do you agree with Bill Clinton ?

[hecatmoggie]

After zygote formation, multiplication of cells begins, but at the end of 8-10 days, about 50% of the blastocysts or embryos that zygotes became never actually implant. They die and are eliminated by natural menstruation.

so never aa pregnancy began

After some blastocysts implant, and unclear number are unstably implanted and fall out and are thus eliminated, which may be as high as 15% in the period before the woman normally realizes she is pregnant (maybe 6 or 7 weeks).

and THAT is a miscarriage - the ending of a pregnancy - when the unborn dies

From the time that women normally realize they are pregnant, perhaps at 6 or 7 weeks, onward, girls and women have a natural spontaneous abortion or miscarriage rate of anywhere from 20-25%.
Added up, that means perhaps as many as 85 to 90% of zygotes never become persons or actual human beings.

realization is irrelevant

 

[hecatmoggie]

I'm not interested in a single day. Show me that he is uniquely responsible for the border problem.

c'mon the sheer numbers pouring in in his 4 years and on the heels of the changes he made is clear

A group of 2,000 migrants in southern Mexico depart for the US weeks before election

A group of about 2,000 migrants has left Mexico’s southern border hoping to reach the country’s north and ultimately the United States.

apnews.com

they know Trump in office will mean border security

I feel sorry for him. When COVID was officially over, he wanted to keep a policy in place that would have kept illegal immigration down, and the conservative SC wouldn't let him do it.

Meanwhile, from the time he got into office, he was committed to not splitting up children and parents, because, during Trump's term, that had resulted in children's being put in cages and sexually and physically abused, which scandalized not only Democrats, but many Republicans. Laura Bush spoke out about this.

you mean the Obama/Biden administration cages ?

Trump Campaign Press Release - FACT CHECK: Joe Biden is the King of Putting Kids in Cages | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

you can stop the BS, anytime you want

 

[BirdinHand]

and you can tell by their posts how they feel ?

amazing !! what if I can do that with women? I can tell if they're prejudiced towards men and feel men are inferior ?

Men are inferior to women.





Men wouldn’t have spent the entire course of human history trying to subjugate us if you didn’t know we are better than you at everything.

Literally everything.

We can take 1 cell from a man and create life. And sustain life.

Without us, humans cease to exist.

All we from men is 1 sperm.

You evacuate millions in one orgasm.

Women release typically 1 egg a month.

Even Mother Nature and human biology knew who was more responsible and better equipped for life.

 

[Beruit 1978]

I'm not going to say there's no degeneracy, but reducing the birth rate was, for a long time, a sensible and far from selfish choice. I was born into the largest generation the world had ever seen, and the movement to reduce the population rate in the 1970s was not degenerate.

We have a high percentage of older citizens who are certainly too weak and tired to continue working at physically hard jobs or working too many hours at some physically doable jobs. It is, however, mainly younger people who really are selfish and stupid. Providing for the next generation, however, is as much about wealth and income distribution as anything else, and our maldistribution, and many problems related to it, are the fault of the wealthiest and supposedly most responsible among us.

Why anyone is voting for Trump is beyond me. He's part of the problem, not the solution.

Reducing the birth rate was NEVER a sensible choice. Ohhhh, maybe in the mid-50s, the birth rate was unsustainable. But that fell off quite naturally, without abortion, without brainwashing little girls into swearing off of child birth. By the 1970s there was no longer a valid reason to desire a reduction in the population.

Oh - having children is not about wealth, either. When I was young, the old people said, "If you wait until you can afford kids, you'll never have kids." That hasn't changed between then and now.

I don't recall speaking with you, let me make my position clear (or clearer) here. Abortion on demand is out of the question. An outright ban on abortion is also out of the question. What I want to see, is a compromise on all the EU state's abortion laws. Nowhere in the EU is abortion on demand a right. I think Poland has the most restrictive laws, which bans most abortions, much like our red states. I want to see our laws go right down the middle of the EU state's laws. That covers rape, incest, health of the mother (as opposed to threat to life of the mother), pretty much without question. Other reasons might be approved, after counseling, and offers of support, to dissuade the mother. No, she isn't' banned, but she has to meet some good faith requirements before a doctor will perform an abortion.

Oddly, I've never looked into who PAYS FOR an abortion. I suppose the state pays, but I'm not sure of that. But, guess what? When taxpayers are asked to fund abortions, then taxpayers get a voice in abortion.

 

[Beruit 1978]

A three week fetus? It's an embryo at three weeks. The fetal stage is over a month later than that.

Semantics. I've already stated that I'm not a medical professional. I don't routinely use precise terms, and there is little reason to adhere to precise terms here in a political discussion.

 

[Atomic Kid]

He said it.



He also said this...



It kind of makes you wonder if he's actually campaigning for Harris or Trump.

We don't have to wonder if you are distorting the facts. He is indeed campaigning for Kamala. The point he was making is if there was a full vetting process at the border, and presently there isn't, maybe that wouldn't have happened. The real crime here is that we had a bipartisan immigration reform bill that had the support of Congress and the President, which would have provided the kind of vetting that probably may have prevented that tragedy and others like it. But candidate Trump called upon his mindless MAGA minions in Congress to torpedo that previously agreed upon bipartisan immigration bill because candidate Trump doesn't campaign on offering solutions and answers to issues. He campaigns on magnifying and grossly distorting issues via his hyper-fear-mongering rhetoric. So he believed he needed to have this issue/problem for him to be able to realize his political ambitions and self-interests no matter the cost or injury to others and the country as a whole. So Trump is the one who is now directly responsible for denying the country the kind of immigration reform it needs to prevent such further tragedies from happening so should any more such tragedies occur they will be on his head. Not that he would care anyway.

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Yes.

We need millions of immigrants to support our economy, of varying skill levels and some years we will need more and some years we will need less.

By 2030, it is anticipated that 20% of the US population will be 65 and older.

I’m sorry if you don’t understand this.

Now can you point to where he said “pouring in”?

Why can't they support their own Economies ?
Why don't we force all the people on welfare to take a job(Stop giving out welfare)?
Why doesn't "AMERICA" get to say who we want and don't want to come in?
Why is this fool trying to get the SHEEP to support CRIMES against our Country?
Why do people not see the obvious like having millions who don't speak English or can pass the 6th grade are a BURDEN to America?
Why don't DEM's, who buy the Climate Change fear mongering, WANT the population of America (and the world to go down)?

Have you ever heard of the old saying "Quality over Quantity"?
No Slick Willy is NOT RIGHT !!!!... Just look who he Married !
He should go back to giving speeches around the states with his girlfriends !

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Ok, just so that we are all on the same page instead of Trump's page


Why? Because we all know how Trump spins everything

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/4932653-trump-campaign-clinton-immigration/

So he lying! We are on the same page!
Everything he said about harris' job duties where not only NOT DONE AT ALL, but the Opposite was Accomplished!
Thus the 10Million CRIMINALS ILLEGALS who are not INELIGIBLE to immigrate in to America ARE IN AMERICA!!!!
And WE THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS are giving Them more money every month, than we have given THE AMERICANS
Suffering from Helene, in Total!

Real Time US National Debt Clock | USA Debt Clock.com

United States National Debt Clock

usadebtclock.com

 

[Felis Leo]

“We’ve got the lowest birth rate we have had in well over a hundred years,” Clinton told voters in Georgia. With the Harris-Walz logo right over his shoulder and while discussing immigration reform, he added, “We are not at replacement level, which means we have got to have somebody come here if we want to grow the economy.”

is he right? we need millions pouring into the USA to grow our population ?

If that is what Bill Clinton actually said, yes, stealthycat. I agree with him. We should be letting millions of people in every year and putting them on the path to naturalization and citizenship. And if it were up to me, I would give priority to young married couples and couples with children so that their children can become Americanized.

And even if our population had a healthy birthrate, I would be all for letting more people in. Taken in the aggregate, immigration has consistently bettered our country without exception.

 

[trixare4kids]

Kind of.

We need millions of particular kinds of workers - we need to follow Canada's lead, and brain-drain the world.

Chain-Family illegal migration wherein we import the venn diagram overlap of people who are [lower-skill workers of the third world] and [willing to break our laws] is unlikely to produce the kind of economic increase that we need, and comes with a lot of other exogenous problems.

Eh.

 

[choiceone]

so never aa pregnancy began


and THAT is a miscarriage - the ending of a pregnancy - when the unborn dies




realization is irrelevant

My point is not about realization. It is the fact that about 85-90% of zygotes end without becoming persons, and that at least 50% end without pregnancy occurring, because pregnancy means the blastocyst or embryo has implanted in the woman's body.

Zygotes, moreover, do not have any such extended life as is supposed by some. Only the implanted embryos have such a chance, which is provided by the woman's body and is not inherent in zygotes.

What you want to do with that information is your own business, but you should at least have that information.

 

[choiceone]

c'mon the sheer numbers pouring in in his 4 years and on the heels of the changes he made is clear

A group of 2,000 migrants in southern Mexico depart for the US weeks before election

A group of about 2,000 migrants has left Mexico’s southern border hoping to reach the country’s north and ultimately the United States.

apnews.com

they know Trump in office will mean border security



you mean the Obama/Biden administration cages ?

Trump Campaign Press Release - FACT CHECK: Joe Biden is the King of Putting Kids in Cages | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

you can stop the BS, anytime you want

First, Obama policies were not Biden policies - the president at the time is the buck stops here guy. Second, Trump enforced this policy, which, during his term, resulting in a big scandal that was loudly complained about by Republicans themselves. Biden stopped this policy - it was one of the positions he ran for president on.

Your supposed fact check site is in fact the BS, which YOU can stop any time you want.

 

[choiceone]

Reducing the birth rate was NEVER a sensible choice. Ohhhh, maybe in the mid-50s, the birth rate was unsustainable. But that fell off quite naturally, without abortion, without brainwashing little girls into swearing off of child birth. By the 1970s there was no longer a valid reason to desire a reduction in the population.

Oh - having children is not about wealth, either. When I was young, the old people said, "If you wait until you can afford kids, you'll never have kids." That hasn't changed between then and now.

I don't recall speaking with you, let me make my position clear (or clearer) here. Abortion on demand is out of the question. An outright ban on abortion is also out of the question. What I want to see, is a compromise on all the EU state's abortion laws. Nowhere in the EU is abortion on demand a right. I think Poland has the most restrictive laws, which bans most abortions, much like our red states. I want to see our laws go right down the middle of the EU state's laws. That covers rape, incest, health of the mother (as opposed to threat to life of the mother), pretty much without question. Other reasons might be approved, after counseling, and offers of support, to dissuade the mother. No, she isn't' banned, but she has to meet some good faith requirements before a doctor will perform an abortion.

Oddly, I've never looked into who PAYS FOR an abortion. I suppose the state pays, but I'm not sure of that. But, guess what? When taxpayers are asked to fund abortions, then taxpayers get a voice in abortion.

I'll make my position clearer, too. If a state makes an anti-abortion law that in any way fails to cover even rape victims adequately, say, because they are too traumatized to report a rape even to the doctor, and they end up being raped for nine months with an embryo/fetus instead of just a penis, and die, are disabled, or made ill, I think that the president, governor, or legislators should be held criminally responsible and punished with prison time.

Why? Medical science states clearly that it is incapable of foreseeing all complications in pregnancy and childbirth, so girls and women can die or be permanently disabled without this having been foreseen. As a result, it refuses to hold doctors to account for the problem. But someone other than the girl or woman caused the problem, especially in a rape case, and it isn't the rapist, who ordinarily doesn't care what happens after their orgasm.

It is the anti-abortion laws that make the result happen, that allow legislators to go on raping the women with the embryos/fetuses as rape tools. I say, lawmakers who vote for negligently irresponsible laws will stop making and enforcing such laws if they are seriously punished for the results. Of course, if you wish, we can punish the anti-abortion voters, too, since they are responsible for lawmakers making these laws.

I am aware who pays for an abortion in the US. We have the Hyde amendment, which guarantees that no abortions are paid for by the state except in cases where medical science foresees immediate risk to the woman's life or failure of one of her major organs (health), or in cases of rape or incest, which are crimes.
In all other cases, no tax money is ever used for abortions. Taxes are used only to save a woman's life or prevent permanent serious damage to organs or in cases where the woman is a victim of a felony.

When lawmakers take away the right of a woman to use her own money to pay for managing her own health and the right of a doctor to provide a service that can minimize the risks to her life and health, then they are the criminals and should be punished.

 

[choiceone]

Semantics. I've already stated that I'm not a medical professional. I don't routinely use precise terms, and there is little reason to adhere to precise terms here in a political discussion.

There is every reason to be precise. Three week old embryos don't even have primitive forms of all the organs they will need to be fetuses, and pre-viable fetuses have not developed brains able to allow them to function independently of the woman's body even with medical help. There's no evidence that such a fetus has a life of its own - it is a function of the life of the woman.

 

[choiceone]

Why can't they support their own Economies ?
Why don't we force all the people on welfare to take a job(Stop giving out welfare)?

Back in 2000, the New York Times did a study of recidivism in the welfare to work program and discovered that fully one fifth of recidivists turned out to be women who had been sexually abused as children or raped as adults and apparently never recovered adequately.

Many people on welfare are seriously ill or permanently disabled. Some were victims of serious crimes, who never received an iota of compensation, as the society prefers that the government spend hundreds of thousands of dollars instead on prosecuting low-life criminals and housing, feeding, and caring for them in prison.

Some people on welfare are addicts who have never been properly rehabilitated and instead soak up welfare and go back to their addiction. Others have done prison time and no can't find a job. No one wants to hire some of these people anyway, as they are not good employee material.

Why doesn't "AMERICA" get to say who we want and don't want to come in?
Why is this fool trying to get the SHEEP to support CRIMES against our Country?

Most crimes in the US are committed by US citizens.

Why do people not see the obvious like having millions who don't speak English or can pass the 6th grade are a BURDEN to America?

Many jobs do not require English language skills or sixth grade comprehension - dishwashing and janitorial services and telephone services are among these. Employers used to give such jobs to ordinary people, and then outsourced the telephone services to other countries to avoid paying minimum wage, and sought to give the other work to illegal immigrants to avoid the same, and finally, if forced, give them to younger healthier legal immigrants instead of older, chronically ill citizens.

Why don't DEM's, who buy the Climate Change fear mongering, WANT the population of America (and the world to go down)?

Dem's did want to reduce the population, and that's why we provided family planning services in developing countries if those countries will accept them, and in this country, too. However, to date, employers have jobs that people are needed for. Eventually, people will be replaced by robots, resulting in mass unemployment.

Have you ever heard of the old saying "Quality over Quantity"?
No Slick Willy is NOT RIGHT !!!!... Just look who he Married !
He should go back to giving speeches around the states with his girlfriends !

His wife was largely responsible for his better speeches, as she was at least as intelligent and educated. His girlfriends were bimbos because his taste was almost as bad as Trump's.

 

[hecatmoggie]

If that is what Bill Clinton actually said, yes, stealthycat. I agree with him. We should be letting millions of people in every year and putting them on the path to naturalization and citizenship. And if it were up to me, I would give priority to young married couples and couples with children so that their children can become Americanized.

And even if our population had a healthy birthrate, I would be all for letting more people in. Taken in the aggregate, immigration has consistently bettered our country without exception.

so you would add millions of unskilled, non-English speaking, uneducated, poverty level people to our population every year ................ who pays for them? who pays for all their healthcare, education, training etc over the next decade ?

 

[hecatmoggie]

My point is not about realization. It is the fact that about 85-90% of zygotes end without becoming persons, and that at least 50% end without pregnancy occurring, because pregnancy means the blastocyst or embryo has implanted in the woman's body.

before pregnancy there isn't for sure two separate human lives - we can debate is a fertilized egg in a petri dish is a living human or not, that's another topic ... but we know 100% for a fact once a normal pregnancy begins, there are two living humans there, without a doubt, 100% fact and true

Zygotes, moreover, do not have any such extended life as is supposed by some. Only the implanted embryos have such a chance, which is provided by the woman's body and is not inherent in zygotes.
What you want to do with that information is your own business, but you should at least have that information.

a normal pregnancy is two living humans yes - before the pregnancy begins ? that's another debate entirely isn't it ?

but at least we agree once a normal pregnancy begins there is a living human mother and a living human unborn and it doesn't matter if you call it a baby, a zygote or a puppy or kitten ... it is living/alive and it is human and it is 1/2 of a pregnancy. It is alive and nobody can wish it away or pretend its not real

 

[antiquity]

How are you ascertaining who is lying about seeking asylum?

Do actually believe that somewhere around 15 million people enter the US, either released by border guards or just came in the country undetected, are all seeking asylum?
If the workforce needs more workers there are ways to do it legally without allowing people to enter illegally and then claiming they are all seeking asylum.

 

[choiceone]

before pregnancy there isn't for sure two separate human lives - we can debate is a fertilized egg in a petri dish is a living human or not, that's another topic ... but we know 100% for a fact once a normal pregnancy begins, there are two living humans there, without a doubt, 100% fact and true




a normal pregnancy is two living humans yes - before the pregnancy begins ? that's another debate entirely isn't it ?

but at least we agree once a normal pregnancy begins there is a living human mother and a living human unborn and it doesn't matter if you call it a baby, a zygote or a puppy or kitten ... it is living/alive and it is human and it is 1/2 of a pregnancy. It is alive and nobody can wish it away or pretend its not real

I'm not buying it. A fertilized egg in a petri dish, all thawed out if it had been frozen, is multiplying cells. This is a process in which new cells develop, a process of life. So the notion that a zygote cum embryo before implantation isn't a life is stupid. It is a cell and then a multicellular entity in the process of life. For this process, it requires nothing from the woman's body or anyone else. It carried life resources within itself for several days. How could I possibly say it's not a life?

But when the embryo implants, it does so because it is running out of inherent internal resources and can't find enough resources in, e.g., loose blood in the uterus, to scavenge and it's going to die. To avoid that, it implants. However, it doesn't ask consent. It uses a cloaking mechanism typical of parasitic nemotode worms to conceal its identity from the woman's immune system.. It uses her tissue without asking to make part of its placenta. It then directs the placenta to make an enzyme to negatively metabolize a necessary amino acid in her body to force into latency certain immune cells so they cannot protect her from viruses and other entities with different DNA - this prevents her immune system from ejecting the embryo.

Sure the implanted embryo is alive. However, all of its development after implantation comes from the life of the woman and is not inherent in itself or even in its exploitation of, say, loose blood in her uterus. It takes life out of the woman for itself, just as a finger or a foot takes life from one part of the woman for itself. But the embryo, living as part of the woman, contributes nothing to her life as a finger or a foot, a heart or a kidney does.

That life belongs to her and is not the embryo's life unless she says it is. If she wants that life for herself, the embryo has no right to have it and she has every right, because an embryo is a mindless entity that isn't a person and the woman is an instance of living mind and therefore IS a person.

 

[hecatmoggie]

I'm not buying it. A fertilized egg in a petri dish, all thawed out if it had been frozen, is multiplying cells. This is a process in which new cells develop, a process of life. So the notion that a zygote cum embryo before implantation isn't a life is stupid. It is a cell and then a multicellular entity in the process of life. For this process, it requires nothing from the woman's body or anyone else. It carried life resources within itself for several days. How could I possibly say it's not a life?

make that argument is reinforcing banning abortion

But when the embryo implants, it does so because it is running out of inherent internal resources and can't find enough resources in, e.g., loose blood in the uterus, to scavenge and it's going to die. To avoid that, it implants. However, it doesn't ask consent. It uses a cloaking mechanism typical of parasitic nemotode worms to conceal its identity from the woman's immune system.. It uses her tissue without asking to make part of its placenta. It then directs the placenta to make an enzyme to negatively metabolize a necessary amino acid in her body to force into latency certain immune cells so they cannot protect her from viruses and other entities with different DNA - this prevents her immune system from ejecting the embryo.

that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard - an unborn "asking permission"

Sure the implanted embryo is alive. However, all of its development after implantation comes from the life of the woman and is not inherent in itself or even in its exploitation of, say, loose blood in her uterus. It takes life out of the woman for itself, just as a finger or a foot takes life from one part of the woman for itself. But the embryo, living as part of the woman, contributes nothing to her life as a finger or a foot, a heart or a kidney does.

That life belongs to her and is not the embryo's life unless she says it is. If she wants that life for herself, the embryo has no right to have it and she has every right, because an embryo is a mindless entity that isn't a person and the woman is an instance of living mind and therefore IS a person.

100% wrong - women do not have a right to have their unborn babies killed.... to have such little respect and value for human life is just horrible

we will never agree on this - and so my side simply has to hammer our views through and make your side submit .... and your side will try and hammer your views through. Its just how it is , I see that clearly now

 

[choiceone]

make that argument is reinforcing banning abortion

Not really. If you make a human zygote in a petri dish with no oxygenated nutrient in it, it lasts less than 8-10 days, because it doesn't have the capacity to provide its own oxygen or draw it from the gaseous atmosphere. If a human zygote develops in a woman's body, it can last 8-10 days on scavenged oxygen and nutrients from blood in the uterus. But if it doesn't implant and disarm her immune system, it will die. She has a right to an optimally functional immune system.

that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard - an unborn "asking permission"

It can't ask because it has no mind. It's mindless life. Just as her lungs take in oxygen and provide that oxygen for the embryo, so her mind takes in knowledge and functions for the embryo incapable of mental operations. No one has the right to use a woman's body for their own benefit without consent. Why should embryos be different?

100% wrong - women do not have a right to have their unborn babies killed.... to have such little respect and value for human life is just horrible

Embryos and fetuses aren't babies - they're just embryos and fetuses. Of course I have no respect for the life of embryos or pre-viable/non-viable fetuses.

Statistically, it takes 22.5 separate acts of heterosexual intercourse, on average, to fertilize an ovum, 50% of zygotes never become implanted embryos, an unknown per cent of embryos implant imperfectly and fall out in the first month, possibly 15%, and 20-25% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. Hence, only 10-15% of zygotes ever develop into viable fetuses and get born as neonates.

Girls and women can be impregnated by rape, a crime so disgusting that in the OT it can be punished with death. The notion that forced pregnancy should be utterly distinguished from forced sex and impregnation is absurd. Even though most acts of sex don't result in pregnancy, pregnancy is nothing but an extension of an act of sex, just as a female orgasm is (and neither occurs every time). Because this can occur without the consent of the girl or woman and can occur outside of marriage or the society's attempt to provide for the woman and future child, there is nothing inherently valuable about pregnancy or the embryos involved.

we will never agree on this - and so my side simply has to hammer our views through and make your side submit .... and your side will try and hammer your views through. Its just how it is , I see that clearly now

You will never make this side submit. You must understand that the attempt to make the other side submit is an attempt to rape others. NY law that says a woman threatened with rape can kill the would-be rapist if necessary to prevent or the rapist if necessary to stop the rape. Here, we look at you, trying to make our side submit, and see rapists and murderers, people who would use violent force to control others.

That's what you appear to be to us. You would use brute force, mindless violence, or inhuman cruelty just to make those who protect bodily autonomy to to your will. From this standpoint, your side is actually evil.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Not really. If you make a human zygote in a petri dish with no oxygenated nutrient in it, it lasts less than 8-10 days, because it doesn't have the capacity to provide its own oxygen or draw it from the gaseous atmosphere. If a human zygote develops in a woman's body, it can last 8-10 days on scavenged oxygen and nutrients from blood in the uterus. But if it doesn't implant and disarm her immune system, it will die. She has a right to an optimally functional immune system.

the above is all true and talking about if the above is human life is good - lots of good discussions can come from it

if there is a normal human pregnancy we know for 100% certainty there is a living human mother and a living human unborn ... 100% biological fact

It can't ask because it has no mind. It's mindless life. Just as her lungs take in oxygen and provide that oxygen for the embryo, so her mind takes in knowledge and functions for the embryo incapable of mental operations. No one has the right to use a woman's body for their own benefit without consent. Why should embryos be different?

can a 1 day old consent to nursing ?

Embryos and fetuses aren't babies - they're just embryos and fetuses. Of course I have no respect for the life of embryos or pre-viable/non-viable fetuses.

words

call them puppies or kittens - the words you use are irrelevant ... a pregnancy HAS TO HAVE a living human mother and a living human unborn - 100% biological fact

Statistically, it takes 22.5 separate acts of heterosexual intercourse, on average, to fertilize an ovum, 50% of zygotes never become implanted embryos, an unknown per cent of embryos implant imperfectly and fall out in the first month, possibly 15%, and 20-25% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. Hence, only 10-15% of zygotes ever develop into viable fetuses and get born as neonates.

your point ?

Girls and women can be impregnated by rape, a crime so disgusting that in the OT it can be punished with death.

lets do it - in the USA rapists get the death penalty

The notion that forced pregnancy should be utterly distinguished from forced sex and impregnation is absurd. Even though most acts of sex don't result in pregnancy, pregnancy is nothing but an extension of an act of sex, just as a female orgasm is (and neither occurs every time). Because this can occur without the consent of the girl or woman and can occur outside of marriage or the society's attempt to provide for the woman and future child, there is nothing inherently valuable about pregnancy or the embryos involved.

you know and I know you are talking about a small part of a % of all pregnancies - greater than 99% of abortion are from women having sex by their own choices

You will never make this side submit. You must understand that the attempt to make the other side submit is an attempt to rape others. NY law that says a woman threatened with rape can kill the would-be rapist if necessary to prevent or the rapist if necessary to stop the rape. Here, we look at you, trying to make our side submit, and see rapists and murderers, people who would use violent force to control others.

That's what you appear to be to us. You would use brute force, mindless violence, or inhuman cruelty just to make those who protect bodily autonomy to to your will. From this standpoint, your side is actually evil.

both our sides will not get their way

I was all about compromise - allowing abortion for incest/rape/health of mother but abortion supporters refused almost every one to even consider. Roe v Wade is dead. States are passing their own laws now. Thing about that is that people's minds can be changed and the next pro-life movement will be to get into schools and teach kids the value of life. In 20 years the next generation will ban abortions for good. Pro-abortion will be a thing of the past and ancient and will be looked down upon as a huge dark part of our history

liberals have destroyed my faith in compromise on everything --- I've changed

 

[Dans La Lune]

Factually, I believe he’s correct. Immigration is good and necessary for the country, provided it’s done legally.

They're eating dogs and cats (referring to legal migrants).

 

[Queen Margo]

Factually, I believe he’s correct. Immigration is good and necessary for the country, provided it’s done legally.

I think we all agree, it is just that pesky "legally" that the left don't get.

 

[Queen Margo]

They're eating dogs and cats (referring to legal migrants).

That is so passe'