Abortion is a God Given Right of Females like the right to bear Arms

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

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".

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.

 

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

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?

[steve_rogers]

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

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

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

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?

[jackg]

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

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.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Is anyone responding to this topic a female? Quite frankly, men need to STFU when it comes to this topic.

I'm sorry, do trans-gender, non-childbearing capable, queers get a say in this?

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

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.

[jackg]

Is anyone responding to this topic a female? Quite frankly, men need to STFU when it comes to this topic.

I'm sorry, do trans-gender, non-childbearing capable, queers get a say in this?

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.

[rugrats]

I don't think I'm comfortable with abortion being said as "God's given right". The child or baby itself is God's gift, why would abortion be called that when you are to kill God's gift. Inhumane, it is our right but if we have morals, I don't think it's right to kill a person you haven't met before and did nothing wrong to you. Killing, itself, is already illegal so why do we even dare call abortion "God's given right" legal?

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

[jackg]

I don't think I'm comfortable with abortion being said as "God's given right". The child or baby itself is God's gift, why would abortion be called that when you are to kill God's gift. Inhumane, it is our right but if we have morals, I don't think it's right to kill a person you haven't met before and did nothing wrong to you. Killing, itself, is already illegal so why do we even dare call abortion "God's given right" legal?

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

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).

[o_e_l_e_o]

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.

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.

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).

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.

[jackg]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

[The Sceptical Chymist]

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.

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.

We could also throw mitochondrial DNA in to the mix,

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.

[o_e_l_e_o]

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...

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.

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.

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.

-snip-

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

[jackg]

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

-snip-

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

There always one who goes too far...

[o_e_l_e_o]

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.

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.

[kevoh]

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!

[tarball]

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!

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

[beej]

In today's society and some countries Abortion is considered an option, it's a heavy and
serious decision. However in some countries they view abortion more as of a crime and a 
immoral option. Regardless if it's immoral or not, it's really up to the mother to decide
whats best for her. It's the 21st century, a lot has changed and women are more empowered
now than ever, they can independently choose what's best and right for them, it's their body
and life.

[groko271]

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.

wow ... just wow dude.

..


gosh we live in evil times.

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

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

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.

I know, I was reading best scholars...

Genetics is the craziest natural bitcoin-type mixer in existence.

reducing the complexity of life to the simplicity of digits is quite extraordinary.

Is anyone responding to this topic a female? Quite frankly, men need to STFU when it comes to this topic.

I'm sorry, do trans-gender, non-childbearing capable, queers get a say in this?

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.

exactly, you rights start at delivery, as long as the chicken is in the grill there is no right but the right of the grill owner (aka the female herself, her body, her choice).

what is shocking for you is to put the destiny of the child / baby / unborn in the HANDS only of its mother.

this act simply remove a big part of your conditionning matrix, as it free the mother to be the sole rule maker, the only one decider, above all your lies, on what she is.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

a subject that I find fascinating is DNA pollution of future mother by exposing them as much as possible as a wide range of sexual partnerers, and those (maybe AI) were saying that genetic trace of all previous partners stay in the female body... I don't know the science behind it... but it's clear that already saliva to saliva will transmit genetic material...

If you know more about it please share, as this narrative is so contrary to fuck everyone passing with a wallet or a body that you see that his pumped to most females westwide.

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!

first they have to rule the bitches, then it's us... if they can rule our mothers, decide what is in them, what will they do to us? declare that cannabis or suicide (euthanasia) illegal, force vaccinate us, inflate the currency only for their own benefits? who knows...

In today's society and some countries Abortion is considered an option, it's a heavy and
serious decision. However in some countries they view abortion more as of a crime and a  
immoral option. Regardless if it's immoral or not, it's really up to the mother to decide
whats best for her. It's the 21st century, a lot has changed and women are more empowered
now than ever, they can independently choose what's best and right for them, it's their body
and life.

101.

if women are empowered, then it's the male masses... if you fear the people, you should shit your pants, why would the AI serve you? don't forget in the human zoo there are no KAPO or prisoner self-administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapo_(concentration_camp)), you are too stupid, collectively or individually to simply think about that, can't manage themselves, and want to rule others, not the human zoo !

who told you the human zoo would be planetary? size or number doesn't matter...

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.

wow ... just wow dude.

..


gosh we live in evil times.

what a weak line, rather than address the issue at end you refer to neuropath to reinforce your refusal to let WOMEN DECIDE.

where logic defeat you is : you refuse to let mother kill their own baby because life is sacred, so you can't kill the abortionist.

the loop of death.

some call it the circle of fire.

we are armed and we abort, so how do you wanna die in those perilous time, where? when those who aren't even the father dare to interfere in the body of another woman... gosh if it isn't "evil"...

why don't you trust the mother? it's HER fucking body.

anyway, thanks for your comments, and don't forget legal or not, it's a LEGIT trade. MOTHER SAID : OUT OF MY BODY . WE SAID : X MUCH . SHE SAID : OK . WE DID. DONE. next.

now where I would rejoin your critique of the abortion industry is when they foster the hypergamist behavior of women (to be a liberated free and powerful women mean fucking as much as possible before and then finding a beta bucks to suck dry (only financially)) and do abortion as candy because it's fun to fish with baby in the stomach to lock a fiat provider...

seeing through the female conspiracy doesn't mean having to behave unjustly toward them, they go low and lower if they want. block and that's it.

the circle of fire . THE WALLS OF HELL