Anything where giving up non-vital parts of your body will help the other person survive. I never said anything about heart, or brain, or whatever the fuck. Now you can just give an actual response or you can continue on what will be the longest dodge in NeoGAF history, because I'm not giving this up.
GOP set to adopt official abortion platform without exceptions for rape and incest
- Thread starter cartoon_soldier
- Start date
- Status
Anything where giving up non-vital parts of your body will help the other person survive. I never said anything about heart, or brain, or whatever the fuck. Now you can just give an actual response or you can continue on what will be the longest dodge in NeoGAF history, because I'm not giving this up.
You know, many years ago when I was just starting to get into politics, I really did think that Republicans legitimately cared about what they may have thought of being babies, actually being killed.
But nowadays, especially after having lots and lots of exposure to the Republican party, it's REALLY difficult for me to think that a party that's genuinely cold hearted about virtually every other social policy known to man would care THIS much on this one seemingly noble issue.
It definitely seems like there's some credence to the idea that the GOP's stance against abortion isn't so much about concern for the baby, but rather to make women suffer as much as possible.
But nowadays, especially after having lots and lots of exposure to the Republican party, it's REALLY difficult for me to think that a party that's genuinely cold hearted about virtually every other social policy known to man would care THIS much on this one seemingly noble issue.
It definitely seems like there's some credence to the idea that the GOP's stance against abortion isn't so much about concern for the baby, but rather to make women suffer as much as possible.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Definitely, the GOP's general ideology doesn't really suggest that they care about helping people, but rather seek to put down the majority of people for the benefit of the elite.
So an abortion ban makes sense as a way to control women's sexuality (or turn them into breeding factories of poor kids who will end up as cannon fodder), as the elite will always have easy access to safe abortions regardless of what the law says.
It seems more anti-sex prudishness to me. You will often hear a pro choice person say "if you don't want a baby don't have sex!" as if that is a viable option to resist our most base instincts. They don't even say "wrap it up", it's all about NO SEX UNTIL YOU ARE MARRIED.
It seems they think that if abortion is illegal, people will fuck less?
Yes... yes. Just like a parent is forced to take their child to school, or to feed them, or to give them shelter. They created them, they are responsible for them. If you don't want to be "forced" to do this, don't literally create the circumstances in which you can be "forced."
Oh, look at that, you've managed to lower the level of civility in this thread even further. Congratulations.
Many years ago I flirted with the idea of calling the pro-choice movement "anti-life" for, and I am not exaggerating, less than five minutes. I quickly (though not quickly enough) realized how disrespectful and fairly childish it would be to do so. But hey, I guess that's where we're going now, so yay. I'd rather be "anti-choice to kill innocent unborn children," than "anti-life for innocent unborn children."
So, yes, I'm totally "anit-choice" in regards to the issue of killing unborn children in the same way I'm "anti-choice" in regards to people being able to own slaves. No, I'm not "anti-slavery," I'm "anti-choice." I deny people the ability to choose whether they can own another person, and I deny people the ability to choose to murder innocent human beings who only exist in the first place because of those same people's actions.
Well, it is about sex, but not for us anti-choicers defending a person's right to life, but rather for you anti-lifers: Sex is more important than life.
If I fit into the narrow box that you anti-lifers like to paint us anti-choicers in, then I wouldn't just be saying "you don't have the right to choose to kill your child," I would be for laws to prohibit sex outside of marriage, adultery, sodomy, and so on. I am not. You guys like to craft an image of what we represent and believe, rather than actually arguing what we're actually saying. Why is that? Speak of the...
See? I'm not part of that "community," but it didn't stop you from assuming it, because you need to make these presumptions so you can create some false demon to hate. Makes it easier to disagree with us and validate the beliefs you don't want to question.
So you want to change the nature of the universe? And do you also think men should be able to engage in this without playing the melodramatic Roulette of commitment to a child they "did not want"? The right answer is "no." If a man doesn't want to be "burdened" with ALL the responsibilities of a child, he shouldn't be so casual about sex. Note I didn't say "never have sex ever," just, you know, don't be a dope about it.
Which, slight tangent, but this thread has been filled with people essentially claiming that all "unwanted" pregnancies come from two very smart, diligent, responsible people doing "everything they possibly can" to not get pregnant, and darn it it's just so hard and it didn't work. Can we at least be honest? "Unwanted" pregnancies come way more from negligence than anything else. It's "oh shit, you don't have a condom?... Oh well, fuck it!" more than the other. Or "c'mon baby, I always use a condom, can't I not this one time? Don't you love me?"
Pretty obvious how true this is when you see a man scolded (rightfully) for claiming they don't want to use a condom because "those things are only like 70% effective" with the appropriate response "not if they're used correctly, dummy."
Nope, not at all what I said, but again, this is what you guys do. "You religious people only talk about souls." I'm not religious, and no one in here has mentioned a soul. "You hate women." Babies are not just boys. "Lol, from a guy who is for the death penalty." I am not (though the latest narrative in this thread of "if we can kill terrorists and serial killers, why not unborn children?" is truly, truly sick and perverse beyond my wildest nightmares). And so now, more words put into my mouth.
It's not that sex "should be fraught with unnecessary risk," it is already risky. By its very nature. If I wanted sex to be risky, I would be against people using contraception to prevent STDs, so they can be scared to have sex, but I'm not. But, since we're summarizing each other's positions, you are basically saying "it's ok to kill innocent children." Good luck in trying to come up with ANYTHING that can make me feel worse than holding that position would.
I do "own" that were all things to go "my way," people would have less casual, standard heterosexual intercourse when not in a relationship and situation in which they were prepared to raise a child, and I have no problem with that, since it would lead to less murders of unborn children. If you want to call this "anti-sex," ok, good for you, but it's a narrow and simple view of both my position and sex, much like calling it "anti-choice." If I were to call it something, I would call it... gasp... "pro-life."
If you wish to respond to me again please actually address my real and only concerns; the unborn child is a life (as all living cells are), is human (what other species could it be?), and is distinct (DNA), and it is wrong to kill innocent human beings. Unlike the anti-lifers here, I really, really, REALLY want to be wrong on this. It would make life so much easier. But I'm not going to lie to myself and say if it's ok to kill an enemy threat, then it's ok to kill a baby, just to make myself feel better. I find it repugnant beyond words.
Devolution
Member
Duffy are you pro or con IvF?
Wolves Evolve
Member
Duffyside, the fact you're persisting with some conviction is admirable, even if I find your point of view abhorrent, I respect the fact you've stuck to it with conviction. I'll ask you to elaborate on one point.
Considering this human life is growing inside of a woman, does the woman whom it is growing inside have any more right than anybody else to decide if the child should be born? Or do you see it as an absolute fact that once conceived, the child is alive and that's that?
Considering this human life is growing inside of a woman, does the woman whom it is growing inside have any more right than anybody else to decide if the child should be born? Or do you see it as an absolute fact that once conceived, the child is alive and that's that?
SteveWinwood
Member
Are you repugned duffy?
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
They aren't unborn children, they are foetus'. They could potentially become children but there is a significant chance that the preganancy will fail anyway. Not to mention as has been evinced in this thread innnumerate times, the rate of third trimester abortions is incredibly low already; foetuses that could be birthed and survive at that point are not being aborted in any statistically significant way.
Calling foteuses 'unborn children' and 'innocent' is emotional and unscientific. I don't really enjoy debating abortion because it provokes extreme and rigid views (not a criticism specific to you) but please, do get this correct. Foetuses.
For someone who's not actually following the discussion you certainly are spending a lot of time in this thread.
gutter_trash
Banned
God is sending them a hurricane to punish them in Tampa
Devolution
Member
I always find it remarkable how "natural" sex is waiting till marriage and only between men and women to these types. If we were to actually talk honestly without any sort of religious ideology present, infanticide and sex predate marriage. And marriage, despite how it's about love now in some corners of the world, has just been another institution to ensure paternal heredity. And pregnancy hasn't been so much of a choice as a duty. But marriage is sacred and pregnancy is a miracle. Kiss my womanly ass.
Devolution
Member
I was totally channeling Duffy and his drops of wisdom. I hope that wasn't missed
Oh not at all I just meant in general. People can kiss my ass when they mention how sacred or sanctified some shit is. Sure if I was pregnant by choice it would be awesome but the history of women has been rife with being treated as property, raped by husbands and forced to carry children so that his bloodline may continue. It's not all that romantic as people love to pretend.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
more diseases and recessive genes becoming prevalent.
Yes, but so is all the organisms inside your colon.
About as distinct as a teratoma.
It's wrong to endanger an existing human being for a potential human being. More 'human beings' are naturally aborted every day by a woman's body than humans will ever be able to catch up to. Pregnancy is neither automatic or works perfectly every time, and you are ignoring the historical implications of where a woman is viewed only as a vessel for reproduction.
If you want to save every fetus, invent an artificial womb or figure out how to make men pregnant so that you can even begin to be in the situation that women have to go through and pay for that a man will never have to worry about.
No, that I get, but if every life is sacred, what should it matter if a child has some genetic defect or whatever to the pro life community?
Devolution
Member
Because they pick and choose what life is precious. Most of them are outright hypocrites or inconsistent in their stance, which isn't that big of a deal because gray areas can lead to some inconsistencies in most ideologies. However, the stances they tend to take betray the very same reasons they are "pro-life" and it becomes more about punishing women for having sex and or a very simplistic view of the reproductive process.
Indeed.
As I've said many times this is not a fight about protecting a child life.
No push for better health care for infants and children. No push for better care of women who've conceived to reduce miscarriages. No push for mandatory paid post maternity leave. No push for the same for fathers. No push for better regulations for kids lunches. No push for better sex education to prevent abortions in the first place. No push for better trained ob/gyn doctors to decrease our fucking incredibly high for a 1st world nation infant mortality rate. No push for additional government subsides to parents in order to pay for a child (they actually, fucking oddly enough, want to get rid of those). No push for additional extra curricular activities outside of schools to give children something to do after school. No push for an increase in education funding so that children can be provided with art/music/PE/smaller classrooms so they have a better learning environment. No push for additional day care services as a tax deductible for business so working parents have a place to put their kids.
Nope. None of that shit. JUST the ability to not be able to chose to terminate the pregnancy.
Including DNA and living cells in this statement is just pure hypocrisy. You people really can't seem to make the distinction between a baby and what a fetus is in early stages of conception. It absolutely boggles my mind, and don't say you do understand it because the statement I quoted definitely shows you don't.
And the use of anti-life is so incredibly daft that it gives me a headache.
Remember, being pro universal health care and anti-death penalty = anti-life.
Being anti universal health care and pro death penalty = pro-life.
It's really easier to just say pro/anti abortion. 'Cause otherwise, one must question at what point pro life ends and "fuck you deal with it" begins.
NullPointer
Member
At which point can one say a fetus is human life without being over emotional and unscientific?
This is in my opinion the only valid discussion to be had.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Do the Republicans even remember the first time they did a YouTube Debate, in which one of the "vetted" 'Tubers - with the conviction of a southern preacher - actually asked McCain to introduce an extremely hostile immigration plan into his campaign.
I mean, honestly. Do they even care anymore?
I mean, honestly. Do they even care anymore?
IS it? The death penalty and euthanasia have been brought up a number of times in this thread.
It's hard to tell who is and who isn't trying to change the subject.
LOL, and when is her "responsibility for its destruction" no longer valid? Or is my mom walking over to me and slitting my throat a perfectly legitimate act?
Right. She has the freedom to do whatever she wants. Just like I have the freedom to walk into a bank and demand all of the money. Or the freedom to vandalize someone's house. Or the freedom to run across the field naked during a football game.
Doesn't mean that our behavior doesn't come with a cost.
(Sorry, I misinterpreted your earlier question)
Because in scenario #1, it was FORCED upon her. In scenario #2, it was voluntary.
Those are LEGAL differences; doing something by means of coercion and doing something willfully.
If someone coerces a person to set a building on fire, resulting in the deaths of 10 people, guess who's going to jail and who isn't (or in other words, who gets empathy)? If a person willfully sets a building on fire and it results in the deaths of 10 people, guess who isn't getting any empathy?
Let me point out the holes in your scenario. First, let's establish the boundaries of the scenario, based on YOUR post:
HOLE #1 - First of all, a hereditary disease isn't "caused" by anyone. To cause is to compel by a direct method, command, authority or force. If my dad "caused" me to get diabetes (and I need a new kidney), then my favorite sports team "caused" me to get stressed and have a heart attack. You even stopped short yourself of saying that a hereditary disease is caused by the parent; you said "a hereditary disease that you gave your child..." Why didn't you just say "caused"? Even you know that nothing was "caused" by anyone (and even then, nothing was "given" either)
The offspring component is invalid
HOLE #2 - Let's say I accidentally knock rat point into a stew and I poison 50 people. They're all going to die because they all need things ranging from new livers, blood transfusions, new linings to their stomachs, etc.
How is one person supposed to be divided up 50 ways....and not die?
This invalidates the responsibility component
HOLE #3 - In pregnancy, the fetus used the mother's body for 9 months and then vacates. How on earth is your analogy supposed to hold up when the baby didn't actually take anything from the mother? The mother HOUSES the baby; it didn't actually TAKE anything. Female organisms were built to house other organisms within them. That's why a pregnant woman can go from being pregnant to looking nothing happened. THEY WERE BUILT FOR SUCH A THING. If I hand over part of my liver to a dying person, do I get it back in 9 months? A woman's body does not undergo a significant-enough change to justify the permanent removal of someone's organs. A doctor would examine a woman and determine that she is perfectly healthy and normal. A doctor would examine a person who gave a way an organ and say that there is a severe problem with his insides.
This invalidates the entire argument.
EDIT:
Question to all of those who are pro-choice: At what point during a pregnancy is it NOT OK to abort the baby, and why?
Well you've addressed the last half of my post. How about the first half? When is abortion deemed "murder"?
How exactly are you defining abortion? I would argue that abortion is never murder. Wikipedia defines abortion as "the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability". Clearly you are not a fetus, so it's silly to make that kind of comparison.
NullPointer
Member
Where would you place it?
Seems to me like we would need differentiation and a heartbeat, so whats that, six weeks? Or would that be an overly emotional or misleading time frame?
Oh I'm so glad you caught that. My apologies for being unclear; confusing; and; perhaps, even misleading! Here, let me clarify my question:
*ahem*
At what point does the organism growing inside the woman during her pregnancy no longer qualify for an abortion?
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Sure, I'll answer your question and hopefully you or someone else will answer mine.
It's not okay to abort after week 20 or so, unless the fetus endangers the life of the mother or will be born with a tremendously reduced quality of life (which couldn't be detected up until this point).
The reason the limit should be set at around week 20 or so is because it's a mid-way point between when it's fully okay to abort for any reason (day 0) and when it's not okay to abort at all (unless the unborn child will kill the mother, day 252 or something). See my previous post on these calculations:
Still interested in seeing these questions answered by anyone for an abortion ban:
How would one handle a ban on abortion?
Would it be by making the act of abortion illegal, or would it be by giving the fetus a right to life that supersedes the pregnant woman's right to control her body?
If you had a pregnant woman in custody who intended to get an abortion, would you keep her in jail until she has given birth?
Would you strap her down until she gives birth if she doesn't comply?
If someone is irresponsible when it comes to sex, why would it be a good idea to make them deal with the massive responsibility that a child is?
Do you think that their previous irresponsibleness will result in them being responsible when it comes to caring for the kid?
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
So a fetus is a person, unless the person carrying it is raped. So it's not about the baby's rights, it's about women who have consensual sex having less rights. Finally.
Abortion is never murder as you cannot abort a baby. Should a doctor begin a really late term abortion and the child is actually viable, it's not like he goes "oh, fuck me, *snap*" and tosses it in the garbage. Besides that, having a third trimester abortion is very dangerous for the mother, it's not something that just happens. I, like most people, am against third trimester abortions. However, it's not even worth mentioning cause they don't' happen enough for it to be up for discussion.
Also:
Once again, you're being pedantic. While a womb is designed to house a fetus, it's a fucking intense and damaging experience that most women don't ever 100% recover from (as in, return to a state equal to where they were before the birth).
1. For every 1000 live births it's estimated that 5.98 babies will die. (BTW, that puts US at forty-fucking-ninth in the world for infant mortality. So, good job pro-lifers for being, generally, against universal health care.)
2. As the fetus expands it causes the woman's stomach to stretch and swell. My mother has this nice chuck of wrinkled skin at her stomach from when I had to be hacked out. Many women don't lose their baby weight, which leads to other social problems.
3. A fetus causes a lowering of the resting heart rate, an increase in blood volume, and a requirement of increased calories. All these things, by themselves, can cause complications with a healthy person if they're not the offset of a workout program. For them to happen all at the same time can be devastating.
4. As of a 2008 UNICEF report, and their may be more accurate information, a woman's chance of dying while pregnant is approx. 1 in 2100 or 24 deaths for every 100,000 live births (BTW, low end of the list there too USA USA!!!). For comparison, the chance of dying from a firearms discharge is 1 in 6,609 and the chance of dying from Accidental drowning and submersion is 1 in 1,103 according to the national safety counsel. That's right, you're more likely to die giving birth than to accidentally getting shot by mistake.
Seriously, man, having a baby isn't like taking a shit. It's a big fucking deal a you'll never have to experience it. The fact that you keep treating a woman who gets pregnant as somebody who happens to have to wear a brace for a few months is damn insulting.
Between 3 and 5 months as absolute maximum.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I wish people who are for abortion in the case of rape and incest would just come out and say this.
"You had sex, so you need to learn the consequences of having sex - enjoy your baby!"
OK.
Well, you didn't really didn't answer my question. I want to know when it is absolutely forbidden and not OK under any circumstances.
It would probably be both, the right to life would forbid the act of abortion.
She would be treated like any other pregnant criminal (however that may be).
Well the logical step is to give the child up for adoption. That's what most parents do who deem themselves unworthy (for whatever reason) to care for a child.
I don't even understand this.
(edit: I didn't say a fetus conceived through rape should be aborted. So....ummmmm....yeah)
Oh REALLY? According to Wiki, 6.2% of all abortions performed in the U.S. were considered "late-term abortions". Abortions because of rape happens less than 1%, yet here we are in this huge ass thread with everyone up in arms.
I didn't say they recover 100%. But it is a considerable recovery, more so than having an organ removed and never getting it back.
1) I'm FOR universal healthcare
2) Ummm....what's all this data supposed to prove? Of course a woman's body undergoes significant changes during pregnancy. It's a pregnancy. But this data does NOT say that a woman having a successful pregnancy is some sort of "miracle person". We're talking about your AVERAGE pregnant woman, your AVERAGE birth, and your AVERAGE woman after her pregnancy. And when it's all said and done, this average woman is back to normal life physically (for all intents and purposes) while this organ donor isn't. It's not a good analogy.
Any circumstances? Never. Black-white thinking once again.
This is some scary and dictatorial stuff. The government actually emprisoning people so they can't do what they want with their own body and force them through pregnancy.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
There is no absolutely forbidden period, it's always possible to have an abortion up until the woman actually gives birth - depending on the circumstances.
In a late abortion, these range from the fetus having severe disorders which would cut down the survival rate of the child to practically zero and make it suffer, to a birth (even a caesarian one) drastically endangering the life of the mother.
My self-quote was there to highlight that OK isn't just an arbitrary line, but a changing continuum based on the premise that a newly fertilized egg has no value as it has no brain and no ability to suffer among other things, and that the 9 month old fetus who is ready to pop is indistinguishable from born baby - so at one point in the development it has no value, and at another point it has a lot of value. The trick is then to determine a midway point, where the value of the fetus is not higher than the value of the mother.
So it's 10% not okay to abort after week 4, but it should still be legal as it is 90% okay to abort. It only ever should become illegal when it is 50%+ not okay, and from that point you can only abort under special circumstances determined by the doctor.
Does that answer your question?
1. Then do you agree that it would cause a lot of hassle for the feds investigating abortions? As an abortion can be indistinguishable from a miscarriage, they would have to individually investigate each suspected abortion case. Do you think the trade-off of accusing women who has miscarried for abortion is worth it?
That's before we get into manslaughter, when some behaviours can increase the risk of you miscarrying.
2. Fair enough, I would like to say that criminals have the right to abort so you can't really treat them like one treat pregnant criminals today, but then I recalled that story from some time ago when someone held in custody was denied her morning-after pills (she was in custody because they arrested her for an older crime when she went in to report her rape).
3. Then do you agree that an abortion ban would probably increase the number of foster kids out there?
Your characterization of the biological process of pregnancy is not correct. Furthermore, humans aren't that good at pregnancy to begin with so to say they were built for it deserves qualification. Before modern medicine the death of a mother wasn't uncommon.
This isn't the right question to ask, but rather you should ask at what point is it necessary to legislate the answer. I would say not at all.
Also, where is that 6% number coming from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy
It's 6.2% between 13-15 weeks, which isn't late-term abortion. The percentage for late-term abortion (after 24 weeks) is 0.08%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy
It's 6.2% between 13-15 weeks, which isn't late-term abortion. The percentage for late-term abortion (after 24 weeks) is 0.08%
How many of his claims have been cited?
Correct, a femaly body isn't even really suited to bear a Homo Sapien Sapien because the head of the child is actually to large.
(addressed later in post)
I am now. Are YOU?
Here's the Wiki article. That 6% certainly didn't represent a fetus being removed because of the safety of the mother
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy
I'm talking about a termination of the pregnancy just because the woman doesn't want it, not because of any medical concerns.
But there is no line where one moment it "has no value" and then the next it is a "viable organism". A "midway point" is just a way of guessing and not actually knowing when an organism is viable and when it isn't.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to figure it out.
Yes.
Yes.
Fair enough. But I did say "female organisms". Perhaps one day humans will evolve to a point where pregnancy and birth will be much easier, similar to other female animals....making humans better biologically at pregnancy. But since modern science IS apart of the equation, it's certainly acceptable to include it, since the morality rate of pregnancy is down significantly when compared to times before the 20th century.
Also....when I said "built to house", I was talking about how a woman literally is biologically equipped with the means necessary to birth a child. Not "built to ideally house".
Why isn't it the right question to ask? I'm sure most pro-choice people wouldn't deem it OK to abort a baby 2 days from its arrival date. I want to know where the line is drawn in order to demonstrate where THEY consider a human as an organism worthy of life.
1)
From Wiki: A late-term abortion often refers to an induced abortion procedure that occurs after the 20th week of gestation. However, the exact point when a pregnancy becomes late-term is not clearly defined. Some sources define an abortion after 16 weeks as "late". Three articles published in 1998 in the same issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association could not agree on the definition. Two of the JAMA articles chose the 20th week of gestation to be the point where an abortion procedure would be considered late-term. The third JAMA article chose the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation.
Who gave you the authority to define a late-term abortion as one that ONLY occurs after 24-weeks?
2) WHATEVER the number, my point still stands. Regardless of the consensus of what a late-term abortion is, abortions from rape and late-term abortions are extraordinarily rare. So your strawman served no purpose there.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I'm afraid we'll just agree to disagree from this point on.
I, and many others (though I won't be trying to speak for others), think it's easy to figure out the value of a fetus. Some think it has to do with viability, others think it has to do with cognitive development (I'm leaning towards this metric), but the reasoning I put forth works in either case.
Day 0 it is 0% viability, day 240 it is 100% viability - the line is drawn at 50%+
Day 0 at a 0% cognitive ability, day 240 at a 100% cognitive ability - the line is drawn at 50%+
Day 0 at a 0% value (based on a number of factors such as viability and cognitive ability), day 240 at 100% value - the line is drawn at 50%+.
It's not guessing at all, it's putting down the cutaway point for free abortions when the the value/viability/cognitive ability of the fetus outweigh the freedom and control of the mother.
Your problem (or just the reason we can't come to a full understanding) is thinking in binaries, that a fetus suddenly go from "no value" to "full value".
It isn't the right question to ask because there is no need to ban late abortions. Who is getting abortions that late in their pregnancy for any reason other than medical complications?
It's a difference between 1.4 and 0.08 percent then, still not anywhere near your fucking 6.2 percent. I didn't even bring up the 6.2% percentage in the first place, YOU did.
We're talking about huge influences in people's lives, if you want to ignore rape/incest impregnation because it's "rare" then good for you. But ignoring the impact this has on women's PERSONAL lifes and banning abortion because in your mindset it is murder, is just being a hypocrite. You obviously don't care about the well being of the mother, it's all about the kid she unwillingfully has the push out.
It's fucking disgusting that you go 'BAN ABORTION, DON'T CARE ABOUT EXCEPTIONS!". Strawman my arse.
And this.
And what I'm stressing is that these things don't just magically come about.
But that cutway point is not accurate. What makes day 240 different from day 239? Or 238? And so on?
LOL, yeah I brought it up. Who cares? I'm not going to harp on the fact that you took some number at the very end of a section and....you know what, I like said. WHO CARES? You want to keep the pissing contest going over something that has no definition, then fine with me.
I'll say that I'm wrong and you're right because I sincerely do not care.
I brought it up because something being RARE was cited as a reason to ignore it.
- Status