a person has been raped, but for some situations it works best for their mental health.

kscott516 Revelation 5 6
05/29/18 5:40 pm

Killing an innocent child will not help your mental issues. It will make them worse.

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/29/18 5:42 pm

Scenario, I might suggest that living with the genes of a rapist are preferential to being murdered. Remember there are two people involved here.

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/29/18 5:44 pm

Adoption is an option... You can literally drop any infant off at a fire house NQA. I'd rather grow up in foster / get adopted than be dead

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/29/18 9:16 pm

KS - an abortion does not kill a child.

Think Lovin Life
05/29/18 9:51 pm

Shaz ... there you again, denying science. Tisk tisk.

kscott516 Revelation 5 6
05/30/18 3:39 am

Really, shaz? Then what is the person aborting?

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/30/18 3:58 am

Shaz, depends on the definition you use. If you use science's definition it definitely is a child. If you are a Nazi doctor it's free stem cells

PhxLibertarian Phoenix
05/30/18 10:09 am

Goalie, go easy on Shaz. He knows he doesn't often make sense, that is why he often offers us the option to vote "Shaz is loony" which I do a lot.

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/30/18 2:07 pm

Nope. A "child" is a human being from birth to Puberty onset. This is also the accepted scientific definition of "child," although some dictionaries do include late stage fetus that had passed 7mos in utero (>80% viability).

None list early stage embryogenesis development where +85% of abortions occur, or through week 24 at which viability is a coin toss.

You can use the term in the colloquial, but you cannot claim it be scientific.

As far as the Nazi bullshit goes.... It's just that. Bullshit.

kscott516 Revelation 5 6
05/30/18 2:11 pm

That’s called semantics, Shaz. No matter how you spin your words, abortion is still ending the life of an innocent human being that doesn’t get a choice.

thatguy2 We tried to warn you
05/30/18 2:13 pm

This user is currently being ignored

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/30/18 2:25 pm

Child: a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

Where did you get your definition

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/30/18 2:38 pm

Mosby's Medical Dictionary. 8th Ed. Published by Elsiver. It's on the bookshelf in my office.

It's not Semantics. It's not a child. It's not a viable life. And from a Christian perspective, it has no soul.

kscott516 Revelation 5 6
05/30/18 4:18 pm

You’ve made this claim before. Where in the Bible does it say that a human life doesn’t have a soul until birth? It clearly says He knew you in the womb.

Psalm 139: 13-16

ScenarioNations California
05/30/18 4:29 pm

It also declares that a man should give his wife bitter water to test to see if she was loyal. If the fetus miscarried then it'd be a sign that she was unloyal. If the fetus didn't then it'd be a sign that she was loyal. The only way this would work is if God basically aborted or forced the pregnancy to fail in the case of the unloyal wife. God does abortions. Numbers 5:11-31

ScenarioNations California
05/30/18 4:31 pm

The Bible also doesn't count children under 1 month old in censuses in

"Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16"

ScenarioNations California
05/30/18 4:35 pm

The Bible also says:
"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17 "

"Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14"

"Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16"

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16"

"Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14"

My point? God seems absolutely fine with abortion as he kills actual infants or demands the death of them. He slaughters them from time to time. Yet he doesn't want a woman to do an abortion? Why?

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/30/18 5:37 pm

KS - Actually, no it doesn't. It says God knew one of the most important prophets Jeremiah in the womb. The verse you quoted from Psalms talks about knitting in the womb, and I agree with that. Therd is no life without God's hand. Which is why I can't see how a Christian can believe a soul is present before birth. Souls are sacred. It's the part of us made in God's image. We have already done the numbers you and I, and we know that the number of failed pregnancies globally out numbers abortions yearly +100 to 1. I cannot fathom a reality in which God places millions of souls into pregnancies God knows will not be born. It goes against everything scripture teaches on how important the soul actually is.

As far as scripture supporting the soul placed at birth, there are dozens in both OT and NT that stress the breath of life - both specifically and allegorically. The first is Gen 2:7.

Search your soul. Read your Bible. You will have to come to this same conclusion.

kscott516 Revelation 5 6
05/30/18 6:34 pm

Read it again:
“Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

“Unformed body”. Yes, souls are sacred and are placed at conception for everyone. Souls are eternal so it doesn’t matter to God how long they survive on Earth. People have free will to kill but God brings those innocent lives to Him. Kids are born with lethal defects every day but God still loves them. You’re attributing a human quality to God, that He wouldn’t give a soul to a human being if it couldn’t live. That’s simply not correct nor biblical.

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/30/18 6:38 pm

Neither God knowing the unformed (fetus) nor the future of that fetus contradicts what I wrote KS. In fact, it actually supports it.

kscott516 Revelation 5 6
05/30/18 7:04 pm

“Which is why I can't see how a Christian can believe a soul is present before birth. Souls are sacred. It's the part of us made in God's image. We have already done the numbers you and I, and we know that the number of failed pregnancies globally out numbers abortions yearly +100 to 1. I cannot fathom a reality in which God places millions of souls into pregnancies God knows will not be born. It goes against everything scripture teaches on how important the soul actually is.”

It’s not necessarily about contradicting your statement. I asked about Scripture that supports that a soul does not enter before birth. You provided your personal opinion on how you can’t believe God would waste an important part as the soul. That’s putting human thought into God’s character. He is much higher than that.

kscott516 Revelation 5 6
05/30/18 7:06 pm

Although God can do anything, including seeing the future, it stands to reason that when He sees you in the womb, that He’s referring to your soul. Time is quicker than a blink to Him. Our version of time is irrelevant when it comes to dying before birth or at 90 yrs old. Ultimately the soul lives forever.

Think Lovin Life
05/30/18 7:44 pm

KS ... if an unborn were not a child, a person with God given individual worth, why would God have said this to Jeremiah ...

“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Jeremiah 1:5

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/30/18 7:49 pm

THINK - read the whole chapt in Jer. God is reassuring one of the greatest prophets in the Bible that he is worthy. It's not a broad statement, but rather God reaffirming his specifically singling out an individual and propping up that individual in times of self doubt.

Think Lovin Life
05/30/18 8:31 pm

Shaz ... God confirmed that He knew Jeremiah in the womb. Did you miss that?

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/30/18 8:32 pm

KS - We've been through this, and I know you well enough to be sure your considering a different view is nil. Here are several though that lay out the breath of God transferring the soul.

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

"Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones, 'Behold, I will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life

So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL " The last Adam became a life-giving spirit

nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;

"The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

By You I have been sustained from my birth; You are He who took me from my mother's womb; My praise is continually of You.
For as long as life is in me, And the breath of God is in my nostrils

There's a couple hundred more.

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/30/18 9:07 pm

THINK - I absolutely didn't. There are several exceptionally special people in the Bible that God raises above others. Jeremiah was one. God is spelling out his special separation from the rest of humanity. He isnt saying "I knew you just like every other schmo before you were born.

KS believes the soul has exceptionally little value. I don't. Everything I have read in the Bible tells me oherwise.

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/30/18 9:08 pm

Consider this: there are approx 33,000,000-65,000,000 pregnancies ending naturally before birth per year around the world. The number of abortions in the US we could add to that number is about 1% and 2%. The global annual mid point is greater than all abortions in the US since RvW 45M. Pregnancies ending in miscarriage in that same period is around 3.6B or 50% of the world's current population.

There’s only really two conclusions we can draw here: assuming the soul is present at conception, the ending of a pregnancy by abortion is not at all important. So many other souls never reach birth that all our abortions don’t amount to a blip on the screen. IOWs the actual birth of a soul is completely unimportant as between 25%-40% will never be born anyhow. This is KS view and IMHO goes against scripture and the importance of an eternal soul.

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/30/18 9:09 pm

The second conclusion is that a soul is placed in the body by God at birth. This is supported by scripture, and maintains the importance of the eternal soul. As a Christian, this has to be my view.

Think Lovin Life
05/30/18 9:56 pm

Shaz ... so, with your twisted logic, since 55 million people die naturally every year, we should kill a few million more healthy people, right?

As tragic and personal as a miscarriage is, it has absolutely no relationship to the murder of abortion.

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/31/18 3:28 am

No you dolt. I'm saying neither represent the death of a person. Both are tragic, but neither is immoral.

kscott516 Revelation 5 6
05/31/18 4:39 am

You are, once again, mischaracterizing my POV. I never said the soul has little value. In fact, I emphasized the opposite by directly saying that God cares more about our eternal lives than our short period of time on Earth. The soul is eternal. An aborted fetus’ soul would spend eternity with Him just like a young child with cancer or any other terminal disease.

You continue to see God through YOUR ideological lens, not Scripture. While Jeremiah may have been chosen as a prophet, God doesn’t see his life as more valuable than anyone else’s. Wouldn’t Jesus be the most valuable soul ever created? He gave His life so the rest of us could have eternal life.

ScenarioNations California
05/31/18 4:40 am

What did I get myself into lmao, as a non believer I don't honestly have any stake in this conversation lol

Think Lovin Life
05/31/18 6:08 am

Shaz ... oh, I get it, I’m the “dolt” because you can’t communicate. Sure, I understand that it is hard for you to take responsibility for your obtuse communication.

You’re wrong. From the scriptures, we clearly learn that Jeremiah was a person in the pre-mortal existence and Jeremiah was a person in the womb.

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
05/31/18 2:32 pm

KS - Its not an ideological view. And as I posted above, it is based in scripture. Read Jer. God clearly highlights the importance God places on Jeremiah. There are a couple of other examples where extraordinary individuals are called out by God. Jacob, Job, Noah, and yes one is Christ "this is my son." That's not ideology. It's a literal reading.
As far as the rest goes, I maintain my assertion. Your argument is that souls are placed at conception, God knows 40% of which will not reach birth because the mother will unconsciously reject the pregnancy. God also knows that less than 1% won't reach birth because the mother will conciously reject the pregnancy. Your idiology holds this to be different in God's eyes.
I look to scripture. I find dozens of passages that say that life - and the presence of a soul - begins with breath. That's not idiology. It's literal reading.
We've had this conversation before. There isn't a middle ground, so I'm ending this one here. Have a blessed day.

Praetorianus Fair enough.
05/29/18 4:21 pm

They're not.
I knew the figures had to be low but not that they're this low, I thought 5-10%.

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
05/29/18 4:24 pm

Look above I commented the quote and also attached the full study to the poll