• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stopping abortion the correct way

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
8,738
Reaction score
7,061
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
How can a zygote, which is the only cell with its specific genetic code at the moment of fertilization, not be a new human life?
I do not consider it a new life. The sperm was alive, the ovum was alive, so of course the zygote is alive. The life isn't new. I can't even say the cell is new, because it is essentially the ovum transformed by fertilization and most of the sperm is just waste. So really, only the DNA is new.
 

BroHaHa

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2021
Messages
145
Reaction score
34
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Both parents have financial obligations to their child (if he or she is born) for 18 years. The dad pays a lot less in paternity fees than the mom does for everything else if they are not married. If they are married, the dad chooses how much he spends on child care, just as Mom chooses how much she spends on it.

If you have a high school diploma, you know the answer: Only spaying and neutering are 100% effective and both surgeries are rarely performed on people. Condoms, vaginal rings, and IUDs break. Women forget to take estrogen pills and the morning after pill. Even tying tubes in both men and women fails sometimes. No married couples can be expected to abstain from sexual activity forever. Raped women obviously have no way of knowing they will need birth control when they are forced to have sex. Rape is being forced to have sex after saying no, so it is 100% the dad's fault if the mom gets pregnant, not hers.

Adoption is an option if the mom's only problem is inability to take care of a baby. Did you ever think about the other reasons women have abortions? Such as a doctor saying if she does not kill the fetus, the fetus will kill her? Pregnancy complications often are fatal or cause permanent damage. When this happens, the mom wanted a baby; otherwise it would have been aborted months earlier. Anti-choicers tell women a medical need is an immoral choice, even though it obviously is a choice to save her own life.

I want to know why people think there is a difference between the "innocence" of an embryo and that of your furniture. It has no more ability to think or feel anything than a couch. If the mom waits until thinking and perceiving is possible she wanted a baby and the abortion was medically necessary.

Pro-choice people often hear the same complaints. "She should have used contraception," can only mean, "She should be forced to have sex whether she wants it or not." That is an easy one: Men only care about is controlling women.
Typical of the pro-choice-for-women-but-not-for-men set, you have cited two circumstances that comprise small percentage exceptions as a basis for an entire argument.

When used properly birth control pills and Nuva rings are 99% and 98% effective and still over 90% effective when used "typically."

If you'd like, I can post quotes from various former surgeon generals and other preeminent medical experts saying that an abortion is never required to save the life of the mother. Here's one from a famous abortion advocate:

Alan F. Guttmacher, M.D., “the father of Planned Parenthood,” longtime abortion advocate whose name was used for Planned Parenthood’s sister organization, the Guttmacher Institute: “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”

But let's stipulate that there are some conditions that, while not-life threatening, may nevertheless be harmful to the mother, such as gestational diabetes. Let's say that maybe 4% of pregnancies result in GD that can't be controlled and end up being harmful to the mother.

If I concede that 4% and the small percentage of cases in which a woman got pregnant using birth control reasonably correctly, will you then concede all other cases?

Of course you will not.

Which means that it's a disingenuous argument to begin with. It's a red herring.

As for your last line, you women IMO would be well advised to stop playing the victim on this issue. It's obvious that you do not support choice for men, so the, "All those mean old men just want to control women" narrative is transparent. It doesn't matter whether men and women are both financially responsible for a child, using the same logic as for abortion, if the man doesn't want the child, he shouldn't be forced to support it. The fact that the woman is choosing for both of them in no way means that the man had a choice.

In fact, flip it around. If abortion is illegal, that means the choice has been made for both men and women, at least financially. So since it has been made for both parties, that makes it o.k. for women to not have a choice?

As for the "piece of furniture" argument, then adults in comas are fair game? If not, why not?
 

Scrabaholic

certified sane
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
22,912
Reaction score
16,295
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Alan F. Guttmacher, M.D., “the father of Planned Parenthood,” longtime abortion advocate whose name was used for Planned Parenthood’s sister organization, the Guttmacher Institute: “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”
How about providing a link? BTW, "almost any" does not mean every. Hundreds of women die every year in the US from pregnancy related causes. MY medical team has told me pregnancy would likely be fatal for me. I'll take their word over some dude I don't know any day.
 

Patriotic Voter

Get a vaccine, not COVID-19!
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
16,961
Reaction score
4,494
Location
Alachua County, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Typical of the pro-choice-for-women-but-not-for-men set, you have cited two circumstances that comprise small percentage exceptions as a basis for an entire argument.

I never said or implied the entire argument is based on two supposedly rare (but more common than anti-choicers think) situations. What makes you think I did?

When used properly birth control pills and Nuva rings are 99% and 98% effective and still over 90% effective when used "typically."

There you go - an admission that non-surgical contraception does not always work and, therefore, blaming women for not using it is stupid.

But let's stipulate that there are some conditions that, while not-life threatening, may nevertheless be harmful to the mother, such as gestational diabetes. Let's say that maybe 4% of pregnancies result in GD that can't be controlled and end up being harmful to the mother.

If I concede that 4% and the small percentage of cases in which a woman got pregnant using birth control reasonably correctly, will you then concede all other cases?

Of course you will not.

What I am seeing here is you think women who need abortions for medical reasons do not matter just because most women who have abortions are not diabetic. Can you concede that point?

As for your last line, you women IMO would be well advised to stop playing the victim on this issue. It's obvious that you do not support choice for men, so the, "All those mean old men just want to control women" narrative is transparent. It doesn't matter whether men and women are both financially responsible for a child, using the same logic as for abortion, if the man doesn't want the child, he shouldn't be forced to support it. The fact that the woman is choosing for both of them in no way means that the man had a choice.

The dad should be forced to pay a paternity fee if he raped her but not when the parents are engaged or married and raising their baby together IMO.

In fact, flip it around. If abortion is illegal, that means the choice has been made for both men and women, at least financially. So since it has been made for both parties, that makes it o.k. for women to not have a choice?

If abortion was illegal, obviously neither of them had a right to make a choice either way for any reason. The government invaded their business and violated the Constitution if that happened.

As for the "piece of furniture" argument, then adults in comas are fair game? If not, why not?

Adults are not innocent. They have already sinned during childhood. So being in a coma does not compare in any way to a clump of nonspecific stem cells.
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
8,738
Reaction score
7,061
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Alan F. Guttmacher, M.D., “the father of Planned Parenthood,” longtime abortion advocate whose name was used for Planned Parenthood’s sister organization, the Guttmacher Institute: “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”

But let's stipulate that there are some conditions that, while not-life threatening, may nevertheless be harmful to the mother, such as gestational diabetes. Let's say that maybe 4% of pregnancies result in GD that can't be controlled and end up being harmful to the mother.
I support a "paper abortion" for men, as long as they have to pay at least 5% of the least costly option for the woman, abortion plus any attendant costs (e.g., travel). However, the idea that pregnancy is not bad for women is ridiculous.

According to your citation from Guttmacher, almost any patient can live through pregnancy.
Well, guess what? That means not all women can live through it.

Sweden has just about the lowest mortality rate for childbirth for women, and even though they have socialized medicine that is recognized as fabulous, and prenatal, childbirth, and postnatal care is, too, some women still die every year, and the US childbirth mortality rate for women is over twice as high.

That's just whatever deaths are used in calculating the childbirth mortality rate. In fact, some women die in late pregnancy, some in childbirth, some in the 42 days after childbirth, some in the six months after childbirth, and some in the first year after childbirth, of deaths which can all be traced to pregnancy-related causes. But most deaths past the 42 days are not even considered, and some within those 42 days are not considered, even though they are traceable.

Only a couple of decades ago, some states would report that women in their twenties and thirties died of heart attacks or strokes without bothering to add that the reason was childbirth labor, because they didn't want people to know childbirth was killing them.

And that's just deaths. I have recently read somewhere that in the US, of childbirths where women don't die, some really huge percent of them nearly die. In pregnancies that aren't aborted, about one-third of the women are seriously injured or ill, with significant numbers permanently injured.

Even in those pregnancies/childbirths where women are supposedly completely healthy, the good health they had before pregnancy usually never returns. They have to adjust to a whole new body.

And some research has shown that women who have never gave birth to children constitute a much bigger percentage of women over 90 years of age - it appears that those who give birth to them die a lot earlier. If they did not fully and freely consent to the pregnancy, that would obviously be alienation of their right to years of their lives.

I'm sick of people trivializing pregnancy and childbirth and acting as if they can just take it for granted. If the government bans abortion, it will serve them all right if women just give up sex for good.
 

BroHaHa

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2021
Messages
145
Reaction score
34
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
An embryo before implantation is, so far as we know, immortal, because it can be frozen for a long time and then defrosted and used: don't try it with your body, because you have organs, and they can't be frozen (yet).

To get organs, an embryo has to be implanted in a woman's body, get oxygen, nutrients, and anti-bodies as if it were part of that body, by using her organs. Until they are each sufficiently grown, they cannot properly differentiate and be capable of complex functions. Etc.

At birth, a newborn has an organism completely separate from the woman and not dependent on her for life. Anyone can care for it. It can take in oxygen by itself - even if it needs an incubator. It can take in nutrients by itself - even if it needs a feeding tube.

It can be conscious and see light and dark (if little else) and otherwise experience and respond to stimuli, and it can have its own feelings/thoughts (however primitive) and express them (however primitively). That is a human being, a person.

The case of conjoined twins shows that it is necessary to have something beyond a separate organism with organs, because they have only one organism, technically, and sometimes it involves a conjoining that can't be surgically made into two organisms.

But if it has two heads with functional brains, ears/eyes/touch sensitivity, breathing and sound-making apparatus, etc., each of the twins can perceive/feel/express differently, and it is recognized that there are two human beings, two persons.

How many cells? Unbelievable.
Your criteria applies to an unborn baby well before birth. I guess we just saw the record for a baby born at 21 weeks who appears to be surviving.

But there's a problem with your criteria. Adults in comas can't do what your criteria demands. Are they not human beings? If so...why? They can't do most or in some cases, all of the things you require babies to be able to do to get human status.

And you were the one counting cells.
 

BroHaHa

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2021
Messages
145
Reaction score
34
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I never said or implied the entire argument is based on two supposedly rare (but more common than anti-choicers think) situations. What makes you think I did?



There you go - an admission that non-surgical contraception does not always work and, therefore, blaming women for not using it is stupid.



What I am seeing here is you think women who need abortions for medical reasons do not matter just because most women who have abortions are not diabetic. Can you concede that point?



The dad should be forced to pay a paternity fee if he raped her but not when the parents are engaged or married and raising their baby together IMO.



If abortion was illegal, obviously neither of them had a right to make a choice either way for any reason. The government invaded their business and violated the Constitution if that happened.



Adults are not innocent. They have already sinned during childhood. So being in a coma does not compare in any way to a clump of nonspecific stem cells.
No offense, but most of these rebuttals are not worth replying to. But I'll do so anyway if you can quote the part of the constitution that guarantees the "right" to an abortion. (Hint...it's not in there. The populist court made it up.)
 

Patriotic Voter

Get a vaccine, not COVID-19!
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
16,961
Reaction score
4,494
Location
Alachua County, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
No offense, but most of these rebuttals are not worth replying to. But I'll do so anyway if you can quote the part of the constitution that guarantees the "right" to an abortion. (Hint...it's not in there. The populist court made it up.)

You know it is in there if you graduated from high school.

If you refuse to accept anything I said as a fact, I refuse to accept anything you said as a fact. I will be happy to change my mind if you can prove all of your claims are 100% accurate, based only on completely unbiased sources. You have not tried to do that yet.

There is no reason to stop your attempt to have a reasonable discussion by turning around and going back to the same old conservative lies. I thought you were better than this.
 
Last edited:

prometeus

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
26,182
Reaction score
11,215
Location
Over the edge...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No offense, but most of these rebuttals are not worth replying to. But I'll do so anyway if you can quote the part of the constitution that guarantees the "right" to an abortion. (Hint...it's not in there. The populist court made it up.)
Can you quote the part that forbids it? After all it does list a number of other prohibited things that the government can not do.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
86,135
Reaction score
47,454
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Can you quote the part that forbids it? After all it does list a number of other prohibited things that the government can not do.
I know. There's no enumerated right for adults to have consensual sex. There's no enumerated right to move to another state. There's no enumerated right to have kids. Yet all of these things are protected as rights....because laws to prevent or ban such things would violate people's other rights.

Thank you 9th Amendment.
 

Patriotic Voter

Get a vaccine, not COVID-19!
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
16,961
Reaction score
4,494
Location
Alachua County, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Can you quote the part that forbids it? After all it does list a number of other prohibited things that the government cannot do.

I certainly can!

Actually, everyone who graduated from high school can do it. Abortion opponents say what they wish was true.
 

HonestJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
5,873
Reaction score
3,034
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A wonderful article about a lady who appears to have prevented a few thousand abortions (if I am interpreting the article right).

Her secret? Helping the mothers afford rent, food, and diapers. If people truly want abortions to decrease, then they need to focus on helping those mothers provide for a life for the children they otherwise feel they cannot have.

Otherwise, it’s just wasted effort and punishing women.
That doesn't sound like a bad thing in itself but it feels a little artificially limited and restricted. It's not as if people who consider abortion because of economic factors only faces those issues at the time of pregnancy and the kind of people who need support aren't always going to be seeking an abortion. More and better support for those living in poverty in general could have a wide range of benefits, reducing abortions being just one of them.

In general, I'd suggest the primary aim should be to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place, and that kind of support can play a role in achieving that. I also don't see why any of this needs to be related to the concept of "pro-life" or general restrictions on abortion provision at all. It is perfectly possible to want to minimise the number of abortions that are performed without wanting it to be heavily restricted, banned or criminalised.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
9,118
Reaction score
5,471
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

A wonderful article about a lady who appears to have prevented a few thousand abortions (if I am interpreting the article right).

Her secret? Helping the mothers afford rent, food, and diapers. If people truly want abortions to decrease, then they need to focus on helping those mothers provide for a life for the children they otherwise feel they cannot have.

Otherwise, it’s just wasted effort and punishing women.
Two paragraphs in that article demonstrate that giving out diapers, rent money and onesies is not solving the real problem.

"Warren sighed. She told the volunteer that she’d learned something upsetting on the drive over. Another single mother, had died by suicide earlier that week. "It was just so sad that she felt like she doesn’t have no support and she’s just going to end it all. ‘I’m tired of having my kids around all the time. Like, I know I’m strong, but I need a break."

And then there is this quote from the end of the article: "

""I’m sorry,” April had said in a voice that hitched and sank with sadness. “I know you’ve helped me a lot lately. I’m sorry, but I need a little more help. I’m sorry.” (This was) a mother of four whom antiabortion activists had talked out of terminating a fifth pregnancy, would need formula and rent assistance. She’d need wipes and diapers, and then, after the baby was potty-trained, so much more than that."

That there are kind and loving women raising money, providing supplies and listening without religious strings attached is a wonderful thing. To pretend as the anti-abortion movement does that it is really addressing the problem of unwanted pregnancies, high abortion rates, desperate women with too many children and dysfunctional families that drive mothers to suicide is refusing to face a reality.

Free diapers and onesies are a big help to new mothers . 15 year olds do not wear onesies.
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
8,738
Reaction score
7,061
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Your criteria applies to an unborn baby well before birth. I guess we just saw the record for a baby born at 21 weeks who appears to be surviving.

But there's a problem with your criteria. Adults in comas can't do what your criteria demands. Are they not human beings? If so...why? They can't do most or in some cases, all of the things you require babies to be able to do to get human status.

And you were the one counting cells.
Let me clarify two things. First, any adult who, after birth, for some time period was conscious and made some decisions, however trivial, even in infancy, has certainly demonstrated the capacity to be a person. Once someone has objectively done that, we can talk about mental personhood even if, later on in a coma, they can't do it, and we should try to get them to do it again.

In fact, none of the unborn has ever done that.

One criterion for personhood is to have an independent body so that one is not threatening the well being of someone who is already an independent body and has objectively demonstrated mental personhood.

There is no born infant who threatens the well being of someone like that. All the unborn do it. Pregnancy is not good for women. It is a living sacrifice each one makes in order to bring other human beings/persons into the world.

If you are not threatened by pregnancy, it would be simple decency to recognize that sacrifice should be voluntary.

That women also make sacrifices so men can have sex is a reality. Men almost always want to have sex more than women do. If abortion rights are not recognized, men should have sex by themselves.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
77,360
Reaction score
32,937
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The thing I really dislike about the "murder" claim is that early abortion with medication doesn't touch the embryo. It softens the connection of the placenta to the woman's endometrium, on the side of the placenta made of the woman's own cells, and then ejects the contents of the uterus. The embryo's dying is solely a function of its ceasing to use the woman's body.

How this is deliberate murder and how murder is the aim is beyond me. They are incapable of grasping how poor their attempt at reasoning is.
killing them softly...

:ROFLMAO:
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
77,360
Reaction score
32,937
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I actually quite agree with the premise in the article cited...but not the motivation. "Punishing women" is just a stupid leftist political ploy and does nothing to address the real issue...dead babies.

But abortion IS nothing more than a political football. If there was a committment to doing what is right for both th mother and child...it would be awesome...but who would give a ****? A small number. People like the one cited in the OP. Some others...but not many.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
9,118
Reaction score
5,471
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I actually quite agree with the premise in the article cited...but not the motivation. "Punishing women" is just a stupid leftist political ploy and does nothing to address the real issue...dead babies.

But abortion IS nothing more than a political football. If there was a committment to doing what is right for both th mother and child...it would be awesome...but who would give a ****? A small number. People like the one cited in the OP. Some others...but not many.
The premise of the article that volunteerism and a large supply of paper diapers solves the abortion problem is false. The problem is systemic, endemic, political and religious. Until there is honest, intelligent, science based sex-education in all schools, until there is universal insurance that cover the best women's contraceptives for all women, until we have the social integrity to tell the hypocrites and the nosey that other peoples sex lives are not their business and until the religious right starts using their money for humanity instead of inhumanity then we will have unwanted pregnancies and 800,000 abortions a year. Until then we have bumbling idiots thinking that free paper diapers and onesies solve the problem.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
77,360
Reaction score
32,937
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Poetic images are not debate points.
As we gently and tenderly slaughter the babies.....

Come on...the comment was laughable. Killing with kindness is no less killing.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
77,360
Reaction score
32,937
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The premise of the article that volunteerism and a large supply of paper diapers solves the abortion problem is false. The problem is systemic, endemic, political and religious. Until there is honest, intelligent, science based sex-education in all schools, until there is universal insurance that cover the best women's contraceptives for all women, until we have the social integrity to tell the hypocrites and the nosey that other peoples sex lives are not their business and until the religious right starts using their money for humanity instead of inhumanity then we will have unwanted pregnancies and 800,000 abortions a year. Until then we have bumbling idiots thinking that free paper diapers and onesies solve the problem.
The premise is that if people actually cared more about people than political causes, we could reduce abortions. And come on now...its ****ing laughable that you think the root cause in unwanted pregnancies is that the participants dont know that what they are doing can lead to a baby. Equally stupid is your argument about contraceptives. Even in cases where contraceptives were 'limited' the were only limited in the realm of abortion causing preventative measures.

Your arguments are left wing memes. Its ****ing sad.
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
8,738
Reaction score
7,061
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The premise is that if people actually cared more about people than political causes, we could reduce abortions. And come on now...its ****ing laughable that you think the root cause in unwanted pregnancies is that the participants dont know that what they are doing can lead to a baby. Equally stupid is your argument about contraceptives. Even in cases where contraceptives were 'limited' the were only limited in the realm of abortion causing preventative measures.

Your arguments are left wing memes. Its ****ing sad.
If it were your body, it would be your choice.

As for me, I gave up sex when I was still dishy because it just wasn't worth the risk. And if abortion is banned, perhaps more women will make that choice.
 

The Work Outing

Suspended
Joined
Oct 18, 2021
Messages
614
Reaction score
127
Location
Not in Canada...despite the flag under my name
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Neither of those statements are debatable. Everyone knows life begins at conception and abortion is not murder except the relatively few idiots who are mentally unable to learn this stuff because they are epeatedly proven, extremely obvious facts that are taught in school.
How can something be a 'fact' if it is impossible to prove?

Or do you have scientific proof that life begins at conception?
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
9,118
Reaction score
5,471
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The premise is that if people actually cared more about people than political causes, we could reduce abortions. And come on now...its ****ing laughable that you think the root cause in unwanted pregnancies is that the participants dont know that what they are doing can lead to a baby. Equally stupid is your argument about contraceptives. Even in cases where contraceptives were 'limited' the were only limited in the realm of abortion causing preventative measures.

Your arguments are left wing memes. Its ****ing sad.
Perhaps with your extensive knowledge of biological processes you could enlighten us all on how passing out paper diapers and onesies, not contraceptives, prevents unwanted pregnancies. We await your dissertation.

And while the editor of you magnum is opus is reviewing for accuracy, grammar, syntax and spelling perhaps they could give this word salad a tweak, so it made sense. "Even in cases where contraceptives were 'limited' the were only limited in the realm of abortion causing preventative measures."
 
Last edited:

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
77,360
Reaction score
32,937
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Perhaps with your extensive knowledge of biological processes you could enlighten us all on how passing out paper diapers and onesies, not contraceptives, prevents unwanted pregnancies. We await your dissertation.

And while the editor of you magnum is opus is reviewing for accuracy, grammar, syntax and spelling perhaps they could give this word salad a tweak, so it made sense. "Even in cases where contraceptives were 'limited' the were only limited in the realm of abortion causing preventative measures."
See....you think that is word salad...and I think you just proved you havent a ****ing clue what was decided regarding insurance and contraception.
 

Patriotic Voter

Get a vaccine, not COVID-19!
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
16,961
Reaction score
4,494
Location
Alachua County, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
How can something be a 'fact' if it is impossible to prove?

On this topic, that question is irrelevant because everyone is required to learn it in middle or high school. It only applies to religion and we are talking about mammalian biology.

Or do you have scientific proof that life begins at conception?

This is a long list of biologically accurate statements by experts who specialize in the subject:

 
Top Bottom