AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
You asked and I answered.
So not a murder. Thanks for being honest.
Already did. Pay attention.
Abortion
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Scott
Verified User
Can you link to your source(s)? I suspect that the reason your number is so much higher is because you're including chemical abortions. From the site I used:
**
* The abortions in the counters on this site were historically almost all “surgical abortions”. The percentage of abortions performed with chemical abortifacients like mifepristone rose from 16.4% in 2008 to 39.4% in 2017. The Pharmacists for Life organization estimates that approximately 250 million babies aborted chemically since 1973 in the USA: http://www.pfli.org/
* The Guttmacher Institute, originally formed as a division of Planned Parenthood of America, reported 42 million abortions World-Wide in 2003 which was down from 46 million in 1995. The study was funded by the World Health Organization, an agency of the UN and the World Bank.
**
Source:
Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973
number of abortions this year, US Abortion clock, worldwide abortion clock, number of abortions due to rape or incest, Planned Parenthood Abortion Count. The most accurate set of abortion counters on the web
www.numberofabortions.com
Ah, good point, I didn't see that you were talking about all causes, not just induced abortions.
Scott
Verified User
The number might be around the same, or perhaps even less. I don't think you're really thinking this whole thing through- think of this from the perspective of a mother or family unit that doesn't have enough resources to feed themselves or their family already. Bringing in yet another baby may break the entire family. So -more- people may die as a result of not having an abortion instead of less. Now, I fully admit that I know of no studies that study this issue, but I just think you should consider that what you think would increase average life expectancy might actually decrease it. And this is -especially- true for those who don't consider an embryo or fetus to be a natural person.
Scott
Verified User
I had never heard of systematic risk before you mentioned it. I found an entry for it on Wikipedia here:
Systematic risk - Wikipedia
Apparently, it's used in finance and economics. We're not talking about either here.
There are a few exceptions:
The world’s most famous gamblers: Get to know the stars - Blog - Livecasino
Can you get world-famous by being good at casino games? For the best gamblers out there, it’s a resounding yes. Meet them here and find out how they succeeded.
livecasino.io
I think we can agree that one should always try to assess the risk/reward ratio and only take risks where the ratio is favourable for the reward side of the equation.
Scott
Verified User
No, I'm just asking questions. You are free to avoid or evade answering them.
Scott
Verified User
If you expect mutual consent then mutual control is the only just option. The woman cant claim unilateral control over making the man pay support if he has no say in whether she has a abortion or not. The devil's in the details chumUnless we're talking about marriage, prenuptual agreements or birth surrogacy, I think there are few people signing anything before sex. We are talking about consensual sex, which means that both parties agree to have sex. That's generally the only contract before having sex and it's a verbal one.
Fine, but then you should have to have her sign an agreement -prior- to her having sex. Or, at least, that's what I thought could work. Looks like I'm wrong, at the very least in Wisconsin:
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/505lpy/can_i_have_a_girl_sign_a_contract_that_either/
I don't agree with the judge's decision. I definitely believe that one -should- be able to make such a contract. Since this apparently isn't possible, it looks like the best you can do is make a contract anyway and hope she doesn't take you to court to force you to pay child support anyway, at least in Wisconsin.
I think it should be obvious, but just in case it isn't, I also don't think that women should be able to get a man to pay child support if something in the "forced fatherhood" category is done by the woman:
**
Forced fatherhood or imposed paternity, occurs when a man becomes a father against his will or without his consent. It can include deception by a partner about her ability to get pregnant or use of contraceptives, birth control sabotage, paternity fraud and sexual assaults of males that result in pregnancy.
"Sperm theft" (also known as "unauthorized use of sperm", "spermjacking" or "spurgling" (a portmanteau of sperm and burgling)), refers to a specific form of forced fatherhood in which a man's semen is used to impregnate a woman without his consent.
**
Source:
Forced fatherhood - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Your problem is that you're not really paying attention to what people are generally consenting -to-. Having consensual sex means only one thing- that both parties consented to having sex. Now, as I've mentioned before, people -can- try to make a contract, whether verbal or written, as to what would happen if the female in the relationship were to get pregnant. However, as I've found out, it appears that courts may not recognize any such agreement. -Here-, we may well agree- I think that agreements other than simply consenting to sex -should- be able to be made, but apparently the law doesn't currently agree.
Unless that changes, it appears clear that what happens after a male donates his sperm via the vaginal cavity during sex is generally out of his control law wise, regardless of what agreements he makes with the female before that point in time.
Actually, I suspect the law may well be amenable in one way only- if the agreement is that, if there is pregnancy, the baby is given up for adoption via birth surrogacy as agreed to in a contract made before the pregnancy. Just not the other way around- that is, the only case I've seen where a male made an agreement with his partner that if she got pregnant, she would abort, the judge apparently dismissed the case.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You didn't answer anything.
You're asking the wrong person. Your asking about a scenario that falls outside my definition. Ask me about scenarios that fall within my definition, or ask Into the Night your question as it is.
You haven't answered anything. You merely gibbered. Listen to what you are saying.
Scott
Verified User
I didn't say child I said life. It's a life.A sperm and an egg is hardly sufficient to create a child. They are both just -part- of what's required. You're forgetting the most important part of all- the female's body that houses them both. That's the real heavy lifter in creating a baby. This becomes abundantly clear when it comes to birth surrogacy- note that while the sperm and the egg can be from various sources, the one constant is the gestational carrier:
**
Surrogacy
Surrogacy (also known as host or full surrogacy was first achieved in April 1986. It takes place when an embryo created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology is transferred to a gestational carrier. Surrogacy has several forms, and in each form, the resulting child is genetically unrelated to the surrogate:
**
- The embryo is created using the intended father's sperm and the intended mother's eggs;
- The embryo is created using the intended father's sperm and a donor egg;
- The embryo is created using the intended mother's egg and donor sperm;
- A donor embryo is transferred to a gestational carrier. Such an embryo may be available when others undergoing IVF have embryos left over, which they donate to others. The resulting child is genetically unrelated to the gestational carrier.
Source:
Surrogacy - Wikipedia
Not alone- as with creating a baby, you need 3 things- bullets, the gun and most important of all, a person to pick a target and then pull the trigger.
You said children: "Then that poster was accurate sperm don't become children, sperm AND egg do."
I'm just pointing out that a sperm and an egg have no chance in hell of creating a child alone. Without the use of a female's body, they can go no further.
Scott
Verified User
Your first question indeed asked me what I meant by highly intelligent. The thing is you asked another question as well- whether my doctor was a dolphin. This is why I asked you if you were suggesting that you needed to be a doctor to be considered to be highly intelligent. You still haven't answered my question.
Scott
Verified User
I find it interesting that you don't agree with gfm that the lack of a heartbeat is irrelevant in determining whether a human sperm is a "living human". As to the belief you share with gfm, that a sperm has a "lack of a complete set of DNA", I don't believe that's true. It's more that human sperm and eggs only have a -single- complete set of DNA. Normal cells have 2 sets. Why should having 2 sets make such a difference?
Scott
Verified User
According to who?
Scott
Verified User
Ultimately, I believe the person who has the most say in whether human sperms, eggs, embryos and fetuses is the person whose body they're in. I think that's as it should be, laws attempting to restrict female freedom in this regard notwithstanding.
Scott
Verified User
No dictionary defines any word.That all depends on how one is defining mother. There are 2 definitions for mother from Century Dictionary hat I think make this clear:
**
- noun A woman in relation to her child; female parent: also used of female animals in relation to their offspring.
- noun That which has given birth to anything; source of anything; generatrix.
**
Source:
Agreed. They do provide definitions for words though, or "usages" as IBD likes to call them.
Yakuda
Verified User
Long winded drivel. I dont give a shit about the sex consensual or otherwise. I'm talking about the foolishness of expecting that the woman can unilaterally decide to have a man support a baby he may not want. If he decides to abort the baby there is no impact on the man other than emotionally but who gives a shit? He loses nothing. Fine. But if she decides to keep it she can make him pay child support under penalty of law, that bullshit.
Yakuda
Verified User
I never said otherwise.
Right just like a gun has no chance of killing anyone without someone using it. A females body is not needed for it to go further. Have you not been conscious the past 4 decades?
Yakuda
Verified User
Well until you have the decency to answer the question that was poised to you first, I don't give a fuck what you would like. What the fuck do you mean by "highly" intelligent? Don't be a little bitch.
Scott
Verified User
A female that kills her baby in a abortion is not a mother.That all depends on how one is defining mother. There are 2 definitions for mother from Century Dictionary hat I think make this clear:
**
- noun A woman in relation to her child; female parent: also used of female animals in relation to their offspring.
- noun That which has given birth to anything; source of anything; generatrix.
**
Source:
In the first, it's "a woman in relation to her child". We've already established that one definition for child is "unborn infant", which means that a pregnant woman can qualify as a mother.
In the second definition, the mother would -first- have to give birth to be considered a mother.
No, I wouldn't. As a matter of fact, the male whose sperm impregnated a woman may actually be -want- the woman to get an abortion. Just ask @Yakuda . Even if the male wants the female to carry her pregnancy to term, however, the fact of the matter is that the male isn't the one who will have to feed and care for the fertilized egg until is born- only the pregnant female can do that. Now, as I've said to Yakuda in the past, I support the idea that a contract be made up -before- a male has sex with a female as to what to do if the female becomes pregnant. However, as I found out recently, it appears that such contracts may not hold legal weight, at least in the U.S., which means that they would only be useful if the male believes they could sway the female into doing what she says in the contract and not take the issue up in court.
First of all, don't you ever think about the fact that the words people who are against abortions choose tend to reflect their beliefs? Baby is an ambiguous term. It can be an embryo, a fetus or what I consider to be a real baby, that is a 'living human' that has been birthed. Abortions simply can't happen to birthed babies. By using the term baby, you are muddying the water as to what you actually mean. Adding in word "kill" further the muddying as I have yet to find a dictionary that uses that term when it comes to the termination of a pregnancy. I think that everyone could agree that ending its life is neutral.
Second of all, a female who has an abortion could already -be- a mother. As a matter of fact, concern for welfare of the born child or children she already has is at times cited as the reason pregnant females have cited as a reason for the abortions they have.
Yakuda
Verified User
First, don't kill babies if you don't like the words.
Second, convenience is the reason for the vast majority of abortions that are performed.
Scott
Verified User
if the women can decide to have the baby without the mans consent and then bring the force of the govt against him if doesnt pay support that's unjust.That all depends on how one is defining mother. There are 2 definitions for mother from Century Dictionary hat I think make this clear:
**
- noun A woman in relation to her child; female parent: also used of female animals in relation to their offspring.
- noun That which has given birth to anything; source of anything; generatrix.
**
Source:
In the first, it's "a woman in relation to her child". We've already established that one definition for child is "unborn infant", which means that a pregnant woman can qualify as a mother.
In the second definition, the mother would -first- have to give birth to be considered a mother.
No, I wouldn't. As a matter of fact, the male whose sperm impregnated a woman may actually be -want- the woman to get an abortion. Just ask @Yakuda . Even if the male wants the female to carry her pregnancy to term, however, the fact of the matter is that the male isn't the one who will have to feed and care for the fertilized egg until is born- only the pregnant female can do that. Now, as I've said to Yakuda in the past, I support the idea that a contract be made up -before- a male has sex with a female as to what to do if the female becomes pregnant. However, as I found out recently, it appears that such contracts may not hold legal weight, at least in the U.S., which means that they would only be useful if the male believes they could sway the female into doing what she says in the contract and not take the issue up in court.
As I've said to you in the past, I believe that a couple planning to engage in sexual intercourse -should- be able to make a contract stipulating that if the female gets pregnant due to said sexual intercourse, she would have an abortion. I know of only one example where a man actually tried this and it went to court- the judge apparently dismissed the case.
So, given this fact, a man's control of his sperm ends once he donates his sperm to a female's vagina, regardless of whether or not he makes a contract with her beforehand as to what should happen to the sperm should it impregnate the female, at least if the contract stipulates that the female should have an abortion if this happens. We don't have to agree to accept that this is how things are.