Zone1 Serious Question About Abortion

[Curried Goats]

And yet, it actually is. Please refrain from lying if possible.

I'll repeat. A child is made up of both its mother and fathers DNA. Feel free to continue to express confusion at the simple statement as if that is a dig on me.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

I'll repeat. A child is made up of both its mother and fathers DNA.

There are two possibilities.

1) your statement is a deliberate non-sequitur, and thus irrelevant

2) you think this assertion proves somehow, beyond all reason, that this means the kid is the same organism as his or her mom, in which case you are delusional and making this claim you say you are not making

Neither one is a good look, neither one is good faith debating.

 

[Unkotare]

...

A significant % of unwanted children, aren't adopted ...

​

So you'd rather just kill them?

 

[ClaireH]

Deranged and objectively false.

Learn basic biology, basic embryology. Learn what a placenta is.

The kid is objectively NOT “part of his or her mother.”

Biology rejects this “part of the mother’s body” fully. “The unborn's genetic code is different than the mother's genetic code. A mother's body, tonsils, appendix, arms, and legs all share the same genetic code. An unborn child within a mother has a genetic code that is completely distinct from the mother.”

This is such a simple concept, new life impossible to occur without two separate entities uniting- female egg that cannot be fertilized without a male sperm. It’s beyond curious why some posters, including relatively educated adults, cannot grasp this basic concept. Is this due to stringent partisan posturing or a case of self-deception where believing whatever best fits to support a false narrative? Other possibilities to justify abortion is that they have had an abortion and using defense mechanism of believing “It was just part of my body, no different than cutting off a tumor, so it was my right”. Good grief.

High education rates correlate with lower abortion rates in a state to state comparison, except that New York claims top prize for ignorance running amok with
DC also in competition for having high percentages of abortions.

Since peaking in the late 80s early 90s where we had over twice the number of abortion facilities as we do now, there has been a yearly decline in number of abortions except for a recent uptick in 2019 within the US. It is unsurprising that abortionists state that this recent increase shows that there is a needs for more abortions- no. That devised assessment should be a SNL skit if not so twisted, when the true correlation is between better education about and access to
birth control equaling less abortions. Proven.

 

[Dayton3]

So now you're rejecting all of the studies and polls on the issue, conducted by different institutions and organizations, and appealing to what? Your feelings? Not only does the data agree with my assertion that poverty contributes to abortion rates, but reason and common sense. If a single or even a married woman is impoverished and barely able to support herself, what's the likelihood of her opting to bear the cost of pregnancy and raising a child? If a woman with a low income is working a full-time job, supporting herself, and now she's pregnant, facing the prospect of losing her job as a result of her pregnancy and having to incur the extra cost of pregnancy, birth, and raising a child for 18 years, the likelihood of her getting an abortion is much higher. If she wasn't poor, had a good paying job with healthcare benefits that cover all of her expenses, or at least had access to Medicaid or Medicare, and was living in a country that provides its citizens with a well-developed infrastructure that supports single mothers in their effort to raise healthy children and the means to live above the poverty line, the odds of her opting to abort her pregnancy would be much less.

I know you won't agree with anything I've just said because earlier you just took out your magic wand and flippantly dismissed the references that I presented in support of the original premise that poverty increases abortion rates. You obviously don't care what the experts, studies, polls, or institutions are saying on the subject, because you've decided that reality is whatever you want it to be, irrespective of the evidence or data. With people like you, there is no discussion or debate, because you're completely indifferent to reality and truth. Thankfully most people aren't as disingenuous and disinterested in the truth as you are, hence that's the only reason I'm still responding to you and your ilk. I do it for the sake of others, not the brainwashed, religious zealots that dishonestly dismiss whatever evidence is presented to them.

If you're too poor to afford raising a child you're too poor to be having sex anyway.

My reasoning is sound. Women want to have poverty as an excuse for an abortion because socially they face more direct public disdain for simply having an abortion for "convenience".

 

[ClaireH]

What makes you think women get abortions mainly due to poverty?

Number one reason quoted from women having surgical and medical
abortions in the US (this was a national
survey that is taken every 3 years from abortion clinics by a pro-abortion org which I will link shortly) is: not ready for a baby. That answer topped a separate answer-not financially able to afford baby.

An Overview of Abortion Laws

www.guttmacher.org

 

[Curried Goats]

There are two possibilities.

1) your statement is a deliberate non-sequitur, and thus irrelevant

It was relevant towards this comment:

Deranged and objectively false.

Learn basic biology, basic embryology. Learn what a placenta is.

The kid is objectively NOT “part of his or her mother.”

Objectively you are wrong. A fetus or embroy, developing inside the mother's womb (which is the scenario you were reply to) is a part of the mother. Period. That's it. Anything you inferred after that was you arguing against yourself.

2) you think this assertion proves somehow, beyond all reason, that this means the kid is the same organism as his or her mom, in which case you are delusional and making this claim you say you are not making

Wrong. A part of is not the same as.

Neither one is a good look, neither one is good faith debating.

I'm more than pleased with how our exchange is going so far.

 

[Dayton3]

Number one reason quoted from women having surgical and medical

And you believe them?

Give us a break.

 

[ClaireH]

Give us a break.

If you have an issue with the source there are other orgs at the tips of your fingers. Search- top reason women have abortions in the United States according to their own responses prior to abortion, at the abortion clinic. If you trust the findings of CDC it also tracks abortions across the country as well as conducts surveys like the other pro-abortion organization I linked. Research and learn.

 

[alang1216]

If the contraceptive fails then yes the company is liable for the damage inflicted.

Unlikely unless she can prove negligence by the drug company.

 

[Red Front]

You don’t care about “my body, my choice” when demanding people wear a mask or get vaccinated. Obviously. You gave up that talking point. Authoritarians like yourself can’t use that one anymore. You’re done.

And then of course the implied “hypocrisy” of not supporting social programs while supporting laws against murdering the born… when wanting laws against murdering the unborn… the same standard for both camps… I don’t know where you learned the language but the same standard universally isn’t “hypocrisy.”

Obviously, in the middle of a nationwide deadly pandemic, you don't have the right to become a public health hazard by refusing to wear a mask in public venues, where you can infect other human beings. Mask mandates are good under those rare circumstances. Comparing that to forcing a woman to remain pregnant because supposedly the embryo in her body is a human being and person with the same rights as her, is just asinine, but should anyone expect anything but that from mindless religious zealots? No, it's expected.

You Christians are irrational "pro-life" hypocrites because you gripe about wearing a mask in public in the middle of a deadly pandemic completely indifferent to public health and safety, placing other human beings at risk of contracting the virus, on the grounds that the government doesn't have a right to tell you what to wear on your face while using the same government to criminalize women for choosing not to be pregnant. Eliminating the life of an embryo is worlds apart from killing a human being, it's too bad for you that you're unable to see the difference between an embryo and a human being.

You also ironically, as a "pro-life" advocate, do everything possible to defund social programs that help pregnant women remain pregnant, give birth and later as single mothers, raise their children. Go to the most "Christian" parts of the US and you'll find most people uninsured and living in squalor without any assistance from their Republican-run local and state governments. Red states are the worst when it comes to medical outcomes and the number of people that are medically insured and receiving the assistance they need to survive. You religious nutbags defund every program that helps the poor and hand as much money and resources to the rich and powerful as possible. You worship mammon, that's your god. You're not pro-life, you're pro-pain and suffering, pro-disease and death.

 

[alang1216]

What DOESN'T sound like "slavery" to you and your ilk?

I guess you don't consider forcing a woman to risk her life and health, endure great discomfort and pain, and forego things she may want to do, just to benefit another to be slavery. We differ.

 

[Red Front]

If you're too poor to afford raising a child you're too poor to be having sex anyway.

My reasoning is sound. Women want to have poverty as an excuse for an abortion because socially they face more direct public disdain for simply having an abortion for "convenience".

Some women do have abortions for the sake of convenience, without having much of a need to do it other than they simply don't want to be mothers. Nonetheless, there is also a considerable number of women that opt to end their pregnancies because they can't afford to be pregnant or raise a child. If they had the resources to cover the cost of their healthcare and didn't have to worry about losing their jobs as a result of their pregnancies, and had the means to raise their children, the likelihood of them not getting an abortion would be much higher. Ironically and most unfortunately, the supposed "pro-life" conservatives are constantly defunding social programs and infrastructure that help low-income families and single mothers raise their children. Your bad politics against the poor actually increases the abortion rate.

More, your demand that people stop having sex because they're poor is just stupid. Sex is a natural function of people's lives and biology, so to demand that women of limited means all become celibate nuns, is just ludicrous, naive, and impractical, if not an insensitive cheap, misogynistic polemic against women. Are impoverished men also supposed to become celibate monks? You're just revealing how absurd the religious, conservative mind is.

 

[Red Front]

I ask the "pro-life" zealots if they would demand the government makes a parent legally obligated to give one of their children their kidney or some other part of their body if their children are in need of a transplant. If not, why not? You're demanding that a woman who conceives an embryo, give her body to that embryo by law, forcing her to carry it to full term, irrespective of whatever her life circumstances might be. An embryo or unviable, undeveloped fetus that isn't even a human person but rather just a potential, can supposedly, legally obligate a woman (an actual human being) to give her body to it in order to let it actualize its human personhood. Based on what do you force women to give their bodies to the gestation and development of embryos and unviable fetuses? Your opinion?

Why don't you then legally obligate parents to give parts of their bodies to their already-born children in cases where children need a transplant? Do you know why you're against that? Because you recognize that people have a certain degree of sovereignty over their own bodies and lives. The government shouldn't force a parent to give one of their kidneys or some other organ to their children. If you recognize that, why do you want to force women to remain pregnant with a zygote, embryo, or unviable fetus? Be consistent.

 

[Dayton3]

If you have an issue with the source there are other orgs at the tips of your fingers. Search- top reason women have abortions in the United States according to their own responses prior to abortion, at the abortion clinic. If you trust the findings of CDC it also tracks abortions across the country as well as conducts surveys like the other pro-abortion organization I linked. Research and learn.

Other sources hage th

I guess you don't consider forcing a woman to risk her life and health, endure great discomfort and pain, and forego things she may want to do, just to benefit another to be slavery. We differ.

I think being forced to do things you don't want to do is character-building.

 

[Dayton3]

Some women do have abortions for the sake of convenience, without having much of a need to do it other than they simply don't want to be mothers. Nonetheless, there is also a considerable number of women that opt to end their pregnancies because they can't afford to be pregnant or raise a child. If they had the resources to cover the cost of their healthcare and didn't have to worry about losing their jobs as a result of their pregnancies, and had the means to raise their children, the likelihood of them not getting an abortion would be much higher. Ironically and most unfortunately, the supposed "pro-life" conservatives are constantly defunding social programs and infrastructure that help low-income families and single mothers raise their children. Your bad politics against the poor actually increases the abortion rate.

More, your demand that people stop having sex because they're poor is just stupid. Sex is a natural function of people's lives and biology, so to demand that women of limited means all become celibate nuns, is just ludicrous, naive, and impractical, if not an insensitive cheap, misogynistic polemic against women. Are impoverished men also supposed to become celibate monks? You're just revealing how absurd the religious, conservative mind is.

I was never a nun but I was celibate for decades.

Are you suggesting that I'm special with better self control than most people?

 

[Coyote]

Deranged and objectively false.

Learn basic biology, basic embryology. Learn what a placenta is.

The kid is objectively NOT “part of his or her mother.”

Then there should be no problem removing it from HER body.

 

[DudleySmith]

I do believe that JohnDB also brought up this point once before. Why don't fathers ever have their right to refuse an abortion and take care of their own kid?

That would create inconvenience; the whole point of abortions is to murder inconvenient babies. Inconveniencing the bourgeoisie is worthy of a death sentence in Suburbia and Beverly Hills alike.

 

[Red Front]

I was never a nun but I was celibate for decades.

Are you suggesting that I'm special with better self control than most people?

Indeed, maybe you're able to be celibate, for decades. In that area, you're definitely special. Demanding or expecting others to be like you under threat of criminal prosecution is wrong and if you can't figure that out, you're mentally and morally deficient, despite your unique, special ability to be "celibate for decades"
(unnecessarily of course, but hey, that's what you believe). Your perfect fantasy world where everyone only gets pregnant when they're married and can raise children, is just that, a fantasy. I deal with reality, not fantasies. If adults want to engage in consensual sex that's their prerogative, and if the woman gets pregnant when she doesn't want to be, she can abort her pregnancy. No problem, it's that simple. You religious folks make life more complicated than it has to be.

 

[Red Front]

That would create inconvenience; the whole point of abortions is to murder inconvenient babies. Inconveniencing the bourgeoisie is worthy of a death sentence in Suburbia and Beverly Hills alike.

Pregnancy is more than just an inconvenience, nonetheless, the woman should decide for herself whether to remain pregnant or not, not you or me. With respect to the embryo supposedly being a human person, that's your opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.