Are "Poor" Women too stupid to avoid getting pregnant?

[surada]

There is a high correlation between low IQ, and low impulse control.

Like Trump?

 

[Blues Man]

then what exactly is the difference? you do realize that if you continue down this path of argument you will lose, right?

You assume I'm trying to change your mind. I'm not so what exactly can i win or lose?

You will never change a person's mind on this subject. Women who think abortion should be legal will not be swayed by your arguments either.

It is my opinion that viability is a reasonable limit to set for abortions. IDGAF if you agree or disagree.

A 2 cell zygote is not the same as a child that has been born.

 

[gronked]

I really don't care. I think viability outside the womb is a reasonable limit on abortions.

And there is no winning this debate. it's like arguing religion. You're never going to change anyone's mind.

winning a debate has nothing to do with changing anyone's mind. If you dont care, why are you here on a message board discussing the topic?

and, as you certainly already know, there are MILLIONS of people living outside of the womb who are not viable at all. should we be able to abort them?

another take on the fallacy of viability as a litmus test on the limit on abortions is location. a premie born at 19 weeks in new york city may be "viable" outside of the womb due to the quality and expertise of the healthcare located there. the same exact premie would not be "viable" if they were born in West Virginia or northern Alaska. same baby, different location.

viability is a TERRIBLE test for any type of limit on abortion.

 

[gronked]

You assume I'm trying to change your mind. I'm not so what exactly can i win or lose?

You will never change a person's mind on this subject. Women who think abortion should be legal will not be swayed by your arguments either.

It is my opinion that viability is a reasonable limit to set for abortions. IDGAF if you agree or disagree.

A 2 cell zygote is not the same as a child that has been born.

A 2 cell zygote has ALL of the genetic information needed to develop that human. just the same as the child that has just been born. the ONLY differences are development and location.

 

[Blues Man]

winning a debate has nothing to do with changing anyone's mind. If you dont care, why are you here on a message board discussing the topic?

and, as you certainly already know, there are MILLIONS of people living outside of the womb who are not viable at all. should we be able to abort them?

another take on the fallacy of viability as a litmus test on the limit on abortions is location. a premie born at 19 weeks in new york city may be "viable" outside of the womb due to the quality and expertise of the healthcare located there. the same exact premie would not be "viable" if they were born in West Virginia or northern Alaska. same baby, different location.

viability is a TERRIBLE test for any type of limit on abortion.

If any person who is by some event incapacitated and only kept alive by artificial means wants to end his life do you think he should be able to? Or should he be forced to linger in the most undignified way?

There is a difference between a person who has already been born and a fetus that cannot survive outside the womb.
Look viability of any fetus before 20 weeks is improbable and that will most likely remain a pretty hard limit

And FYI viability takes current medical technology into account.

 

[Blues Man]

A 2 cell zygote has ALL of the genetic information needed to develop that human. just the same as the child that has just been born. the ONLY differences are development and location.

Yes it does and but it only has the potential to develop into a fully formed human. It is not yet a fully formed human

 

[Ralph Norton]

winning a debate has nothing to do with changing anyone's mind. If you dont care, why are you here on a message board discussing the topic?

and, as you certainly already know, there are MILLIONS of people living outside of the womb who are not viable at all. should we be able to abort them?

another take on the fallacy of viability as a litmus test on the limit on abortions is location. a premie born at 19 weeks in new york city may be "viable" outside of the womb due to the quality and expertise of the healthcare located there. the same exact premie would not be "viable" if they were born in West Virginia or northern Alaska. same baby, different location.

viability is a TERRIBLE test for any type of limit on abortion.

"there are MILLIONS of people living outside of the womb who are not viable at all"
What the hell is that supposed to mean?

 

[gronked]

If any person who is by some event incapacitated and only kept alive by artificial means wants to end his life do you think he should be able to? Or should he be forced to linger in the most undignified way?

There is a difference between a person who has already been born and a fetus that cannot survive outside the womb.
Look viability of any fetus before 20 weeks is improbable and that will most likely remain a pretty hard limit

And FYI viability takes current medical technology into account.

completely separate topic. The person incapacitated can decide for him/herself. the unborn has no personal say, so they need an advocate.

are you actually saying that a premie born in Nome Alaska has the same viability as one born at the UCLA Medical center? you truly dont believe that do you?

 

[gronked]

"there are MILLIONS of people living outside of the womb who are not viable at all"
What the hell is that supposed to mean?

you do know what the definition of viable is, right? You know, one who is capable of growing, functioning or developing independently.

people reliant on insulin are not "viable" those who require O2 are not "viable" there are hundreds of examples.

does fact that those humans are unable of functioning independently of the support of medicine or technology give anyone the right to end their lives?

of course not. this is really easy stuff.

 

[gronked]

Yes it does and but it only has the potential to develop into a fully formed human. It is not yet a fully formed human

why does it need to be killed if it is only potential?

 

[Vastator]

you do know what the definition of viable is, right? You know, one who is capable of growing, functioning or developing independently.

people reliant on insulin are not "viable" those who require O2 are not "viable" there are hundreds of examples.

does fact that those humans are unable of functioning independently of the support of medicine or technology give anyone the right to end their lives?

of course not. this is really easy stuff.

Utter horseshit. You’re tacking on that independently part. Humans in general cannot develop independently till usually their teens.

 

[Ralph Norton]

you do know what the definition of viable is, right? You know, one who is capable of growing, functioning or developing independently.

people reliant on insulin are not "viable" those who require O2 are not "viable" there are hundreds of examples.

does fact that those humans are unable of functioning independently of the support of medicine or technology give anyone the right to end their lives?

of course not. this is really easy stuff.

Given that all people are reliant on food, by your "logic" no one is "viable".
But I bet you were something on the Junior High debate team.

 

[DarthTrader]

Stupid people tend to make poor choices.

That is why the poor tend to be stupid.

Then make them suffer the consequences.

 

[gronked]

Utter horseshit. You’re tacking on that independently part. Humans in general cannot develop independently till usually their teens.

wow, if you have resorted to cursing, I must be heading down the correct road here!

I guess Mr's merriam and webster must have also tacked on that "independently part" as well...

"capable of existence and development as an independent unit"

 

[gronked]

Given that all people are reliant on food, by your "logic" no one is "viable".
But I bet you were something on the Junior High debate team.

I really was something else. I am so sorry you got cut from your Jr. High team. maybe next year!

 

[Vastator]

wow, if you have resorted to cursing, I must be heading down the correct road here!

I guess Mr's merriam and webster must have also tacked on that "independently part" as well...

"capable of existence and development as an independent unit"

No human can survive independently short of their teenage years. And cursing comes as natural as breathing to me. It’s just one of my many charms.

 

[gronked]

No human can survive independently short of their teenage years. And cursing comes as natural as breathing to me. It’s just one of my many charms.

so... should it be an individual choice to kill them if they are not viable and are unwanted?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Disturbing statistic: Black women, who comprise less than 7% of the population, are the recipients of more than 40% of the abortions. Is that simply a function of poverty, or are other factors in

Why not answer your own question?

 

[Jets]

So, if the stats are accurate, states that either prohibit or restrict abortion will end up with more poor families on public assistance.

Talk about a Pyrrhic victory…

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

Then make them suffer the consequences.

Well, when a person had to bear the burden of their stupid decisions, that was possible.

Not No Mo.

It's called a social safety net...and that's on you, and me.

So when some ghetto queen goes out and gets knocked up...because she cannot think critically...guess who will be footing those bills?

Yeap.