Abortion

[IBDaMann]

If you're saying that most illegal abortions occur when ...

Did you just add the qualifier "illegal" and render your post a waste of time?

 

[IBDaMann]

I have, though it's quite possible that I hadn't yet done so when you wrote your statement. My definition of a living human encompasses all stages of human development, from human sperms and eggs and ends with elderly humans.

Science denial for purposes of EVASION, in defense of killing supremacy, i.e. nothing has changed. You are still being totally dishonest.

 

[IBDaMann]

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion.

Yet another absurd EVASIVE distractionary claim to buy time. Answer the question: who funded the "study"?

 

[IBDaMann]

Yes, I have.

What is the answer?

 

[Scott]

I do not respect statistics, especially when they run counter to logic and common sense

What about the statistics in question do you believe "run counter to logic and common sense"?

Did you read this: "What’s tragic is how many of these deaths are preventable. Most are caused by malnutrition, birth conditions such as preterm birth, sepsis and trauma, and infectious diseases such as pneumonia, malaria, and HIV/AIDS."?

No mention of abortions.

The article isn't about abortions, but about born children below the age of 5 who die each year. For the audience, this is the article in question:

Child and Infant Mortality

Child mortality remains one of the world’s largest problems and is a painful reminder of work yet to be done. With global data on where, when, and how child deaths occur, we can accelerate efforts to prevent them.

ourworldindata.org

So, I ask you again, what about the statistics do you believe "run counter to logic and common sense"?

 

[Scott]

I'd agree, if you could restrain yourself from the insults. Or if you could at least wait until the end of your post. Then I could just snip off the end and actually respond to the rest.

That could well be true. I think one of the most important things is to avoid starting with the base insults. Once those start, people either start to tune out or worse, respond in kind, resulting in a flame war.

Is someon holding you hostage and making you reply.

No.

Stop being [insult removed]

This is why we can't have nice things -.-

 

[Scott]

No, it's of the utmost relevance. If the government wants to pay the cost of artificial fetus growers, that's certainly its perogative, but I doubt it'll happen. What I -don't- think is justified is to force women to be fetus growers.

If a pregnant female was given the choice to have the government continue to grow her fetus, I strongly suspect that many might well choose that option. It's not an option right now though. Until it is, there is only one option- either the female continues to grow the fetus, or she removes it and it dies.

Well when you smash your car into someone else's car you're responsible

Are you equating getting pregnant with smashing someone's car?

 

[Scott]

Like the death stab is a "vaccine" for covid even though it didn't prevent people from getting covid.

I'd say that the definition of vaccines themselves is flawed, but I can still respect the common definition of the term while not agreeing that vaccines actually do what they are claimed to do.

Then it's not a fucking vaccine.

I and others believe that no vaccine prevents anything other than anxiety by those who believe it actually prevents them from getting a given disease. I also believe that all vaccines that aren't actual placebos harm the human body.

 

[IBDaMann]

So, I ask you again, what about the statistics do you believe "run counter to logic and common sense"?

Go back and read my response; I'm not going to repeat it.

Do you have any specific questions about my direct response that you are ignoring?

 

[IBDaMann]

Are you equating getting pregnant with smashing someone's car?

Are you denying that accepted, negative ramifications of deliberate activity can occur? You rather clearly are.

 

[IBDaMann]

The article isn't about abortions,...

Exactly. They are specifically omitted when they shouldn't be. I directly answered your questions while you EVADE mine.

 

[Scott]

Here's the bottom line regarding the topic. You get pregnant take responsibility.

Pregnant females naturally have to do this, as the pregnancy is literally housed in their bodies. Some decide that the best choice is to remove the embryo or fetus from their bodies.

Terminating a life because it's inconvenient is not taking responsibility

From what I've seen, there is no category under reasons for abortion that is labelled "inconvenience". I also think that in many cases, having an induced abortion may well be the best choice for both the pregnant female and even the fetus. There are many people born into this world that do -not- have a good time. Ironically, it's conservatives who support the death penalty- and that would generally if not exclusively be adults, who are -far- more intelligent than any fetus.

 

[Scott]

Life doesn't end at birth. Many would say that that's when it actually starts. As I've noted in the past, the most common reasons females have given for having abortions are financial.

i.e. convenience.

No, not convenience, financial. For many, this can be so extreme that the children who aren't aborted die before their 15th birthday. I strongly suspect that a quick death would have been better. See for yourself:

Child and Infant Mortality

Child mortality remains one of the world’s largest problems and is a painful reminder of work yet to be done. With global data on where, when, and how child deaths occur, we can accelerate efforts to prevent them.

ourworldindata.org

 

[Scott]

I'm sure you would agree that millions of born children shouldn't be dying each year, and yet they do.

Egregious passive voice fallacy. You stripped away all deliberate decisions and actions and made one really lame passive voice expression.

Are you suggesting that you believe mllions of born children -should- be dying each year?

Right here you are once again treating abortions as though they are just random occurrences that you can somehow rightfully address in the passive voice.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. I was talking about the millions of -born- children who die each year. Children that may have been better off with a quick death rather than one that may frequently be slow and arduous. For the audience, you may find the following article sobering:

Child and Infant Mortality

Child mortality remains one of the world’s largest problems and is a painful reminder of work yet to be done. With global data on where, when, and how child deaths occur, we can accelerate efforts to prevent them.

ourworldindata.org

I had also referenced another article in the post that IBDaMann was responding to that I think is quite interesting as well:

Do pro-lifers care about the welfare of children?

Pro-lifers' commitment to life questioned: Do they care about children beyond birth? A look at policies that uplift struggling families.

defendernetwork.com

 

[Scott]

I believe that those who want to like "defending the inalienable right to remain alive of a living human" should focus more energy on born children and less on pregnant females who may be concerned that carrying their pregnancy to term will mean a life of hardship and perhaps even a quick death after their birth. As I mentioned to you in a previous post, this is where alleged pro lifers tend to fall flat, as is noted by the following article:

Do pro-lifers care about the welfare of children?

Pro-lifers' commitment to life questioned: Do they care about children beyond birth? A look at policies that uplift struggling families.

defendernetwork.com

Don't worry, I haven't shifted my focus [snip]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI

 

[Scott]

Have you heard of the presumption of innocence? Just in case you haven't:
**
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.
**
Source:

Presumption of innocence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now, I understand that we're not in a court of law. But I still think that this legal principle shouldn't just be followed in the courts. I think that -anyone- who makes a claim should be the one to present the evidence for said claim if asked. You, on the other hand, apparently think that we should operate under the presumption of guilt, at least when you are making the charge.

So, with all of that said, I think it's patently clear that it should be -you- who offers a concrete example that I have engaged in special pleading.

Dial it back ... the correct answer is "no, that's not how rational discourse works."

If you're suggesting that you shouldn't be the one to offer a concrete example of me engaging in special pleading, I disagree.

You don't get to disagree on this point without being objectively in error.

I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

 

[Scott]

As I've already mentioned many times, I have yet to see a dictionary, an encyclopedia or a legal dictionary define abortions [as] killings at all, let alone "contract killings".

How is that relevant?

That's answered by the sentence that followed the one you quoted above. To whit:
**Until that changes, I believe you have very little evidence to back up your assertion that abortions are not just killings, but "contract killings".**

 

[Yakuda]

Would brain dead be better for you?

You're the one that loves killing unconscious people like those in a.coma

 

[Yakuda]

No.



This is why we can't have nice things -.-

Stop acting stupid and you will.

 

[Yakuda]

Are you equating getting pregnant with smashing someone's car?

No you idiots do they when you claim you don't necessarily consent to being pregnant when you engage in intercourse. You people always pull this buffoonery. Do you understand analogies? If I say you're as stupid as a cockroach I'm not equating you to a cockroach I'm equating your intelligence to that of a cockroach. You people either act stupid or are stupid. Which is it?