How many men have no clue

a reply to: Quadrivium

At what point were they, or their partner, unwilling?

At every point, in cases where procreation is not the goal.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

You have about 3 hours to edit that post.

I know, it's over your head.

No, seriously!
You know that will stay up as long as ATS is around, right?
Read what you wrote, then go read something with actual meaning.
TicToc.....
(Only a little over 2 hrs left)

Call it whatever you want. No person, no human being, has the right to hook themselves up to anyone else, without their consent, for life support.

In 99% of abortion cases, consent was given.

Sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy nor parenthood.

Simple facts to consider:
1. All mammals reproduce through sexual intercourse.
2. If you are having consensual sex, you understand there is a possibility of becoming pregnant.
3. No form of birth control, currently available, is 100% effective.
4. Once Mitosis begins the reproduction part, in "reproductive rights", is complete.
5. Mitosis marks the beginning of a human being life cycle. They will continue to develop and change, from this point forward, until the day they die.
6. Abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being.
7. In the link to the 1600s law I posted earlier, If you replace the word "slave holder" with "mother" and "enslaved" with "unborn", they have the exact same meaning.
8. Did I mention that abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being?

ETA:
For reference:

The law provided that an enslaver's killing of an enslaved person could not constitute murder because the “premeditated malice” element of murder could not be formed against one’s own property.

calendar.eji.org...

Just for fun, let's compare!

The law provided that an mother's killing of an unborn person could not constitute murder because the “premeditated malice” element of murder could not be formed against one’s own property.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

At what point were they, or their partner, unwilling?

At every point, in cases where procreation is not the goal.

It is always a possibility regardless of the "goal".

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: Quadrivium

I'm not at all sorry I couldn't have children. I didn't want them and I'm damn glad that early on, when I still thought I could get pregnant, safe abortion was an option available to me.

No one should be denied a safe abortion. I wouldn't wish a forced pregnancy on my worst enemy. That is 18 years of servitude.

*sigh....
Again, in 99% of abortion cases, no one was forced into anything.
They made a choice, knowing the possible outcome.

My goal in buying a lottery ticket is to win. Most times, I will not win. It is acceptable. Tearing up a winning ticket is foolish.

But look at it this way, if 65 million had not been aborted over the last 50 years then there is a very good chance that abortion would still be legal. How is that? Because those that would be likely to abort would raise kids that would also be likely to abort. Thus they would vote accordingly. But will you kill off your support system… we will revisit this issue again when too many elderly are abused at senior centers because they don’t have children willing to take them in. The old if you hadn’t killed them off…

originally posted by: Quadrivium

It is a human being.
The only difference between a zygote and you is where you both are in your life cycle.
We could debate being human aka "personhood" vs human being but, as I said, that would move the argument to one with philosophical and spiritual connotations.

OK, so what does the term human being mean here? Are we talking a religious, Constitutional or society norm perspective? You really can't say its a human being at one cell so has all rights of a person unless you define your perspective as they are all different.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Put your money where your mouth is, if it's total BS, and just say that people should be forced to donate blood, kidneys, livers, bone marrow, lungs, ect. if it would save a life.

The reason your logic is BS is because the unborn does not eat any of those parts you suggest, after birth the mother has them all still. Its been that way for IDK 65 million years.

I doubt you would say It is all BS if it was your diabetic daughter needing an abortion, or your wife was suffering heart or liver failure because of her pregnancy.

Now you are jumping to a hyperbole and I think everyone agrees if the mother's life was really at stake an abortion is OK.

I'm not against abortions, I'm against the left not calling it what it is...

a reply to: Quadrivium

There you go again, worshipping biology, as if mankind hasn't evolved to overcome biological and nature's obstacles.

If you are having consensual sex, you understand there is a possibility of becoming pregnant.

So? There's possibility of getting hit by a drunk driver too. That doesn't mean, because you took the risk to drive on a road. your insurance is no good. Accidents happen.

But I would dare say, most sex is emotionally motivated, meaning, it's based on "feelz". If feelz can bring about pregnancy, there's no reason why feelz can't terminate pregnancy.

Once Mitosis begins the reproduction part, in "reproductive rights", is complete.

LOL WUT?

Abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being.

A non-viable, non-sentient, potential human being, still in the oven.

In the link to the 1600s law I posted earlier, If you replace the word "slave holder" with "mother" and "enslaved" with "unborn", they have the exact same meaning.

Nope. Not even in your wildest imagination is a fetus like a slave. On the other hand, forcing a 10 year old girl, who is too young to even legally babysit, to give birth, only to have the state take that baby and give to an adoption agency, is forced servitude. Forcing any woman to give birth and adopt out a child for someone else's parental pleasure, is slavery.

By the way, In the 1600s, a man couldn't rape his wife, because he owned her. And, oh yeah, you could accuse her of witchcraft and have her killed.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Quadrivium

It is a human being.
The only difference between a zygote and you is where you both are in your life cycle.
We could debate being human aka "personhood" vs human being but, as I said, that would move the argument to one with philosophical and spiritual connotations.

OK, so what does the term human being mean here? Are we talking a religious, Constitutional or society norm perspective? You really can't say its a human being at one cell so has all rights of a person unless you define your perspective as they are all different.

It is a human being.
I have already posted the link for you, from the National Institute of Health, pages ago.
Once Mitosis begins, it becomes a new human being.
It initiates it's own life cycle.
Once initiated, this life cycle will continue forward.
They will continue to develop and change through the entirety of their life cycle, right up to the day they die.
The human being after mitosis, birth, infancy, adolescence, adult hood and old age are the same human being.
The only difference is the stage of their life cycle.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The reason your logic is BS is because the unborn does not eat any of those parts you suggest, after birth the mother has them all still. Its been that way for IDK 65 million years.

For 65 million years, minus 50 or so, the number 1 cause of women dying was childbirth. Still today, women's bodies can be irrevocably changed due to pregnancy.

pre-eclampsia can lead to gestational diabetes and liver disease, and women who have problem pregnancies are typically at risk for heart disease and stroke.

Women with a history of adverse pregnancy outcomes are at increased risk of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases later in life. Data increasingly links maternal vascular, metabolic, and inflammatory complications of pregnancy with an increased risk of vascular disease in later life.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Now you are jumping to a hyperbole and I think everyone agrees if the mother's life was really at stake an abortion is OK.

You would be dead wrong. Texas is suing the federal government, because the law says hospitals and emergency rooms have to "stabilize" pregnant women having miscarriages or in early labor, even if that means aborting the fetus to save a woman's life.

In Kansas, they're voting on whether or not state legislatures can outlaw abortion even in cases where the mother's life is at risk. Ohio won't let 10 year olds, whose bodies are not developed enough to deliver a healthy baby, have abortions.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

There you go again, worshipping biology, as if mankind hasn't evolved to overcome biological and nature's obstacles.

Are you Bipolar by chance, or do you regularly contradict yourself?
Seriously, you go from "Nature gives us no "right to life"" in one post to "evolved to overcome biological and nature's obstacles" in this post.

So? There's possibility of getting hit by a drunk driver too. That doesn't mean, because you took the risk to drive on a road. your insurance is no good. Accidents happen.

But I would dare say, most sex is emotionally motivated, meaning, it's based on "feelz". If feelz can bring about pregnancy, there's no reason why feelz can't terminate pregnancy.

......
Your analogy is flawed, unless.... you are the drunk driver who hit and killed an innocent bystander.
Abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being.

LOL WUT?

Once Mitosis begins the reproduction part, of reproductive rights, is complete.
You have reproductive rights. To reproduce or not reproduce.
Once Mitosis begins, congratulations!
You have successfully helped reproduced another individual human being.

[

A non-viable, non-sentient, potential human being, still in the oven.

A human being that, ike every one of us had to do, is beginning their life cycle. Each and every human being on earth started their life cycle at precisely this point.
Abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being.

Nope. Not even in your wildest imagination is a fetus like a slave.

I never said "a fetus is like a slave", I know better. People with your mentality don't.
I said, like slavers, you believe another human being is "less than" and or "property".
How are you different?

On the other hand, forcing a 10 year old girl, who is too young to even legally babysit, to give birth, only to have the state take that baby and give to an adoption agency, is forced servitude

This is an informal fallacy know as "Faulty Generalization" and it is a very sick, twisted way of trying to prove a point.
You don't care anything about a 10 year old or any woman being raped. You just want to stand on their shoulders to get what YOU want.
It's sickening to watch y'all USE the 1% to justify the 99%.
You should be ashamed.

Forcing any woman to give birth and adopt out a child for someone else's parental pleasure, is slavery.

In 99% of abortions, no one was forced into anything. Standing on the shoulders of that 1%, or less to get what you want is a terrible thing to do.

By the way, In the 1600s, a man couldn't rape his wife, because he owned her. And, oh yeah, you could accuse her of witchcraft and have her killed.

So you agree that these practices, from the 1600s, were wrong and are outdated now, but you still claim one set of human beings are property and/or "less than human".
Again, how are you different?
How does that change the fact that your thought process is just as backwards as the slavers?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

We found out that a few religious nut jobs, appointed by pandering politicians, can interpret the constitution any way they please

I thought they proved that in 1973. Welcome to reality.

The Court has the lost respect and authority

...because this time you disagreed with them.

That's called "having your cake and eating it too." Don't work that way. You don't get to decide whether you like the laws based on how well they fit your agenda... at least, not and maintain any credibility. The law is the law, Sookiechacha. Live with it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

There you go again, worshipping biology, as if mankind hasn't evolved to overcome biological and nature's obstacles.

So now you are an "evolved" human? What has "evolved"? It sounds like you think humans have "evolved" to the point that women no longer get pregnant to reproduce. That makes me wonder why we haven't "evolved" to not get pregnant at all?

You are a slave to your biology. So am I. So is Quad. So is Xtrozero. So is every other member on this site. So is every other human on this planet. That's not going to change. That's the kind of statement that would make me call the authorities on someone to have them tested... it's literally an insane statement. I consider it more insane than the guy screaming about the end of the world on the street corner. There's actually a chance (1 in 10^100000000000000000000?) that he could actually be right!

But, of course, on the Internet I can't do that. So I'll just keep laughing at your rambling rants and hope you'll seek professional help, the sooner the better.

Bless yore little heart.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: Quadrivium

I'm not at all sorry I couldn't have children. I didn't want them and I'm damn glad that early on, when I still thought I could get pregnant, safe abortion was an option available to me.

No one should be denied a safe abortion. I wouldn't wish a forced pregnancy on my worst enemy. That is 18 years of servitude.

*sigh....
Again, in 99% of abortion cases, no one was forced into anything.
They made a choice, knowing the possible outcome.

If it were up to you women would be slaves to their womb. Fortunately, there are still pockets of sanity in the United States where women can get safe abortions.

If men could get pregnant we wouldn't even be having this discussion. You have no clue what it's like to be held hostage by your biology.

a reply to: VierEyes

You have no clue what it's like to be held hostage by your biology.

Talk to Sookiechacha. She has apparently figured out how to "evolve" out of that.



TheRedneck

a reply to: Quadrivium

Seriously, you go from "Nature gives us no "right to life"" in one post to "evolved to overcome biological and nature's obstacles" in this post.

That's right. Nature is our enemy, Dude. Nature WILL kill you.

We fashion cloths to protect us from natures elements. We build homes, flatten mountains to make roads, divert water to make dams, and find ways to kill germs and stave off viruses. We developed medicines, surgeries to remove bad organs, provide blood transfusions and even transplant organs from other people and other animals.

We've worked hard to fight nature, and as a result we live longer, healthier and happier lives than our ancestors.

This is an informal fallacy know as "Faulty Generalization" and it is a very sick, twisted way of trying to prove a point.

Except it really happened. Just this month Indiana AG has promised to "investigate" the doctor who gave the 10 year old an abortion. Christi Noam, SD Governor publicly stated that it's bad that a 10 year got pregnant from rape, but there is no reason to kill the innocent unborn baby. Numerous other prominent politicians echoed the same sentiment.

So you agree that these practices, from the 1600s, were wrong and are outdated now, but you still claim one set of human beings are property and/or "less than human".

I agree that women are autonomous beings, capable of making decisions about their own bodies, their own lives, and the lives of their families, when and if to start or add to their families, including terminating an unwanted pregnancy

a reply to: VierEyes

If it were up to you women would be slaves to their womb.

It is not up to me. In 99% of abortions the women had absolute, total control over their wombs.
You can't be a slave if you freely made the choice.
You can make yourself out to be a victim though. It's common for some people to do so, it's called "Victim Mentality".

You have no clue what it's like to be held hostage by your biology.

You're not. There is a difference between "being held hostage" and "denying " biology aka science.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's right. Nature is our enemy, Dude. Nature WILL kill you.

We fashion cloths to protect us from natures elements. We build homes, flatten mountains to make roads, divert water to make dams, and find ways to kill germs and stave off viruses. We developed medicines, surgeries to remove bad organs, provide blood transfusions and even transplant organs from other people and other animals.

We've worked hard to fight nature, and as a result we live longer, healthier and happier lives than our ancestors.

Nice heartfelt plea of victim-hood you had going there.
What does any of this have to do with the simple fact that abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being?

Except it really happened. Just this month Indiana AG has promised to "investigate" the doctor who gave the 10 year old an abortion. Christi Noam, SD Governor publicly stated that it's bad that a 10 year got pregnant from rape, but there is no reason to kill the innocent unborn baby. Numerous other prominent politicians echoed the same sentiment.

The lack of reading comprehension among those that have an outdated, backwards mentality is astounding. You all seem to share it....
Maybe it has to do with you just reading enough to get offended, because you want to be the victim....
This really is a strange phenomenon.

You see, I never said it didn't happen.
I said you were using what's know as "Faulty Generalization". You are using the very few to justify the many. You are technically standing on the shoulders of that 10 year old and using her lack of choice, pain, trauma and story to try and get what YOU want.
You don't care any more about her than you do about the human beings in the womb. She is just a tool, to you and others.
Sickening.

I agree that women are autonomous beings, capable of making decisions about their own bodies, their own lives, and the lives of their families, when and if to start or add to their families,

I fully agree!

including terminating an unwanted pregnancy

You mean the premeditated killing of another human being because you see them as less than human and/or property?
Yeah, you have a good bit in common with Nazi's and Slavers.

a reply to: Quadrivium

What does any of this have to do with the simple fact that abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being?

A non-sentient, non-viable, potential human being, in the making.

This is the same old trope, suggesting that women don't know what an abortion is, that they don't know what's in their uterus. It's why legislators want to shame women, to force women to get vaginal ultrasounds, see the sonogram and listen to the "heart beat", because they don't think women know what they're doing or what an abortion actually is. They do.

Women have no moral duty to a carry a fertilized egg, an embryo or a fetus to term.

Nice heartfelt plea of victim-hood you had going there.

Abortion is freedom from victimhood.

I said you were using what's know as "Faulty Generalization". You are using the very few to justify the many.

I'm emphasizing how incredibly unreasonable and disrespectful these misogynous laws are to all women, telling them that their biological output of offspring takes precedent over their self-determinism and is more valuable than they are.

You mean the premeditated killing of another human being because you see them as less than human and/or property?

And you see women's wombs as property that can be regulated by the individual states, on the whims of pandering politicians and religious zealots.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

It is a human being.
The only difference is the stage of their life cycle.

I guess my point is by what context can we not end that human being's development? I agree there is a life cycle, but at one cell what makes that so special that the development can not be ended? We end fully developed humans all the time well within the law and social norms, so what makes it different with a human being in the initial stages of development when it is not much more than cells?

This is where we get more into the religious context side of it all.