• 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!

Unintended consequences of attacking PP. [W:800, 1034]

Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

Scrabaholic said:
Tell ya what .... you try to pass an 8lb watermelon out your butthole and then come back and say labour is not difficult, k?
Click to expand...

Yes, labor and child birth is difficult and it is very painful.

Read more:
Labor Pain: What to Expect and Ways to Relieve Pain - September 15, 2003 - American Family Physician
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

mac said:
What you fail to understand is that human rights particular to women are still human rights. If they weren't...why should men give a crap about women's issues?
Click to expand...

And what you fail to understand is that men and/or governments are often the biggest abusers of woman's human rights.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

Moot said:
Well, one thing is blatently clear, you're not here because you care about women's issues. You're simply here to harrass and ridicule them.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not here because I care about women's issues. I'm here because I believe legal abortion to be a crime against humanity.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

minnie616 said:
And what you fail to understand is that men and/or governments are often the biggest abusers of woman's human rights.
Click to expand...

I don't fail to understand that. Still, abortion is a human rights issue.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

minnie616 said:
Women's rights are human rights.
No person or group of persons can deprive another individual of her or his human rights.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The right to life is a human right.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.


So were women deliberately excluded? Was it a plot? Is that what you're saying? If so, the female members of Congress need to speak up, don't they?
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

mac said:
No, I'm not here because I care about women's issues. I'm here because I believe legal abortion to be a crime against humanity.
Click to expand...
Right, you care so much that you vote to take their health care away.


.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

mac said:
Exactly. The right to life is a human right.
Click to expand...
True.
And an embryo and/or non-viable fetus is not person in the eyes of the law according to Roe vs. Wade .
Therefore, the embryo and/or non-viable fetus does not have human rights.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

minnie616 said:
True.
And an embryo and/or non-viable fetus is not person in the eyes of the law according to Roe vs. Wade .
Therefore, the embryo and/or non-viable fetus does not have human rights.
Click to expand...

That's true...for now. Perhaps they can work their way up to being 3/5ths of a person.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

nota bene said:
But 8% of pregnancies causing preeclampsia means that 92 % don't. And etc.
Click to expand...


Please review the percentages I posted in post #758

12% of babies prematurely born,
8% Preeclampsia,
8% low amniotic fluid
3% Antepartum haemorrhage ,
2% of all newborns has a major abnormality,
.5 to 1 percent ectopic pregnancy

Add them together and you get 33.5% to 34 % of pregnancy complications with just these
6 common complications.

That means more than one third ( or 1 out of 3)of all
pregnancies have complications.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

nota bene said:
So were women deliberately excluded? Was it a plot? Is that what you're saying? If so, the female members of Congress need to speak up, don't they?
Click to expand...
Why weren't there any women in that photo? Why weren't women allowed to speak at Darrel Issa's committee hearing on contraception? Why is the GOP congress trying to take away insurance covered contraception? Why isn't there more funding for research into women's health issues? Why did the GOP congress defund PP if they dont use government funding for abortions? Why did the GOP congress try to remove the "forcible rape" provision from the Hyde amendment, "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."? Why is the GOP trying to deny rape victims access to abortions? Why is there a backlog of hundreds of thousands of rape kits? Why did the GOP congress try to weaken the Violence against women Act? Why did someone recently burgerlize and set fire to several women's health clinics and gynocologists offices in Alabama? Why did Kansas make it legal for a man to beat his wife? Why is a woman in Georgia being charged for murder for having a stillborn? Why are women still making 75 cents to every dollar a man makes for the same work? Why are single mothers discriminated against in the job market? Why are there so many women and children living below the poverty line in the US?

Perhaps a better question would be to ask, why do white male conservatives hate women? I think if you can answer that one you will have answered all of the above.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

MoSurveyor said:
In reality you have no clue how "and well", aka healthy, the human (biological term) embryo/early fetus is.
Click to expand...
Again, you're projecting.

Your lame excuse false analogy of extremely health-compromised postnatals on life-support to a healthy ZEF in the woman fails on it its own irrationality, even though you are clueless in general to the health of the ZEF in your analysis that must assume the ZEF is healthy as you didn't stipulate previously that your analogy also included the ZEF was just as extremely health compromised as the postnatal on life-support.


MoSurveyor said:
For all you know any given human (biological term) embryo/early fetus could have a fatal disease or have some other fatal biological flaw that won't show up for several months. You have no proof of health but insist it's there.
Click to expand...
Your false analogy is an over-generalization that doesn't get into situational specifics.

Nevertheless, you're clearly setting up the healthy ZEF v. the extremely health-compromised postnatal in your failed analogy.

Attempting to deny the reality of your intent is clearly a failed defense mechanism.

So if you were given the specific situation of a particular healthy ZEF, you'd still construct your false analogy and claim that it holds. :roll:


MoSurveyor said:
That's not science, that's religion.
Click to expand...
Well, you're really off on an irrational irrelevant tangent now. :roll:


MoSurveyor said:
There's also no way to know that a woman's body will not reject the blood-sucking human (biological term) that's inside her. To pretend otherwise is folly.
Click to expand...
"Blood-sucking"???

Wow -- you're finally getting at how you really feel about prenatals. I wonder what that's all about?!

As to not knowing whether a miscarriage will occur, if it hasn't occurred, and the specific ZEF is healthy, you'll still try to apply your irrational erroneous analogy.

To pretend that you won't is your folly.

Anyone could die of an unforeseen accident tomorrow, including a ZEF.

Any thoughts that a specifically unforeseen event could happen and therefore we should treat it like it will happen is also folly.


MoSurveyor said:
Neither the vegetative human (legal term) nor the human (biological term) embryo/early fetus can support themselves, which I suspect is the real reason the SCOTUS ruled the way it did.
Click to expand...
That's absolutely absurd!

And, since the SCOTUS didn't present in Roe v. Wade anything to do with postnatal humans on medical "life-support", clearly the SCOTUS decision about the state having a vested interest in protecting the life of prenatals at Webster's Roe-altering medically assisted viability (replacing third trimester) was because in a matter of minutes doctors could take a viable prenatal and make it a postnatal, and the SCOTUS simply couldn't avoid facing the meaningful reality of what that meant: that the viable prenatal is truly alive, even if they didn't come out and say when the prental's life actually began.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

And again you dodge presenting the details of your position on abortion and where you align on the abortion spectrum! :lol:

My position on the issue didn't fit into any neat box, yet I still presented all the details of my position.

For you to imply somewhat that you don't really have a position is a ludicrous notion, considering how obviously opinionated on the topic you are.

Clearly you are purposely withholding the detailed presentation of your position on abortion and where you align on the abortion spectrum ..

.. Because you are most certainly obviously afraid that you most certainly will fit into a "neat box" you'd prefer not to be seen in.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.




Not at all. This post does nothing to contradict, and plenty to confirm what is already intuitively obvious - you're a man-hating bigot.

The wire hanger photoshop is very classy by the way.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

Moot said:
You've posted a position that is decidedly biased toward Pro-Life.
Click to expand...
Absolutely false.


Moot said:
You might be fooling yourself that you are a centrist but you aren't fooling anyone else least of all the Pro-choice folks.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Well, there you go, you "pro-choice folks".

You pro-choice folks, especially a wing pro-choicer like you, suffer typical myopia that blurs your vision, making all those to the right of you, including centrists, appear falsely like right-wingers on the abortion spectrum.

It's not about me being something I'm not .. it's about your inability to see me for who I am. :roll:

But show me one post of mine that clearly puts me in the pro-life camp. I dare you. You can't .. at least you can't without employing your usual misconstruing.

Fact of the matter is, I've come out in favor of Roe and Webster many times here in these threads, and these SCOTUS decisions support abortion on demand until viability.

No pro-lifer supports that stipulation in Roe!

Pro-lifers are opposed to abortion on demand, period, at any time after conception, though those not so wingish allow a number of special circumstance exceptions for abortion relative to their spectral positioning.

But they don't support abortion on demand.

In addition, my recommendation to reducing abortion, to making it safe legal and rare, is to create and distribute cheaply new high-tech conception prevention pills, and the religious strain of pro-lifers opposes that on the grounds they fear it would facilitate sexual promiscuity if technology essentially completely took away the risk of conception/pregnancy.

No, I'm not a pro-lifer.

But I'm not a pro-choicer either.

Indeed, in this issue, for me it's that old applicable saying with regard to both pro-life and pro-choice: "heaven doesn't want me and hell's afraid I'll take over".

I am a pro-truther on this issue, however, and I have posted many times in opposition to the false claims on both sides.

Pro-choicers, however, are much more prone to sophistry in their false assertions than pro-lifers, and I thus admit to having more fun refuting the often ridiculous arguments of pro-choicers.

Pro-lifers' arguments are simply right out there, unhidden, uncouched in ludicrous illogic, and merely stated conclusions, blatantly errronoues when they are.

Pro-choicers' false arguments are intellectualized distortions constructed with sophistry, and thus more fun to debunk.

That's simply another of the differences between pro-choicers and pro-lifers.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

Scrabaholic said:
Wrong. I'm pro-choice and it's obviously alive at all stages.
Click to expand...
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that "a human begins to live at conception, that a ZEF, a prenatal, is a human that is alive as alive can be"?

Right?

You can restate it in exactly this phrasing without any qualification?

Then let's see you do it.

Regardless, it is you who is wrong, as I said "most" pro-choicers do not believe a zygote and subsequently early stages of a human's development is "fully" alive.

Even if you can restate the words I just gave you and mean it without any qualification to prove what you're saying is true, you'd just be a small anecdotal exception to the great general rule about pro-choicers.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

minnie616 said:
Zygotes are alive unless of course the Zygote dies. Most Zygotes never even implant.
Between two-thirds and up to 80 percent of zygotes never implant.
Click to expand...
So, are you too saying that "a human begins to live at conception, a ZEF, a prenatal, is a living human that is alive as alive can be"?

Is that what you're saying here, without any qualification?
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.


Sorry, I'm just not seeing much of a "centrist" in you or your anti-pro-choice rhetoric.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

Moot said:
Sorry, I'm just not seeing much of a "centrist" in you or your anti-pro-choice rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Your preconceived pro-choice ideology has placed you in a dualistically polemic paradigm which compels you to paint all those who aren't you "us" pro-choice people as "them" pro-lifers.

You will thus ignore the position statements I make, in favor of your ideological paradigmic compulsion to emphasize what supports your paradigm and ignore what threatens it.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

nota bene said:
But 8% of pregnancies causing preeclampsia means that 92 % don't. And etc.
Click to expand...

We don't know which ones will or won't so therefore the choice whether to risk it or not is solely the woman's.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

Scrabaholic said:
We don't know which ones will or won't so therefore the choice whether to risk it or not is solely the woman's.
Click to expand...

This wasn't the point. Pretty sure you know this.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

Zygotes are alive unless they die.
Tent catapillars are alive unless they die.
If a tent catapillar dies it will not become a moth.
If a zygote dies it will never become an embryo. or an early fetus..etc.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

Scrabaholic said:
We don't know which ones will or won't so therefore the choice whether to risk it or not is solely the woman's.
Click to expand...

nota bene said:
This wasn't the point. Pretty sure you know this.
Click to expand...

Actually Scrabaholic makes a very good point.
We do not know how risky a pregnancy will be.
 
Re: Unintended consequences of attacking PP.

Moderator's Warning:
Let's start talking about the topic rather than each other. Anyone who doesn't heed this warning will receive thread bans and/or infractions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…