Abortion is the leading cause of death during the pandemic, killing 37 million

[abdulodoi]

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.

[o_e_l_e_o]

However, it has within it the full pattern for and of the human being.

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

We shouldn't judge or attack those who have chosen not to have a baby because of our belief or cultural differences.

QFT

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.

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

[franky1]

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

[BADecker]

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.

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.

However, it has within it the full pattern for and of the human being.

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

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.

We shouldn't judge or attack those who have chosen not to have a baby because of our belief or cultural differences.

QFT

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.

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.

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

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.

[Gyfts]

However, it has within it the full pattern for and of the human being.

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

We shouldn't judge or attack those who have chosen not to have a baby because of our belief or cultural differences.

QFT

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.

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

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.

[o_e_l_e_o]

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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.

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.

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.

[franky1]

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.

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

[BADecker]

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.

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

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'.

[franky1]

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'.

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

[BADecker]

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'.

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 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.

[franky1]

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

[BADecker]

consent to sex. is not the same as consent to pregnancy - Are you really trying to tell us that peole who use all kinds of contraceptives when they have sex, are consenting to pregnancy? You are such a joke, lol.
dang you must be a virgin - How did you know that I went to the Virgin Islands for recycling?

when people have sex. its got nothing to do with consenting to pregnancy.
allowing a penis in a vagina is not a pregnancy contract - Sky divers aren't consenting to dying when their chute doesn't open. Yet most of them DO die when their chute doesn't open. You are so dense. Would they die if their chute didn't open while they tested it standing on the ground?

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

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

[Vod]

A seed is not a tree.
An egg is not a chicken.
An embryo is not a person.

But they are all forms of life we need to survive as a species.

In Japan, more people have committed suicide than have died from Covid.   :/

[franky1]

A seed is not a tree.
An egg is not a chicken.
An embryo is not a person.

But they are all forms of life we need to survive as a species.

and their butts the head of another republican contradiction.. with its own head

one day they argue of over population. the next they argue that all death, old, young, dependent,independent is the 'end of the species'

the next they will say the right to die under ones own terms is ok.. the next they will say life needs to be maintained no matter what.

i find it funny how republicans say survival of the fittest and let the weak die off 'coz darwin' then say life is sacred 'coz god'

just make a decision and stick with it. you will end up going insane in your contractions

[Bitcoins101]

The left says they are pro choice. You are free to do what you would like with your body. If that is true, then how come you would like government guns to force me to wear a mask, stay inside, and undergo vaccination? Oh but wait they say, not wearing a mask could kill someone! Uh huh. Abortion is killing something, if you deem a fetus less valuable than a grown human that is simply your opinion. Is the fetus infinitely more valuable as soon as it is born? Most people would even consider a newborn baby more valuable than a grown human (a debatable determination if you ask me), so for the left the value of the human goes from 0 as a fetus to 1,000,000 as a newborn baby and then 500,000 as a grown adult. Then, judging by the way we have reacted to COVID, as an adult reaches old age they become far more valuable than any other human. Senior citizens? 10,000,000, it doesn't matter how many lives are destroyed or people die of starvation and suicide as long as we can extend the lives of 90 year olds by two weeks.

[BADecker]

I agree that a woman has pro-choice. But in this way:

If a student takes out loans to go to school in the pursuit of a career, and later finds out that the career isn't something that they want, or later realizes that they will never be able to pay back the school loans, Does such nullify the loan contracts? Of course not. They still need to deal with repaying the loans, even if it is through bankruptcy.

So, if a woman makes a contract for sex with a man, and later finds out there is a pregnancy involved, her pro-choice was to place herself in the way of making a baby, even if she didn't know that such would happen. She made the deal. She exercised her freedom. She got the results of her choice (or carelessness). Now deal with it and raise the kid, or put the child up for adoption (bankruptcy). But don't murder the new human life.

[franky1]

I agree that a woman has pro-choice. But in this way:

If a student takes out loans to go to school in the pursuit of a career, and later finds out that the career isn't something that they want, or later realizes that they will never be able to pay back the school loans, Does such nullify the loan contracts? Of course not. They still need to deal with repaying the loans, even if it is through bankruptcy.

So, if a woman makes a contract for sex with a man, and later finds out there is a pregnancy involved, her pro-choice was to place herself in the way of making a baby, even if she didn't know that such would happen. She made the deal. She exercised her freedom. She got the results of her choice (or carelessness). Now deal with it and raise the kid, or put the child up for adoption (bankruptcy). But don't murder the new human life.

again badecker. a sex contract is not a pregnancy contract. you really need to get out your basement and start dating.
maybe then when you ask a woman back to your basement for the night and say
'lets come back to mine and make babies'
vs
'lets come back to mine and have sex'
you will see the different reaction/response.

also the college student does have a 'get out' clause for the debt.. its called bankruptsy

so for emphasis.
when a woman consents to sex. she is not consenting to starting a family.
please understand that.

it is one of them key details that as a man will really help you in life outside of this forum to know about..

[Gyfts]

I agree that a woman has pro-choice. But in this way:

If a student takes out loans to go to school in the pursuit of a career, and later finds out that the career isn't something that they want, or later realizes that they will never be able to pay back the school loans, Does such nullify the loan contracts? Of course not. They still need to deal with repaying the loans, even if it is through bankruptcy.

So, if a woman makes a contract for sex with a man, and later finds out there is a pregnancy involved, her pro-choice was to place herself in the way of making a baby, even if she didn't know that such would happen. She made the deal. She exercised her freedom. She got the results of her choice (or carelessness). Now deal with it and raise the kid, or put the child up for adoption (bankruptcy). But don't murder the new human life.

again badecker. a sex contract is not a pregnancy contract. you really need to get out your basement and start dating.
maybe then when you ask a woman back to your basement for the night and say
'lets come back to mine and make babies'
vs
'lets come back to mine and have sex'
you will see the different reaction/response.

also the college student does have a 'get out' clause for the debt.. its called bankruptsy

so for emphasis.
when a woman consents to sex. she is not consenting to starting a family.
please understand that.

it is one of them key details that as a man will really help you in life outside of this forum to know about..

So if your argument is that people should get a free "get out of jail" card when faced with the burden of carrying a child that they voluntarily conceived, unless they were raped of course, why stop with abortion then?

If a child is 15 days old post birth, why don't I get to change my mind then and kill the kid. It's my choice right? I produced the child?

Also, how do you sort out the contradiction of the legal system where if a person murders a pregnant woman, it counts as two murders. Why does the legal system recognize a pregnant woman as two entities?

[BADecker]

I agree that a woman has pro-choice. But in this way:

If a student takes out loans to go to school in the pursuit of a career, and later finds out that the career isn't something that they want, or later realizes that they will never be able to pay back the school loans, Does such nullify the loan contracts? Of course not. They still need to deal with repaying the loans, even if it is through bankruptcy.

So, if a woman makes a contract for sex with a man, and later finds out there is a pregnancy involved, her pro-choice was to place herself in the way of making a baby, even if she didn't know that such would happen. She made the deal. She exercised her freedom. She got the results of her choice (or carelessness). Now deal with it and raise the kid, or put the child up for adoption (bankruptcy). But don't murder the new human life.

again badecker. a sex contract is not a pregnancy contract. you really need to get out your basement and start dating.
maybe then when you ask a woman back to your basement for the night and say
'lets come back to mine and make babies'
vs
'lets come back to mine and have sex'
you will see the different reaction/response.

also the college student does have a 'get out' clause for the debt.. its called bankruptsy

so for emphasis.
when a woman consents to sex. she is not consenting to starting a family.
please understand that.

it is one of them key details that as a man will really help you in life outside of this forum to know about..

Again, franky1, jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 feet intending to parachute down, is not a death contract. But if the chute doesn't open, it is probable death.

A contract for sex that is not at the same time a contract for pregnancy, might produce a pregnancy if not done correctly.

If the parachute is not packed correctly, or if the wrong parachute is used, death might be the result. If there is no proper contraceptive, or if the contraceptive fails, pregnancy could be the result.

Obviously, you want to confuse the issue. It's your way. It might be simple low IQ. But more than likely you simply have a wrong attitude.

So, what's the issue? Murdering a human being if an unwanted pregnancy is the result of a sex contract or agreement.