Select to expand quotecammd said..D3 said..
CAMMD, you accept the WHO estimate of 73 million abortions.
Do you also accept the estimate that 32 million of those are unsafe, which mostly occur in developing Nations and result in much higher rates of maternal deaths?
Banning abortion in the rest of the world will only increase the number of unsafe abortions in the developed nations. 73 million abortions will still happen, unfortunately they will then result in more women dieing, not saving lives
Per Year
73 Million abortions are unsafe to babies.
32 Million abortions are unsafe to Mothers
If they didn't happen that's over 100M mothers and babies that would not be killed or harmed
and your arguing they are a good thing. That is some twisted logic
I'm saying that making abortion illegal will only increase the number of mothers dieing from unsafe abortions.
The only way I can see abortion rates dropping is if somehow the developing world massively increases the use of contraception, thereby reducing the number of unwanted pregnancy.
Select to expand quotecammd said..D3 said..
CAMMD, you accept the WHO estimate of 73 million abortions.
Do you also accept the estimate that 32 million of those are unsafe, which mostly occur in developing Nations and result in much higher rates of maternal deaths?
Banning abortion in the rest of the world will only increase the number of unsafe abortions in the developed nations. 73 million abortions will still happen, unfortunately they will then result in more women dieing, not saving lives
Per Year
73 Million abortions are unsafe to babies.
32 Million abortions are unsafe to Mothers
If they didn't happen that's over 100M mothers and babies that would not be killed or harmed
and your arguing they are a good thing. That is some twisted logic
This is almost funny.
I know we live in a time of vastly improved medical science, so it's easy for people to forget.
Pregnancy is ****ing dangerous! Medical intervention is often required.
Suggesting that neither mother nor foetus succumb to pregnancy is ludicrous.
And without medical intervention, the burden of humans with varying gene expression grows exponentially.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..cammd said..D3 said..
CAMMD, you accept the WHO estimate of 73 million abortions.
Do you also accept the estimate that 32 million of those are unsafe, which mostly occur in developing Nations and result in much higher rates of maternal deaths?
Banning abortion in the rest of the world will only increase the number of unsafe abortions in the developed nations. 73 million abortions will still happen, unfortunately they will then result in more women dieing, not saving lives
Per Year
73 Million abortions are unsafe to babies.
32 Million abortions are unsafe to Mothers
If they didn't happen that's over 100M mothers and babies that would not be killed or harmed
and your arguing they are a good thing. That is some twisted logic
This is almost funny.
I know we live in a time of vastly improved medical science, so it's easy for people to forget.
Pregnancy is ****ing dangerous! Medical intervention is often required.
Suggesting that neither mother nor foetus succumb to pregnancy is ludicrous.
And without medical intervention, the burden of humans with varying gene expression grows exponentially.
I didn't suggest pregnancy was not dangerous, I suggested that abortions are.
Select to expand quotecammd said..psychojoe said..cammd said..D3 said..
CAMMD, you accept the WHO estimate of 73 million abortions.
Do you also accept the estimate that 32 million of those are unsafe, which mostly occur in developing Nations and result in much higher rates of maternal deaths?
Banning abortion in the rest of the world will only increase the number of unsafe abortions in the developed nations. 73 million abortions will still happen, unfortunately they will then result in more women dieing, not saving lives
Per Year
73 Million abortions are unsafe to babies.
32 Million abortions are unsafe to Mothers
If they didn't happen that's over 100M mothers and babies that would not be killed or harmed
and your arguing they are a good thing. That is some twisted logic
This is almost funny.
I know we live in a time of vastly improved medical science, so it's easy for people to forget.
Pregnancy is ****ing dangerous! Medical intervention is often required.
Suggesting that neither mother nor foetus succumb to pregnancy is ludicrous.
And without medical intervention, the burden of humans with varying gene expression grows exponentially.
I didn't suggest pregnancy was not dangerous, I suggested that abortions are.
Actually, you said 100m wouldn't be killed or harmed. But often enough the truth is that not aborting would lead to death or harm.
Select to expand quotecammd said..D3 said..
CAMMD, you accept the WHO estimate of 73 million abortions.
Do you also accept the estimate that 32 million of those are unsafe, which mostly occur in developing Nations and result in much higher rates of maternal deaths?
Banning abortion in the rest of the world will only increase the number of unsafe abortions in the developed nations. 73 million abortions will still happen, unfortunately they will then result in more women dieing, not saving lives
Per Year
73 Million abortions are unsafe to babies.
32 Million abortions are unsafe to Mothers
If they didn't happen that's over 100M mothers and babies that would not be killed or harmed
and your arguing they are a good thing. That is some twisted logic
I stated this in the other thread, but wouldn't lack of abortion just end up in other forms of birth control and family planning? You are not going to create another 73m people a year from banning abortion, you are just going to change the way people avoid these pregnancies.
So these 'babies' are not going to exist anyway, or at least a large proportion of them.
But, every sperm is sacred, or egg in this case...
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..cammd said..D3 said..
CAMMD, you accept the WHO estimate of 73 million abortions.
Do you also accept the estimate that 32 million of those are unsafe, which mostly occur in developing Nations and result in much higher rates of maternal deaths?
Banning abortion in the rest of the world will only increase the number of unsafe abortions in the developed nations. 73 million abortions will still happen, unfortunately they will then result in more women dieing, not saving lives
Per Year
73 Million abortions are unsafe to babies.
32 Million abortions are unsafe to Mothers
If they didn't happen that's over 100M mothers and babies that would not be killed or harmed
and your arguing they are a good thing. That is some twisted logic
I stated this in the other thread, but wouldn't lack of abortion just end up in other forms of birth control and family planning? You are not going to create another 73m people a year from banning abortion, you are just going to change the way people avoid these pregnancies.
So these 'babies' are not going to exist anyway, or at least a large proportion of them.
But, every sperm is sacred, or egg in this case...
Its not about cells, its not about creating 73 million extra people, I don't care about babies or pregnancies that don't exist. But once they do exist then its about human beings, its about an individuals life. If anyone could show scientifically that an unborn baby is not a human life, that its not an individual with it's own DNA seperate from its Mother and Father and unique I would change my position.
But no one can because it is all of those things. If you think that its somehow less of a human than yourself because its at a different stage of life then you are wrong. The science is clear, it's crystal clear, indisputable, your just choosing to ignore it. That is the same level of denial as a flat earther.
Select to expand quotecammd said..FormulaNova said..cammd said..D3 said..
CAMMD, you accept the WHO estimate of 73 million abortions.
Do you also accept the estimate that 32 million of those are unsafe, which mostly occur in developing Nations and result in much higher rates of maternal deaths?
Banning abortion in the rest of the world will only increase the number of unsafe abortions in the developed nations. 73 million abortions will still happen, unfortunately they will then result in more women dieing, not saving lives
Per Year
73 Million abortions are unsafe to babies.
32 Million abortions are unsafe to Mothers
If they didn't happen that's over 100M mothers and babies that would not be killed or harmed
and your arguing they are a good thing. That is some twisted logic
I stated this in the other thread, but wouldn't lack of abortion just end up in other forms of birth control and family planning? You are not going to create another 73m people a year from banning abortion, you are just going to change the way people avoid these pregnancies.
So these 'babies' are not going to exist anyway, or at least a large proportion of them.
But, every sperm is sacred, or egg in this case...
Its not about cells, its not about creating 73 million extra people, I don't care about babies or pregnancies that don't exist. But once they do exist then its about human beings, its about an individuals life. If anyone could show scientifically that an unborn baby is not a human life, that its not an individual with it's own DNA seperate from its Mother and Father and unique I would change my position.
But no one can because it is all of those things. If you think that its somehow less of a human than yourself because its at a different stage of life then you are wrong. The science is clear, it's crystal clear, indisputable, your just choosing to ignore it. That is the same level of denial as a flat earther.
Oh good, sounds like you're only one science lesson away from becoming prochoice, or more appropriately, pro not forced suffering, or more accurately, pro informed consent.
As for the DNA being unique, are you including chromosomes 23 & 24, they're not really affected by the father and not unique to the child, so you're argument has some holes in it.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..cammd said..FormulaNova said..cammd said..D3 said..
CAMMD, you accept the WHO estimate of 73 million abortions.
Do you also accept the estimate that 32 million of those are unsafe, which mostly occur in developing Nations and result in much higher rates of maternal deaths?
Banning abortion in the rest of the world will only increase the number of unsafe abortions in the developed nations. 73 million abortions will still happen, unfortunately they will then result in more women dieing, not saving lives
Per Year
73 Million abortions are unsafe to babies.
32 Million abortions are unsafe to Mothers
If they didn't happen that's over 100M mothers and babies that would not be killed or harmed
and your arguing they are a good thing. That is some twisted logic
I stated this in the other thread, but wouldn't lack of abortion just end up in other forms of birth control and family planning? You are not going to create another 73m people a year from banning abortion, you are just going to change the way people avoid these pregnancies.
So these 'babies' are not going to exist anyway, or at least a large proportion of them.
But, every sperm is sacred, or egg in this case...
Its not about cells, its not about creating 73 million extra people, I don't care about babies or pregnancies that don't exist. But once they do exist then its about human beings, its about an individuals life. If anyone could show scientifically that an unborn baby is not a human life, that its not an individual with it's own DNA seperate from its Mother and Father and unique I would change my position.
But no one can because it is all of those things. If you think that its somehow less of a human than yourself because its at a different stage of life then you are wrong. The science is clear, it's crystal clear, indisputable, your just choosing to ignore it. That is the same level of denial as a flat earther.
Oh good, sounds like you're only one science lesson away from becoming prochoice, or more appropriately, pro not forced suffering, or more accurately, pro informed consent.
As for the DNA being unique, are you including chromosomes 23 & 24, they're not really affected by the father and not unique to the child, so you're argument has some holes in it.
Flat earthers find plenty of holes in the heliocentric argument as well.
Select to expand quotecammd said..psychojoe said..cammd said..FormulaNova said..cammd said..D3 said..
CAMMD, you accept the WHO estimate of 73 million abortions.
Do you also accept the estimate that 32 million of those are unsafe, which mostly occur in developing Nations and result in much higher rates of maternal deaths?
Banning abortion in the rest of the world will only increase the number of unsafe abortions in the developed nations. 73 million abortions will still happen, unfortunately they will then result in more women dieing, not saving lives
Per Year
73 Million abortions are unsafe to babies.
32 Million abortions are unsafe to Mothers
If they didn't happen that's over 100M mothers and babies that would not be killed or harmed
and your arguing they are a good thing. That is some twisted logic
I stated this in the other thread, but wouldn't lack of abortion just end up in other forms of birth control and family planning? You are not going to create another 73m people a year from banning abortion, you are just going to change the way people avoid these pregnancies.
So these 'babies' are not going to exist anyway, or at least a large proportion of them.
But, every sperm is sacred, or egg in this case...
Its not about cells, its not about creating 73 million extra people, I don't care about babies or pregnancies that don't exist. But once they do exist then its about human beings, its about an individuals life. If anyone could show scientifically that an unborn baby is not a human life, that its not an individual with it's own DNA seperate from its Mother and Father and unique I would change my position.
But no one can because it is all of those things. If you think that its somehow less of a human than yourself because its at a different stage of life then you are wrong. The science is clear, it's crystal clear, indisputable, your just choosing to ignore it. That is the same level of denial as a flat earther.
Oh good, sounds like you're only one science lesson away from becoming prochoice, or more appropriately, pro not forced suffering, or more accurately, pro informed consent.
As for the DNA being unique, are you including chromosomes 23 & 24, they're not really affected by the father and not unique to the child, so you're argument has some holes in it.
Flat earthers find plenty of holes in the heliocentric argument as well.
I've never really understood the flat earth thing. I guess it's just a fun way to have an argument without needing any subject matter.
I've got a cousin who just groans, he sits, rocks back and forth, groans and dribbles. Non verbal, guess he'd be about 40 now. 40 years of spoon feeding and ass wiping. I don't even know if he's still alive and quite frankly I don't give a ****, he should've been a ****ing abortion. It's the attitude of people like yourself that promotes this suffering.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..cammd said..psychojoe said..cammd said..FormulaNova said..cammd said..D3 said..
CAMMD, you accept the WHO estimate of 73 million abortions.
Do you also accept the estimate that 32 million of those are unsafe, which mostly occur in developing Nations and result in much higher rates of maternal deaths?
Banning abortion in the rest of the world will only increase the number of unsafe abortions in the developed nations. 73 million abortions will still happen, unfortunately they will then result in more women dieing, not saving lives
Per Year
73 Million abortions are unsafe to babies.
32 Million abortions are unsafe to Mothers
If they didn't happen that's over 100M mothers and babies that would not be killed or harmed
and your arguing they are a good thing. That is some twisted logic
I stated this in the other thread, but wouldn't lack of abortion just end up in other forms of birth control and family planning? You are not going to create another 73m people a year from banning abortion, you are just going to change the way people avoid these pregnancies.
So these 'babies' are not going to exist anyway, or at least a large proportion of them.
But, every sperm is sacred, or egg in this case...
Its not about cells, its not about creating 73 million extra people, I don't care about babies or pregnancies that don't exist. But once they do exist then its about human beings, its about an individuals life. If anyone could show scientifically that an unborn baby is not a human life, that its not an individual with it's own DNA seperate from its Mother and Father and unique I would change my position.
But no one can because it is all of those things. If you think that its somehow less of a human than yourself because its at a different stage of life then you are wrong. The science is clear, it's crystal clear, indisputable, your just choosing to ignore it. That is the same level of denial as a flat earther.
Oh good, sounds like you're only one science lesson away from becoming prochoice, or more appropriately, pro not forced suffering, or more accurately, pro informed consent.
As for the DNA being unique, are you including chromosomes 23 & 24, they're not really affected by the father and not unique to the child, so you're argument has some holes in it.
Flat earthers find plenty of holes in the heliocentric argument as well.
I've never really understood the flat earth thing. I guess it's just a fun way to have an argument without needing any subject matter.
I've got a cousin who just groans, he sits, rocks back and forth, groans and dribbles. Non verbal, guess he'd be about 40 now. 40 years of spoon feeding and ass wiping. I don't even know if he's still alive and quite frankly I don't give a ****, he should've been a ****ing abortion. It's the attitude of people like yourself that promotes this suffering.
That's a slippery slope, plenty of people judge other people lives deeming not worth living. Yet the majority of people living those "unworthy" lives hang onto them, they don't want to give them up.
Who are you to judge who's life is worthy or unworthy. You must think your pretty special having that sort of super power.
Select to expand quotecammd said...
That's a slippery slope, plenty of people judge other people lives deeming not worth living. Yet the majority of people living those "unworthy" lives hang onto them, they don't want to give them up.
Who are you to judge who's life is worthy or unworthy. You must think your pretty special having that sort of super power.
You seem a bit confused. You've already used your 'super power' to deem that families and society in general must suffer the burden of all failed pregnancies.
Select to expand quoteJust received this email from a friend who read a post from Reddit asking if she should have an abortion cause her boyfriend left her for another woman.
So i can answer really easily.
WRONG.
This is your child you fing idiot. I know we have become a selfish society, but have we fallen this far?
Its your child....
There are women out there that have been trying for years to get pregnant, they go through IVF treatment at great expense and the emotional toll it takes is enormous.
Now maybe its an age thing but surely we haven't completely lost our minds, when children are seen as an inconvenience or a lever to hurt others in our lives then we need to take a serious look at ourselves
I did not mention the fact she had a good paying job and is choosing a career over motherhood, her words not mine, I think it says it all.
Have we lost our souls?
Yeah, I think we have.
An Ob/Gyn acquaintance of mine always said:
If you're not using contraception, you better be planning on that pregnancy.
But why would you say someone has lost their soul just because they want to put their career ahead of having to become a mother?
For most women, becoming a Mum puts the rest of their life in hold.
Especially if they find themselves to be a single parent.
A thought crossed my mind this afternoon that's kind of tangential to the issue.
Why is it that RWNJs get so vocal about controlling who can come into the country from another place on the planet, but they absolutely don't care what kind of people are brought into existence if the potential parents are already here? In fact plenty of them insist that the potentiality be realised no matter the quality of either generation
Just seems contradictory to me.
And I'll add another one for pcdefender, cammd etc.
I had a heart attack a few weeks ago, so now I'm supposed to be supporting Big Pharma with a daily statin pill. I'm mostly good with it, but I'm not used to taking pills, so sometimes I forget.
That makes it easy for me to imagine a pregnancy resulting from a missed dose of estrogen
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
And I'll add another one for pcdefender, cammd etc.
I had a heart attack a few weeks ago, so now I'm supposed to be supporting Big Pharma with a daily statin pill. I'm mostly good with it, but I'm not used to taking pills, so sometimes I forget.
That makes it easy for me to imagine a pregnancy resulting from a missed dose of estrogen
Get an app for your phone, it reminds you to take your medication. After loading it 9 months ago I've only forgotten once. Oh, and get on with life, forget the attack ever happened, get fit and move on.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
A thought crossed my mind this afternoon that's kind of tangential to the issue.
Why is it that RWNJs get so vocal about controlling who can come into the country from another place on the planet, but they absolutely don't care what kind of people are brought into existence if the potential parents are already here? In fact plenty of them insist that the potentiality be realised no matter the quality of either generation
Just seems contradictory to me.
I just decoded RWNJs. 
Yep, no good bringing kids into the world if you are going to give them a crappy upbringing.
But, given that more middle class educated people seem to not want to have that many kids, whether it is cost of living, or other reasons, maybe we do need to allow a certain amount of leeway?
I know it sounds a bit like a RWNJ mindset, but I am worried now that with the current levels of migration it might overwhelm our current approach to life. I like the typical Australian approach to life, but I worry that it becomes too cut-throat if we rush to take in a lot of people that have grown up in that sort of environment.
RWNJ is used for a lack of any other response to counter factual arguments.
If being factually correct makes me RWNJ that says more about you than it does me.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
And I'll add another one for pcdefender, cammd etc.
I had a heart attack a few weeks ago, so now I'm supposed to be supporting Big Pharma with a daily statin pill. I'm mostly good with it, but I'm not used to taking pills, so sometimes I forget.
That makes it easy for me to imagine a pregnancy resulting from a missed dose of estrogen
Raises an interesting discussion point.
All forms of contraception have been known to fail (breakthrough pregnancy), some are better than others.
But the only way a woman can guarantee not to get pregnant, is to completely abstain from sex.
Even if she's married, if they're not in a situation where she can stop working and look after the child, they'd both better be willing to give up on the boinking.
I'd imagine that's not an attractive option for most couples
Tucker Carlson tells Alex Jones abortion is a demonic 'offering to the spirit world' - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Tucker Carlson tells Alex Jones abortion is a demonic 'offering to the spirit world' - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)
Who the heck is Tucker Carlson? Who is Alex Jones?
Now for anyone to know that something is a demonic offering to the spirit world means that they have been in contact with the spirit world itself, suggesting that they themselves are a demon or the devil. The rest of us can only go there once.
Do you want to trust the word of a demon? Surely the bible says some nasty stuff about people talking about talking with the spirit world? Are you getting your favorite feelings of being incongruent? Your 'cognitive dissonance'?
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Tucker Carlson tells Alex Jones abortion is a demonic 'offering to the spirit world' - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)
2 middle aged men complaining about abortion, sounds familiar?
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Tucker Carlson tells Alex Jones abortion is a demonic 'offering to the spirit world' - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)
These two broadcasting is why the aliens don't make contact and keep on passing by...
Labor and the greens voted down a motion in the senate to provide care for children born alive as a result of a failed abortion.
It's unthinkable that anyone would deliberately deny care to a suffering child, even if it's only palliative care, Labor and the Greens are animals.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
Labor and the greens voted down a motion in the senate to provide care for children born alive as a result of a failed abortion.
It's unthinkable that anyone would deliberately deny care to a suffering child, even if it's only palliative care, Labor and the Greens are animals.
You've gotta know that the parents aren't suddenly going to pull their socks up and make the world a special place for their failed abortion. I know that if I died you'd take good care of my children but how much more common do you think abuse is against non-biological children?
Select to expand quotecammd said..
Labor and the greens voted down a motion in the senate to provide care for children born alive as a result of a failed abortion.
It's unthinkable that anyone would deliberately deny care to a suffering child, even if it's only palliative care, Labor and the Greens are animals.
And Liberals; Kovacic, Bragg, Hume and Birmingham.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
You've gotta know that the parents aren't suddenly going to pull their socks up and make the world a special place for their failed abortion.
Murder is murder.
Thou shalt not kill.
Select to expand quoteremery said..cammd said..
Labor and the greens voted down a motion in the senate to provide care for children born alive as a result of a failed abortion.
It's unthinkable that anyone would deliberately deny care to a suffering child, even if it's only palliative care, Labor and the Greens are animals.
And Liberals; Kovacic, Bragg, Hume and Birmingham.
Equally disgusting
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..cammd said..
Labor and the greens voted down a motion in the senate to provide care for children born alive as a result of a failed abortion.
It's unthinkable that anyone would deliberately deny care to a suffering child, even if it's only palliative care, Labor and the Greens are animals.
You've gotta know that the parents aren't suddenly going to pull their socks up and make the world a special place for their failed abortion. I know that if I died you'd take good care of my children but how much more common do you think abuse is against non-biological children?
Again, its unthinkable that anyone would deliberately deny care to a suffering child, that it all there is to it.
If a baby is suffering, assist it, there is no argument that could justify not doing that.
