# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  Insane House...

## patrickt

...of Representatives passes an abortion bill intended to kill millions of babies and protect men.


"A Democratic bill legalizing abortion on demand nationwide includes provisions for "every person capable of becoming pregnant," including "transgender men."


"The House on Friday passed the Women’s Health Protection Act along near party lines, in an effort to codify _Roe v. Wade into federal law before the Supreme Court considers a case that could overturn the landmark decision. The bill notes that "transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender … are unjustly harmed by restrictions on abortion services." 
Democratic Abortion Bill Protects  - Washington Free Beacon[_

----------

BooBoo (09-26-2021),Conservative Libertarian (09-26-2021),donttread (09-30-2021),Hillofbeans (09-26-2021),Lone Gunman (09-26-2021),QuaseMarco (09-26-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> ...of Representatives passes an abortion bill intended to kill millions of babies and protect men.
> 
> 
> "A Democratic bill legalizing abortion on demand nationwide includes provisions for "every person capable of becoming pregnant," including "transgender men."
> 
> 
> "The House on Friday passed the Womens Health Protection Act along near party lines, in an effort to codify _Roe v. Wade into federal law before the Supreme Court considers a case that could overturn the landmark decision. The bill notes that "transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender  are unjustly harmed by restrictions on abortion services." 
> Democratic Abortion Bill Protects  - Washington Free Beacon[_


I'm a solid lefty on this issue, so I fully support it. Looks like it's unlikely to pass the Senate though:

House approves measure to protect abortion rights amid threats from states and the courts | nytimes.com

----------


## BooBoo

Coming SOON to a Neighborhood Near You :



don't look back as I don't want to Sprinkle You on Me French Fries...!!!

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> I'm a solid lefty on this issue, so I fully support it. Looks like it's unlikely to pass the Senate though:
> 
> House approves measure to protect abortion rights amid threats from states and the courts | nytimes.com


So, you are OK with mangling babies to death?

----------

Authentic (09-26-2021),Captain Kirk! (09-26-2021),Hillofbeans (09-26-2021)

----------


## Captain Kirk!

> I'm a solid lefty on this issue, so I fully support it. Looks like it's unlikely to pass the Senate though:
> 
> House approves measure to protect abortion rights amid threats from states and the courts | nytimes.com


Why do you support murdering children?

----------

Authentic (09-26-2021),Conservative Libertarian (09-26-2021),Hillofbeans (09-26-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> So, you are OK with mangling babies to death?


I think one of the biggest problems in talking about this issue is that we frequently can't even agree on definitions. For many of those pro choice movement, a pregnant woman is strictly speaking carrying either an embryo or a fetus, not a baby. Wikipedia defines these terms as follows: "A fetus or foetus is the unborn offspring of an animal that develops from an embryo.[1] Following embryonic development the fetal stage of development takes place. In human prenatal development, fetal development begins from the ninth week after fertilisation (or eleventh week gestational age) and continues until birth.[2]"

Source:
Fetus - Wikipedia

I've debated with people who think that women should be forced to carry their embryos or fetuses to term. As with vaccines, I think that people should always be at choice as to what is in their body, but just as many used to be ok with slavery, many currently believe that the governments should be able to force what is in people's bodies.

----------


## patrickt

> I'm a solid lefty on this issue, so I fully support it. Looks like it's unlikely to pass the Senate though:
> 
> House approves measure to protect abortion rights amid threats from states and the courts | nytimes.com


Oh, good, @phoenyx, perhaps you can explain how laws restricting abortion affect men who are pretending to be women? I don't expect a solid lefty to be logical but I do expect you to be amusing.

----------


## phoenyx

> Oh, good, @phoenyx, perhaps you can explain how laws restricting abortion affect men who are pretending to be women?


I haven't read the bill, but I imagine they're referring to people who identify as men but who are biologically capable of becoming pregnant and having children.

----------


## Captain Kirk!

> I think one of the biggest problems in talking about this issue is that we frequently can't even agree on definitions. For many of those pro choice movement, a pregnant woman is strictly speaking carrying either an embryo or a fetus, not a baby. Wikipedia defines these terms as follows: "A fetus or foetus is the unborn offspring of an animal that develops from an embryo.[1] Following embryonic development the fetal stage of development takes place. In human prenatal development, fetal development begins from the ninth week after fertilisation (or eleventh week gestational age) and continues until birth.[2]"
> 
> Source:
> Fetus - Wikipedia
> 
> I've debated with people who think that women should be forced to carry their embryos or fetuses to term. As with vaccines, I think that people should always be at choice as to what is in their body, but just as many used to be ok with slavery, many currently believe that the governments should be able to force what is in people's bodies.


It turns into a baby, you butcher. Another one added to ignore.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (09-26-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> It turns into a baby, you butcher. Another one added to ignore.


Well, that got ugly fast -.- They turn into babies if they are born, yes. Sperms turn into babies if they impregnate an egg and are born as well, but most people are not clamouring to have avoid sperm deaths.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> I think one of the biggest problems in talking about this issue is that we frequently can't even agree on definitions. For many of those pro choice movement, a pregnant woman is strictly speaking carrying either an embryo or a fetus, not a baby. Wikipedia defines these terms as follows: "A fetus or foetus is the unborn offspring of an animal that develops from an embryo.[1] Following embryonic development the fetal stage of development takes place. In human prenatal development, fetal development begins from the ninth week after fertilisation (or eleventh week gestational age) and continues until birth.[2]"
> 
> Source:
> Fetus - Wikipedia
> 
> I've debated with people who think that women should be forced to carry their embryos or fetuses to term. As with vaccines, I think that people should always be at choice as to what is in their body, but just as many used to be ok with slavery, many currently believe that the governments should be able to force what is in people's bodies.


Just because the left wants us to use their lexicon, we don't. We know that a man is not a woman, a woman is not a man, gays kill themselves disproportionately, and thoughts are not crimes. If you want to pretend that the unborn children are something less than that by playing with the letters of the alphabet to form a word different from "children" and getting dictionaries to agree with you ... go ahead. But don't be surprised if many of us don't agree with you.

----------

Rutabaga (09-26-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Just because the left wants us to use their lexicon, we don't.


Even if the right wants to lump embryos, fetuses and babies as just babies, the fact remains that they are different stages of development.





> We know that a man is not a woman, a woman is not a man


Anyone could agree to that. As to what defines a man and a woman, that's another matter. And then there are other genders. Just did an internet search and came up with this:
63 Genders â A New Perspective on Sex and Gender





> gays kill themselves disproportionately,



Sure, but it's good to examine the primary cause:
**
*Homophobia a common theme*

Each story is unique and we are finding that the reasons gay and bisexual research participants consider suicide are varied. Homophobia is, however, a common theme uniting all the stories and photos.
Most of the men in our study spoke of experiences of violence, bullying and family rejection because of their sexuality. Others learned to internalize societys negative view of gay and bisexual people.

Many Still Here participants also described how they were confronted with homophobia and stigmatizing attitudes when they opened up to talk about their feelings to their doctor or counsellor.
Because of homophobia, men described feeling isolated, lonely and invisible. These feelings often led to depression, sentiments of helplessness and thoughts of suicide.
Homophobia is not the only reason these men contemplated suicide. It was often coupled with mental illness, financial problems or losing a job. For some, it was an abusive relationship, or the end of a relationship, that contributed to their thoughts of suicide.
**

Source:
Why do so many gay and bisexual men die from suicide?





> and thoughts are not crimes.


Agreed.

----------


## Gator Monroe

4th Trimester Abortion

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Even if the right wants to lump embryos, fetuses and babies as just babies, the fact remains that they are different stages of development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone could agree to that. As to what defines a man and a woman, that's another matter. And then there are other genders. Just did an internet search and came up with this:
> 63 Genders â€• A New Perspective on Sex and Gender
> 
> 
> ...


 :Wtf20: 

A prog!

----------


## East of the Beast

> I'm a solid lefty on this issue, so I fully support it. Looks like it's unlikely to pass the Senate though:
> 
> House approves measure to protect abortion rights amid threats from states and the courts | nytimes.com


you are a loon.

----------

Hillofbeans (09-26-2021)

----------


## Gator Monroe

> you are a loon.


A Socially Liberal Loon ? :Sad20:

----------


## patrickt

> I think one of the biggest problems in talking about this issue is that we frequently can't even agree on definitions. For many of those pro choice movement, a pregnant woman is strictly speaking carrying either an embryo or a fetus, not a baby. Wikipedia defines these terms as follows: "A fetus or foetus is the unborn offspring of an animal that develops from an embryo.[1] Following embryonic development the fetal stage of development takes place. In human prenatal development, fetal development begins from the ninth week after fertilisation (or eleventh week gestational age) and continues until birth.[2]"
> 
> Source:
> Fetus - Wikipedia
> 
> I've debated with people who think that women should be forced to carry their embryos or fetuses to term. As with vaccines, I think that people should always be at choice as to what is in their body, but just as many used to be ok with slavery, many currently believe that the governments should be able to force what is in people's bodies.


Not really. Leftists alter language to hide what they're doing. I know a 21-year-old fetus studying to be a nurse. She was the product of an abortion.

When I referred to killing, which is what abortions after a certain period are clearly doing, a leftist said, "Well, we don't consider it killing." I said, "I can understand that. I've never considered strangling a liberal as, well, you know, killing."

Leftists don't even consider post-natal abortions as killing.

----------


## patrickt

> Well, that got ugly fast -.- They turn into babies if they are born, yes. Sperms turn into babies if they impregnate an egg and are born as well, but most people are not clamouring to have avoid sperm deaths.


I realize that science is not, for leftist, anything but politics. What is it that magically makes a fetus at 8 months 29 days a baby when it passes through the vaginal canal? What is it that makes it an abortion if the abortionist inserts a blade into the baby's skull and kills it before it clears the vaginal canal?

----------

Call_me_Ishmael (09-26-2021)

----------


## Gator Monroe

EVERYTHING is Political to Far Left & Left (The sooner the Right learns this the better )

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> Well, that got ugly fast -.- They turn into babies if they are born, yes. Sperms turn into babies if they impregnate an egg and are born as well, but most people are not clamouring to have avoid sperm deaths.


When my wife was pregnant and I saw the ultrasound, I knew that we had a baby. A baby that you are OK with mangling to death per your twisted definition to provide justification for mangling babies to death.

----------

Hillofbeans (09-26-2021)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Even if the right wants to lump embryos, fetuses and babies as just babies, the fact remains that they are different stages of development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone could agree to that. As to what defines a man and a woman, that's another matter. And then there are other genders. Just did an internet search and came up with this:
> 63 Genders â€• A New Perspective on Sex and Gender
> 
> 
> ...




while i find abortion to be nothing short of murder/infanticide, i have always held the position that i cannot force my beliefs upon others...and i would not try to.

but the thing that i have always found to be utterly madding, and hypocritical, was the fact that if a somebody murders a pregnant female, they are charged with 2 homicides/murders, [if shes pregnant with twins its 3 homicides/murders]

the same people who employ the "my body, my choice" mantra to abortion, are the same ones arguing for the multiple murder charges...

on the one hand, the mother cam kill the unborn, no problem, after all its not a human being...

but if SOMEBODY ELSE does the same thing, miraculously, it suddenly become a full fledged human being entitled to the same rights/protections afforded the mother.

seems to me, the only distiction is who did the killing.

riddle me that.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (09-26-2021),Kodiak (09-27-2021)

----------


## El Guapo

> Well, that got ugly fast -.- They turn into babies if they are born, yes. Sperms turn into babies if they impregnate an egg and are born as well, but most people are not clamouring to have avoid sperm deaths.


  Intellectual dishonesty is hardly a basis for a belief system.
That's about the most idiotic 'argument' I think I've ever heard on the subject.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (09-26-2021)

----------


## El Guapo

Credibility goes to zero fast, too.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (09-26-2021)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Credibility goes to zero fast, too.


renee/islexi tried to argue "science" says life begins at birth... :Geez: 


it it aint alive in the womb, it aint growing.

----------


## El Guapo

> renee/islexi tried to argue "science" says life begins at birth...
> 
> 
> it it aint alive in the womb, it aint growing.


I rarely wade into the abortion thing... but that was too fucked up not to comment on.
You can have the moral arguments about whether killing that baby is right or wrong...but you can't pretend it's not a baby.

----------

Rutabaga (09-27-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> you are [insult removed]


This is why we can't have nice things -.-. I reported the post, but I imagine it'll be consider 'not too insulting' or something to that effect even though this post has 0 redeeming value. I knew from the outset that this is a right wing forum, so my views on abortion probably wouldn't go down well, but I had been hoping for a little less insults and a little more discussion. That hope's been dashed, you and the rest can have fun with the insult fest.

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> *-.-.*


I'm curious. Why did you put the Morse code letter 'C' at the end of the sentence. Most people will say .-.-.- for emphasis at the end of a sentence. .-.-.- is a period in Morse Code.

----------


## phoenyx

> I'm curious. Why did you put the Morse code letter 'C' at the end of the sentence. Most people will say .-.-.- for emphasis at the end of a sentence. .-.-.- is a period in Morse Code.


This made me chuckle :-p. It's a face. Picture 2 eyes like horizontal slits and and a dot for a nose and you get-> -.-

----------

Conservative Libertarian (09-26-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> This is why we can't have nice things -.-. I reported the post, but I imagine it'll be consider 'not too insulting' or something to that effect even though this post has 0 redeeming value. I knew from the outset that this is a right wing forum, so my views on abortion probably wouldn't go down well, but I had been hoping for a little less insults and a little more discussion. That hope's been dashed, you and the rest can have fun with the insult fest.


You reported someone calling you loon?

----------


## Authentic

> I'm curious. Why did you put the Morse code letter 'C' at the end of the sentence. Most people will say .-.-.- for emphasis at the end of a sentence. .-.-.- is a period in Morse Code.


.. -.-.

----------

phoenyx (09-26-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> I'm a solid lefty on this issue, so I fully support it. Looks like it's unlikely to pass the Senate though:
> 
> House approves measure to protect abortion rights amid threats from states and the courts | nytimes.com


You are pro-death?

----------


## phoenyx

> .. -.-.


Lol :-)

----------


## phoenyx

> You are pro-death?


You are anti choice?

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> .. -.-.


..--..

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> You are anti choice?


That are multiple choices even if you eliminate mangling a baby to death.

----------

Rutabaga (09-27-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> You are anti choice?


Choice to do what, murder a baby? 

How does someone who promotes children's defense be pro-abortion?

----------

Conservative Libertarian (09-27-2021)

----------


## Authentic

Whack em' in the womb but boy, we sure can't let one who is born be exposed to 5G!

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Choice to do what, murder a baby? 
> 
> How does someone who promotes children's defense be pro-abortion?


Need to ease his conscience.

----------

Authentic (09-26-2021),Conservative Libertarian (09-27-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> You are anti choice?


When the unborn child is given a choice, get back to me.

----------

Authentic (09-26-2021),Conservative Libertarian (09-27-2021),Rutabaga (09-27-2021)

----------


## Dan40

> I think one of the biggest problems in talking about this issue is that we frequently can't even agree on definitions. For many of those pro choice movement, a pregnant woman is strictly speaking carrying either an embryo or a fetus, not a baby. Wikipedia defines these terms as follows: "A fetus or foetus is the unborn offspring of an animal that develops from an embryo.[1] Following embryonic development the fetal stage of development takes place. In human prenatal development, fetal development begins from the ninth week after fertilisation (or eleventh week gestational age) and continues until birth.[2]"
> 
> Source:
> Fetus - Wikipedia
> 
> I've debated with people who think that women should be forced to carry their embryos or fetuses to term. As with vaccines, I think that people should always be at choice as to what is in their body, but just as many used to be ok with slavery, many currently believe that the governments should be able to force what is in people's bodies.


Yep, a lefty.  Hiding behind bullshit definitions when you KNOW babies are being murdered in massive numbers!  Do you support Fuck Joe Biden drone murdering whole families too?  Saves waiting for a pregnancy.

----------


## Dan40

> I'm a solid lefty on this issue, so I fully support it. Looks like it's unlikely to pass the Senate though:
> 
> House approves measure to protect abortion rights amid threats from states and the courts | nytimes.com


Is pregnant MEN a serious problem in your neighborhood?

----------

Authentic (09-26-2021)

----------


## Authentic

Childrens Defense Fund is RFK Jr.'s org. The Kennedy's are lefties too.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (09-27-2021),phoenyx (09-27-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Choice to do what, murder a baby?


You realized that simply giving a yes or a no answer to if you were "anti choice" was a bit too vague, didn't you :-p? I felt the same way about your question as to whether I was "pro death". In any case, I think we could agree that you don't think that a pregnant woman should have a choice to abort a fetus, and in -that- sense, you would be anti choice.




> How does someone who promotes children's defense be pro-abortion?


The fact that I'm a strong advocate to try to protect children and everyone else from harmful products doesn't mean that I can't also be an advocate for a pregnant woman/teen's choice to have an abortion.

----------


## phoenyx

> Childrens Defense Fund is RFK Jr.'s org. The Kennedy's are lefties too.


Indeed :-p.

----------


## phoenyx

> Is pregnant MEN a serious problem in your neighborhood?


No, but I think we can agree that some people who identify as men but who can get pregnant would want to have the choice on whether or not they would like to have an abortion.

----------


## phoenyx

> That are multiple choices even if you eliminate mangling a baby to death.


Like Authentic, I think you realized that simply agreeing to being anti choice was far too vague, which is how I felt about him asking me if I was "pro death".

----------


## phoenyx

> You reported someone calling you loon?


I did. I read somewhere that posts that simply insult a poster and have no other feature are frowned upon here- think it was Trinity who said that somewhere. However, I also know that "*Excessive* use of offensive language is a violation, so don't abuse your free speech", so calling me a loon once probably wouldn't qualify as excessive despite the post having no redeeming value. Still, it may be only the start, in which case, later on, if it were to continue, it might become a serious enough issue. I think everyone can agree that someone being verbally abused having to document every instance and only reporting things at the end is far too much work on the person getting verbally abused. Better to just report it as the abuse happens and then the Admins will have a document trail from that.

----------


## phoenyx

> Whack em' in the womb but boy, we sure can't let one who is born be exposed to 5G!


I think we can agree that it would be pretty hard to avoid radiation from 5G and other cell phone networks in a fair amount of cities these days. Best we can do is try to limit exposure. Vaccines, on the other hand, can be avoided in many states and countries. For the U.S., this chart would be pretty handy:
State Vaccination Exemptions for Children Entering Public Schools - Vaccines - ProCon.org

----------


## Ginger

trans men are wom_e_n

----------


## phoenyx

> Need to ease his conscience.


Lol :-p. But no, that's not it. I simply place the rights of a pregnant woman/teen above the rights of an embryo/fetus.

----------


## phoenyx

> trans men are wom_e_n


The LGBTQ movement and Wikipedia would disagree with you there. From Wikipedia's page on trans man: "A *trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth.*"

Source:Trans man - Wikipedia

----------

Northern Rivers (09-27-2021)

----------


## Northern Rivers

> The LGBTQ movement and Wikipedia would disagree with you there. From Wikipedia's page on trans man: "A *trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth.*"
> 
> Source:Trans man - Wikipedia


Well, yeah, I can agree with the amorphous sentiment, but, "assigned"????  :Thinking:

----------

Conservative Libertarian (09-27-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Well, yeah, I can agree with the amorphous sentiment, but, "assigned"????


Wikipedia's language, not mine :-p. Still, I think I can see the logic- people are generally assigned a gender at birth based on certain physical characteristics. I think that a large portion of society has decided that while this is fine, it's also fine for an individual to change their default assignment at a later date.

----------


## Rutabaga

> I rarely wade into the abortion thing... but that was too fucked up not to comment on.
> *You can have the moral arguments about whether killing that baby is right or wrong...but you can't pretend it's not a baby.*


exactly...the mental gymnastics progs go through to try IN THEIR MIND to justify the horrific acts/crimes they commit, support and encourage is absolutely staggering...

to insist, AGAINST SCIENCE/BIOLOGY/KNOWN ESTABLISHED FACTS that an unborn child is not alive until AFTER birth is just embarrassingly stupid...

SCIENCE has a term for babies who ARE BORN/DELIVERED DEAD/WITHOUT LIFE,,,its called STILLBORN...

we also have a word used to describe progs,,,"LOSERS"


btw, SCIENCE/BIOLOGY  tells us that a live born male, will die a male, no matter what parts are snipped off, added or changed, no amt, of hormones or surgery will change what you are born,,,because YOU CANNOT CHANGE YOUR DNA...and THAT determines your sex...[and spare me the story of hermaphrodite, because their numbers are statistically irrelevant, and they will ALWAYS have a dominate gene of male or female...AND YOU CANT CHANGE THAT...

----------

Conservative Libertarian (09-27-2021)

----------


## Rutabaga

> The LGBTQ movement and Wikipedia would disagree with you there. From Wikipedia's page on trans man: "A *trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth.*"
> 
> Source:Trans man - Wikipedia



wikipedia is a blog based opinion site...i can post ANYTHING i make up there...

try a biology book...its factual without the bias.

and the alphabet group,,,pleeeeeeze, they deny science, logic and facts...they have all the credibility that joe biden has...and thats nothing, nada, zilch...

why not ask the experts who are trained in science whether its possible for a male to become a female,,give birth and have a menstrual cycle...

you can call a taco a space ship, but that dont mean you can fly it to mars...

----------

Conservative Libertarian (09-27-2021),Kodiak (09-27-2021),Northern Rivers (09-27-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> wikipedia is a blog based opinion site...i can post ANYTHING i make up there...


I know from experience that it's not so simple as that, at least if you want your edit to last more than a little bit of time. Regardless, Wikipedia frequently writes things that can be found elsewhere and this is no exception. From the Merriam Webster online dictionary:
**
a transgender man *:* a man who was identified as female at birth
**

Source:
Trans Man | Definition of Trans Man by Merriam-Webster

----------


## Rutabaga

> I know from experience that it's not so simple as that, at least if you want your edit to last more than a little bit of time. Regardless, Wikipedia frequently writes things that can be found elsewhere and this is no exception. From the Merriam Webster online dictionary:
> **
> [FONT="]a transgender man [/FONT][FONT="]*:* [/FONT][FONT="]a man who was identified as female at birth[/FONT]
> **
> 
> Source:
> Trans Man | Definition of Trans Man by Merriam-Webster




again try science, biology to be specific...


“Sex Change”: Biological Impossibility and Revolt Against ...
âSex Changeâ: Biological Impossibility and Revolt Against God - TFP.org
Mar 06, 2015 · “*It is physiologically impossible to change a person’s sex, since the sex of each individual is encoded in the genes—XX if female, XY if male. Surgery can only create the appearance of the other sex,”* explain Richard P. Fitzgibbons, M.D., Philip M. Sutton, Ph.D., and Dale O’Leary in a well-documented study.

Estimated Reading Time: 7 mins
Is it possible to biologically switch genders? - Quora
Is it possible to biologically switch genders? - Quora
Answer (1 of 18): It’s not possible to switch sex or gender. Sex and gender are two different things remember… *Sex is your biology*, or more specifically, it is usually simply classified by what genitalia you have, and DNA

*'The cold biological truth is that sex changes are ...*https://mercatornet.com/the-cold-biological-truth...
Jun 27, 2017 · The cold biological truth is that sex changes are impossible. Every single cell of the human body remains coded with one's birth gender for life. Intersex ambiguities can occur, but they are developmental anomalies that represent a tiny proportion of all human births.

Estimated Reading Time: 9 mins






*You can’t change your sex - Adam*users.adam.com.au/bstett/SkepticsSexChange88.htm
Clearly, no amount of surgery can change the 100 million million body cells to alter the chromosome combinations that determine our sex. So a sex change is impossible. What may change is a person adopting the sex role of the opposite




let us know when a born male, with XY genes CHANGES his DNA/genes to XY and has menstrual cycles and gives birth...

CANT HAPPEN..

why?

because SCIENCE...dont be a science denier, its smarter than you, by centuries..

----------


## patrickt

> Wikipedia's language, not mine :-p. Still, I think I can see the logic- people are generally assigned a gender at birth based on certain physical characteristics. I think that a large portion of society has decided that while this is fine, it's also fine for an individual to change their default assignment at a later date.


Physical characteristic? Like chromosomes? Like a penis or a vagina? Like testicles or ovaries? Those are not characteristics they're definitions. 

I don't care if you want to pretend to be a man or a woman but I have a problem with the Deep State demanding that I pretend, too. Reminds me of when people were forced to pretend there were gods.

----------


## phoenyx

> again try science, biology to be specific...


You're talking about sex, the subject here is gender. One of the articles I referenced earlier gets into this:

***Man: Sex and Gender are the same thing!

Woman: So do you want to have Gender with me?
**
There are typically two described sexes, Male and Female.  That sounds pretty simple and obvious, right? However, you still need to define by what criteria you define something as Male or Female. If you say Male is a person with a penis and female is someone with a vagina there are people who have both penises AND vaginas in the same naturally occurring body.  There are also people with indeterminate genders, such as micro-penises, macro-clitorises, no vagina and no penis and other not-frequently-occurring but still natural combinations.  Likewise if you substitute ovaries or uterus for vagina in the definition.   Google intersex for all the information you may want to find. Maybe you want to define sex genetically as Male has an XY chromosome pair and Female has an XX chromosome pair that still does not account for other chromosomal arrangements that appear naturally, though less frequently, in nature, such as X, Y, XXY, XXYY, XXX, XXXX and XXXXX.  You can also have people with XX chromosomes who physically present as male (XX males) or vice versa (XY females). For a starting reference:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex...ination_system*
**
Source:
63 Genders â A New Perspective on Sex and Gender

----------


## Oceander

> You're talking about sex, the subject here is gender. One of the articles I referenced earlier gets into this:
> 
> ***Man: “Sex and Gender are the same thing!”
> 
> Woman: “So do you want to have Gender with me?”
> **
> There are typically two described sexes, Male and Female.  That sounds pretty simple and obvious, right? However, you still need to define by what criteria you define something as Male or Female. If you say “Male is a person with a penis” and “female is someone with a vagina” there are people who have both penises AND vaginas in the same naturally occurring body.  There are also people with indeterminate genders, such as micro-penises, macro-clitorises, no vagina and no penis and other not-frequently-occurring but still natural combinations.  Likewise if you substitute “ovaries” or “uterus” for “vagina” in the definition.   Google “intersex” for all the information you may want to find. Maybe you want to define “sex” genetically as “Male has an XY chromosome pair” and “Female has an XX chromosome pair” that still does not account for other chromosomal arrangements that appear naturally, though less frequently, in nature, such as X, Y, XXY, XXYY, XXX, XXXX and XXXXX.  You can also have people with XX chromosomes who physically present as male (XX males) or vice versa (XY females). For a starting reference:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex...ination_system*
> **
> Source:
> 63 Genders â€• A New Perspective on Sex and Gender


Simple, there are three, or if you really want to stretch it, four genders - male, female, neuter, and fucked up.  Fucked up does not give license to pretend that gender is nothing more than a social construct, and in particular does not give license to force the rest of us to go along with the fucked up's personal subjective desires.

----------


## Oceander

> The LGBTQ movement and Wikipedia would disagree with you there. From Wikipedia's page on trans man: "A *trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth.*"
> 
> Source:Trans man - Wikipedia


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

I cite wikipedia myself frequently, because they often - on noncontroversial/nonpolitical subjects - have good information, and good links.

But I would hardly try to build an argument-from-authority on Wikipedia, and still less on the fuck ups in the LGBTQ cult.  Wikipedia, like any other source, should always be sanity-checked.

There is no "assignment" in the sense of "well, it could be anything, really, so let's just pick something out of a hat and assign the result to it".  There is the application of a word that correlates to the biological appearance, because it is intended to denote and signify the biological, not because it's some white supremacist oppression/colonialization of the non-normo-hetero-fucked up.

----------


## phoenyx

> Simple, there are three, or if you really want to stretch it, four genders - male, female, neuter, and fucked up.  Fucked up does not give license to pretend that gender is nothing more than a social construct, and in particular does not give license to force the rest of us to go along with the fucked up's personal subjective desires.


You're free to have your views, Wikipedia, the online Merriam Webster dictionary and others just disagree with it.

----------


## phoenyx

> I cite wikipedia myself frequently, because they often - on noncontroversial/nonpolitical subjects - have good information, and good links.
> 
> But I would hardly try to build an argument-from-authority on Wikipedia, and still less on the fuck ups in the LGBTQ cult.  Wikipedia, like any other source, should always be sanity-checked.
> 
> There is no "assignment" in the sense of "well, it could be anything, really, so let's just pick something out of a hat and assign the result to it".  There is the application of a word that correlates to the biological appearance, because it is intended to denote and signify the biological, not because it's some white supremacist oppression/colonialization of the non-normo-hetero-fucked up.


Why do people always revert to swearing when their views are being challenged -.-? I don't think anyone is questioning why people are -generally- assigned a sex based on one's anatomy at birth, with the exceptions that we've agreed on, for the most part. I certainly don't agree that there is such thing as an [expletive] gender, but the fact that you acknowledge that there are people who don't fit into you quaint categorizations is progress at least. 

Gender and sex are different words, however, and a growing number of people have come to define the term gender as something that can have a lot more than just 2.

----------


## Rutabaga

> You're free to have your views, Wikipedia, the online Merriam Webster dictionary and others just disagree with it.


and yet the experts, the doctors, scientists, nurses, etc., the ones who actually study, investigate and arrive at logical, scientific conclusions, after years of training/study and hands on involvement disagree with wikipedia and the online dictionary...

go figure... :Dontknow: 


"i reject your reality and replace it with my own"


fly that taco to mars!

btw, on a side note, concerning the lgbtwtf group, theres a reason the "L" is first...because its all about the lesbians,,they will take your support/money, [to bump their numbers] talk support about gays, bi's and trannys, but they will NEVER accept the rest as equals...gays are male, lesbians have no use for them except to pump the numbers/money...bi's are both male and female, but seen as fly by night sexual switch hitters w/o conviction, but the lesbians will take their support, the trannys [either male/female] are viewed as temporary as the male to female will never be accepted as a born female, [just a male pretending] and the female to male is often seen as a "traitor" to the feminist...

for the lesbians,,its ALL ABOUT the lesbians...the rest are just useful tools that supply support to the LESBIANS...

its a hierarchy with the L at the top, and the ​gbtwtf way down here...

----------


## phoenyx

> and yet the experts, the doctors, scientists, nurses, etc., the ones who actually study, investigate and arrive at logical, scientific conclusions, after years of training/study and hands on involvement disagree with wikipedia and the online dictionary...
> 
> go figure...


A quick internet search and I found that the American Medical Student Association has embraced the definition of there being many genders:
Transgender Health - AMSA

----------


## Rutabaga

> A quick internet search and I found that the American Medical Student Association has embraced the definition of there being many genders:
> Transgender Health - AMSA


thats nice,,let me know when they become doctors who actually have completed the education needed to have an educated and informed opinion...

gender and sex are NOT the same...you can "identify" as anything you want, male, female, turtle, wildebeast, hubcap, boeing 747, its not my business...[just dont try to force me to take a ride on the crazy plane] 

but born male, die male..simple as that...cant change your sex and your sex is NOT incumbent upon girl or boys bits to determine your sex...

your DNA determines your sex, and THAT cannot be changed...no matter what some student association members try to claim...

only females give birth, only males produce sperm...

its not complicated...

----------


## phoenyx

> thats nice,,let me know when they become doctors who actually have completed the education needed to have an educated and informed opinion...
> 
> gender and sex are NOT the same...you can "identify" as anything you want, male, female, turtle, wildebeast, hubcap, boeing 747, its not my business.


Agreed, gender and sex are not the same. We're talking about gender here, not sex.

----------


## El Guapo

> A quick internet search and I found that the American Medical Student Association has embraced the definition of there being many genders:
> Transgender Health - AMSA





> American Medical Student Association Homehttps://www.amsa.org
> The American Medical Student Association (AMSA), with a half-century history of medical student activism...


  lol.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Agreed, gender and sex are not the same. We're talking about gender here, not sex.


like i said, you can put on a dress, cut your dick off, turn it inside out and stuff it back inside, get breast implants, female hormones, plastic surgery, change you name, marry a guy, have sex with him etc..but, you'll never get pregnant, never go into labor, never deliver or abort a child, because only females give birth...


biology 101,,,something most of us learned in the 5th grade.

----------


## El Guapo

Quelle surprise.

----------


## patrickt

> A quick internet search and I found that the American Medical Student Association has embraced the definition of there being many genders:
> Transgender Health - AMSA


And you're shocked that far left organizations are irrational?

----------


## phoenyx

> like i said, you can put on a dress, cut your dick off, turn it inside out and stuff it back inside, get breast implants, female hormones, plastic surgery, change you name, marry a guy, have sex with him etc..but, you'll never get pregnant, never go into labor, never deliver or abort a child, because only females give birth...
> biology 101,,,something most of us learned in the 5th grade.


We're talking about gender here, not sex, although even in regards to sex, there are exceptions to the rule, as I pointed out in post Post #59:
Insane House... - Page 6

----------


## Authentic

Abortion is the sacrament of the feminist religion. Feminism is a religion based upon the hatred of men. Any man who supports abortion logically hates themselves.

----------

East of the Beast (09-27-2021)

----------


## Dan40

> No, but I think we can agree that some people who identify as men but who can get pregnant would want to have the choice on whether or not they would like to have an abortion.


There are males and there are females,  no "identifies" count.  There are many mentally ill that need treatment, not acceptance.

----------

East of the Beast (09-27-2021)

----------


## East of the Beast

There are many forms of psychosis.

----------

Oceander (09-27-2021)

----------


## Oceander

> Why do people always revert to swearing when their views are being challenged -.-? I don't think anyone is questioning why people are -generally- assigned a sex based on one's anatomy at birth, with the exceptions that we've agreed on, for the most part. I certainly don't agree that there is such thing as an [expletive] gender, but the fact that you acknowledge that there are people who don't fit into you quaint categorizations is progress at least. 
> 
> Gender and sex are different words, however, and a growing number of people have come to define the term gender as something that can have a lot more than just 2.


You call it swearing, I call it calling a spade a spade.

Grow up, snowflake.  Now that, yes, that was a personal insult, and a very well deserved one, at that.

Grow up.

Gender is sex, and the only conundrum is what to call those whose sexual organs have been misdeveloped for some reason, or who have chromosomal abnormalities that result in multiple different sexual organs.

The fact that some woman's psychological neurosis is going to be aggravated and toyed with by so-called LGBTQXYZ "activists" rather than addressed and mitigated or cured, does not warrant allowing that neurotic to foist onto the rest of us her personal, subjective desire to be called something she is not.

The only thing I tend to agree with the pronoun-nazis - and they are definitely nazis - is that there should be a pronoun/honorific that has no gender, but is not expressly neuter.  That would be fine with me, and it would address a myriad of odd little situations, like how does one refer to "Kim Kalman" when one does not have any reliable information on gender, and this individual is not standing right in front of you?  The "Kim Kalman" I have in mind, btw, is this one:  http://www.guysnamedkim.com/GNK/kim.php?id=18

So, I would go along with Mr., Ms. (I use that in preference to Mrs. unless a particular individual has let me know that she prefers it), it, and some non-genderized honorific, plus pronouns he, she, it, they, and a non-genderized pronoun.  I personally find the new ones using "x" to be stupid-sounding, but that's just me, I suppose.

Beyond that, there are no other genders - there are only three - male, female, and neuter - and a default of I don't know.

----------


## Oceander

> No, but I think we can agree that some people who identify as men but who can get pregnant would want to have the choice on whether or not they would like to have an abortion.


No.  They either cannot get pregnant, in which case they are neuter, and how they want to identify themselves is irrelevant, or they can get pregnant, in which case they are a woman and, again, how they wish to subjectively identify themselves is irrelevant.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Why do people always revert to swearing when their views are being challenged -.-? I don't think anyone is questioning why people are -generally- assigned a sex based on one's anatomy at birth, with the exceptions that we've agreed on, for the most part. I certainly don't agree that there is such thing as an [expletive] gender, but the fact that you acknowledge that there are people who don't fit into you quaint categorizations is progress at least. 
> 
> Gender and sex are different words, however, and a growing number of people have come to define the term gender as something that can have a lot more than just 2.


You people are not even honest with yourselves. You draw a distinction between gender and sex but then use gender when sex is the issue.  Take for example the location that people go in oder to perform a biological function.  We call them bathrooms but in public places they are there to provide a toilet. A toilet is an article for one to perform a biological function. But you people want to use your gender to define who goes where. 

And the sports issue is the same.  There are biological differences that give males or females an advantage over the other. But you people again want to use your gender. 


Be honest.  Own up to the truth. There is no issue in our society where you mentally ill people will defer to the biological sex of an individual.  You will ALWAYS defer to your "gender".   Stop your lying.

----------


## Oceander

The underlying issue - which seems to predominate amongst so-called millenials - is that they are entitled to have their subjective whims and fancies - which they dress up as fears about being unsafe - catered to by the rest of the world, coupled with the fact that way too many of these millenials seem to think that things like A Handmaid's Tale represent some reflection of reality, rather than a really badly conceived alternative universe created for very heavy-handed, didactic, and unreal, purposes.

In short, they seem to think that they will be marginalized, and forced to live a life of spiritual poverty, if they cannot force the world at large to use the pet names they have coined for themselves.

Again, this is another poisonous offshoot of the critical theory apparatus (critical race theory, critical gender studies, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam), in which the world is conceived as being structurally delimited by a set of very narrowly draw stereotypes - woman (which is essentially constructed as "tits, ass, legs, make babies, stay home, subservient to men/husband, oppressed, victim"), man (which is essentially constructed as "dick, force, violence, money, work, rape"), white (which is essentially constructed as "evil, violent, colonial, oppressor, -phobic"), black (which is essentially constructed as "good, cool, authentic, oppressed, victim"), etc, etc, etc - and thus, in the eyes of a criticalist, if one delimits a person by just one of the traditional stereotypes (keeping in mind, that these are not, in fact, even the actual traditional stereotypes, but a very reduced subset of the traditional stereotype - see above), then one is consigning that person to the dungeon of that one stereotype which, in the case of labeling someone a "woman" means consigning that person to a life of slavery, serfdom, servitude, victimhood, and rape.

And the millenials'/criticalists' solution?  Force the world at large to call them by a pet name they've invented for themselves that invokes - in their own mind - their true intersectional, transgressive nature.

In other words, they have reduced themselves - and the rest of the world - to a collection of particularly impoverished labels, and they have reified those labels over reality.

What they will not do is simply go about being themselves, finding friends and real allies (and not the fake "allies" that criticalists identify) where they may, ignoring the naysayers, and keeping a watchful eye for the 1 in a hundred thousand who might actually be physically dangerous.

They are, they remain, and they probably always will be, petulant little babies.

Thankfully, the most recent generation just now coming up seems to have rejected some of the most perverse aspects of this snowflake-dom.

----------


## Dan40

There are innies and outies, if a person has both they can decide as the mood moves them.  EXTREMELY RARE!  ALL others want attention they cannot earn or deserve

----------


## phoenyx

> Abortion is the sacrament of the feminist religion. Feminism is a religion based upon the hatred of men. Any man who supports abortion logically hates themselves.


You really believe all that stuff -.-? Anyway, here's an article of men who supported their partners in having an abortion if you're interested in listening to the other side of the fence:
12 Men Share Their Abortion Stories | GQ

I only read the first story so far, but I thought it was very moving.

----------


## phoenyx

> There are males and there are females,  no "identifies" count.


Perhaps it might be best if we just agree to disagree.

----------


## phoenyx

> You call it swearing, I call it calling a spade a spade.


Alright, well have fun calling a spade a spade then. Me, I like civilized conversations.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Dan40
> ...


Sorry, but you're just mistaken on that count. Please read my post #59 to understand why:
Insane House... - Page 6

----------


## Authentic

> Perhaps it might be best if we just agree to disagree.


You aren't disagreeing though. You are being willfully ignorant of elementary biology.

----------

Rutabaga (09-27-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> [snip]There is no issue in our society where you mentally ill people [snip]


Well, I had been thinking of actually taking the time to make a detailed response, but then I saw this. Ad hominem attacks aren't the answer Ishmael.

----------


## Oceander

> Alright, well have fun calling a spade a spade then. Me, I like civilized conversations.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

A conversation would be good; when will you pick up your end of the bargain?

----------


## Authentic

> You really believe all that stuff -.-? Anyway, here's an article of men who supported their partners in having an abortion if you're interested in listening to the other side of the fence:
> 12 Men Share Their Abortion Stories | GQ
> 
> I only read the first story so far, but I thought it was very moving.


You were moved reading stories about accessories to murder?

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Well, I had been thinking of actually taking the time to make a detailed response, but then I saw this. Ad hominem attacks aren't the answer Ishmael.


You have no reasonable "detailed response". There is no defense.  You changed the lexicon:
; you socialized and legitimized it; and now you are demanding by force of laws that everyone else abide by your made-up jargon. 

The Red Guard of the Chinese cultural revolution would be proud of you people.  But being totally ignorant of the history of that human debacle, you don't even recognize your role in the same type of revolution in the here and now.

----------

Authentic (09-27-2021),Rutabaga (09-27-2021)

----------


## Kodiak

> Alright, well have fun calling a spade a spade then. Me, I like civilized conversations.


Civilized conversations about an uncivilized procedure?

----------

Authentic (09-27-2021)

----------


## East of the Beast

Life is about choices. You either choose or you don't choose to have unprotected sex that leads to pregnancy. Why should the innocent unborn pay with their lives for a poor choice?


Yeah I'm all  about pro choice.The timing of the choice is key.Murder should never be the option.

----------


## Authentic



----------


## Dan40

> Perhaps it might be best if we just agree to disagree.


NO, I'm posting medical, logical facts.  You are posting worthless, wokeass, liberal horseshit.  There are males and there are females, a fact.  On rare occasions some babies have birth defects.  Those unfortunates are not part of your excusing the mentally ill attention queers.

----------


## phoenyx

> You aren't disagreeing though. You are being willfully ignorant of elementary biology.


Pfffft. Why do you think that?

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Perhaps it might be best if we just agree to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I'm posting medical, logical facts.  You are posting worthless, wokeass, liberal [insult removed].


Oh boy, more insults -.-.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Oceander
> ...


When people start with the insults, I tend to just shut down. When it becomes that someone isn't actually looking for a discussion, but rather someone to insult, I generally decide that it'd be best to just stop talking to the person. To quote an old song from Billy Joel:
"You can still speak your mind, but not on my time."

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> You really believe all that stuff -.-? Anyway, here's an article of men who supported their partners in having an abortion if you're interested in listening to the other side of the fence:
> 12 Men Share Their Abortion Stories | GQ
> 
> I only read the first story so far, but I thought it was very moving.
> 
> 
> ...


Sigh -.-. Did you even click on the link?

----------


## nonsqtr

Looks to me like   @phoenyx has been exposed.

(Or, self-exposed).




> Yep, a *lefty*.  Hiding behind bullshit definitions .


I smelled as much. Follow the course of this thread, and you'll clearly see the not-so-veiled attempts at political correctness, which only a true blue lefty would use in this manner.

First we have the "you shouldn't swear" bit...




> You call it swearing, I call it calling a spade a spade.
> 
> Grow up, snowflake.


I got the same thing, during an engineering discussion. It's more than just snowflakery, though.




> Alright, well have fun calling a spade a spade then. Me, I like civilized conversations.


Oh, so now conversations have to be "civil".

Looks to me like a typical lefty, trying to be the arbiter of civility.




> You aren't disagreeing though. You are being willfully ignorant of elementary biology.


There's that too. Another lefty trait. Condescending arrogance. Like Reagan said, it's not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so many things that simply aren't true.




> Well, I had been thinking of actually taking the time to make a detailed response, but then I saw this. Ad hominem attacks aren't the answer Ishmael.


This "ad hom" bit sounds familiar too, doesn't it?




> NO, I'm posting medical, logical facts.  You are posting worthless, *wokeass, liberal horseshit*.


Apparently other people see it too.




> Oh boy, more insults -.-.


Just like a liberal. Always make it about the other guy's personality. Uncivil, ad hom, not politically correct. Liberals are the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

----------


## Dan40

> Sigh -.-. Did you even click on the link?


GQ, the mega source of queerness.

----------


## phoenyx

> Civilized conversations about an uncivilized procedure?


I see forcing women to keep babies as a form of slavery, you think the rights of the fetus should trump the rights of a teen/woman. So clearly, there's a strong disagreement. If civility isn't maintained, I think it's best to just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

----------


## phoenyx

> Life is about choices.


It should be. Some people want to force women to have babies. I'm not one of those people.

----------


## nonsqtr

> It should be. Some people want to force women to have babies. I'm not one of those people.


There's a special place in hell for women who kill their own children.

----------

East of the Beast (09-27-2021)

----------


## East of the Beast

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything other than be responsible for their choices....idiot

----------


## phoenyx

> There's a special place in hell for women who kill their own children.


Sigh -.-

----------


## phoenyx

> Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything


Hey, if that lets you sleep at night, go right ahead and believe it. But just in case you ever want to listen to the other side of the story...
15 Whisper Confessions Of Women Forced To Have The Baby They Didn't Want | babygaga.com

----------


## Authentic

> Sigh -.-. Did you even click on the link?


No. Why would I?

You already told me that it was about men supporting the killing of babies. 

Apparently you are cool with that. I am not.

----------


## nonsqtr

15 people... wow... if you murder your own child, you're the one who'll have to live with it for the rest of your life.

Unless of course you have no conscience, which means you're probably a liberal.

----------


## phoenyx

> No. Why would I?


Ah, ok, I see how it is. You have no interest in listening to the reasoning of men who supported their partner having an abortion. Good to know.

----------


## East of the Beast

> Hey, if that lets you sleep at night, go right ahead and believe it. But just in case you ever want to listen to the other side of the story...
> 15 Whisper Confessions Of Women Forced To Have The Baby They Didn't Want | babygaga.com


Then they should have kept their legs together.....dumbass

----------


## phoenyx

> 15 people...


Yep, 15 teens/women who felt forced to carry a fetus to term. You seem fine with that. I think it's probably time I wind down here- it seems people here are not interested in hearing either the stories of people who felt forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term or stories of men who supported their partners in having an abortion. I could find stories of women who actually -had- abortions too, but I imagine no one here will want to hear those either. 

As the old saying goes, "Never argue with someone who knows they're right."

----------


## phoenyx

> Then they should have kept their legs together.


Tell me, have you ever actually -known- someone who had an abortion?

----------


## Canadianeye

> Tell me, have you ever actually -known- someone who had an abortion?


It is difficult, and I was part of having a woman get an abortion when I was about 17/18 years old. She was never the same. Haunted look in her eyes. It shaped my view on the issue, and as well as Progs/Libs/Dems never stopping their "Progress".

Now...it is killing babies prior to first breath. Imagine that. What fucking savagery. Barbarism. Sadistic. Totally...unhuman and inhuman behaviour.

----------


## East of the Beast

> Tell me, have you ever actually -known- someone who had an abortion?


Yes I have....and I have had no respect for them since

----------


## phoenyx

> It is difficult, and I was part of having a woman get an abortion when I was about 17/18 years old. She was never the same. Haunted look in her eyes. It shaped my view on the issue, and as well as Progs/Libs/Dems never stopping their "Progress".


Alright, well I can certainly agree that it can affect people differently. My stepmother had an abortion and she thought is was the right decision. I firmly believe that female teens/women should always have the choice. They may regret the choice to either abort or not abort, or feel they made the right choice either way as well, but I strongly feel that the choice should always be theirs.


I also find it so sad that everyone is so focused on forcing female teens/women to have babies while aproximately 15,000 children die every day:
Child and Infant Mortality - Our World in Data


I remember a former young female friend of mine who was pro life who essentially said it didn't matter after they were born. There you have it I guess.

----------


## phoenyx

> Yes I have....and I have had no respect for them since


Wow that's cold.

----------


## Dan40

> Hey, if that lets you sleep at night, go right ahead and believe it. But just in case you ever want to listen to the other side of the story...
> 15 Whisper Confessions Of Women Forced To Have The Baby They Didn't Want | babygaga.com


Life is tough.  Tougher if you're stupid.  A woman makes a poor sex choice and you think that's justification for murdering a baby.  There are numerous methods of birth control, abortion is the worst choice.

----------


## Authentic

> Ah, ok, I see how it is. You have no interest in listening to the reasoning of men who supported their partner having an abortion. Good to know.


No, I have no interest in hearing justifications for condoning baby murder. 

You do.

----------


## phoenyx

> No, I have no interest in hearing justifications for condoning [abortions]


I guess I should have asked that question -first-, would have spared me thinking you were actually interested in hearing the other side of the story.

----------


## phoenyx

> Life is tough.  Tougher if you're [insult removed]


What is it with you guys and insults? People make mistakes, or they're raped, etc., and ultimately, a fair amount of females get pregnant. For some reason, you guys think that teen females/adult women should be forced to carry these unwanted pregnancies to term anyway. It doesn't really seem like most of you have ever seen things from the other side of this debate, with the lone exception of Canadianeye. Perhaps it's best I step if I just step out of this debate and you guys just keep on believing you're right. As I mentioned before, "Never argue with someone who knows they're right."

----------


## Kodiak

> *I see forcing women to keep babies as a form of slavery, you think the rights of the fetus should trump the rights of a teen/woman.* So clearly, there's a strong disagreement. If civility isn't maintained, I think it's best to just agree to disagree and leave it at that.


Ever hear of adoption?  Plenty of new parents out there that want a baby and the teen mother has lost the burden and will have to live with it. But at least the child is ALIVE and loved.

----------

Authentic (09-27-2021),potlatch (09-27-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> I guess I should have asked that question -first-, would have spared me thinking you were actually interested in hearing the other side of the story.


Go find a site full of baby murderers and tell them the other side.

----------


## Authentic

@phoenyx, how come you keep modifying my posts. Does it make you uncomfortable seeing in print what you really support and condone?

----------

nonsqtr (09-27-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I see forcing women to keep babies as a form of slavery, you think the rights of the fetus should trump the rights of a teen/woman. So clearly, there's a strong disagreement. If civility isn't maintained, I think it's best to just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of adoption?



Yes, but many teens/women don't want to carry a pregnancy to term. I strongly believe that no one should be forced to do that.

----------


## phoenyx

> @phoenyx, how come you keep modifying my posts.


We don't agree on terms- this is one of the biggest pitfalls in this type of debate. Where I see embryos and fetuses, you see babies. The best I can do is translate what you see into what I see, just as you are doing with me.

----------


## Authentic

> What is it with you guys and insults?


How come you thought that was directed at you? It could have been "stupid" in general. Just like changing other people's posts, eh? I'm pretty certain that is a rule violation.

----------


## nonsqtr

> What is it with you guys and insults? People make mistakes, or they're raped, etc., and ultimately, a fair amount of females get pregnant. For some reason, you guys think that teen females/adult women should be forced to carry these unwanted pregnancies to term anyway. It doesn't really seem like most of you have ever seen things from the other side of this debate, with the lone exception of Canadianeye. Perhaps it's best I step if I just step out of this debate and you guys just keep on believing you're right. As I mentioned before, "Never argue with someone who knows they're right."


As usual, you're totally misrepresenting reality.

The number of rapes is TINY compared to the number of women who abort for convenience.

You seem to "believe" you're dealing with a bunch of ignorant dumbfucks.

But on the contrary, we've seen more of the world than you have.

----------

Call_me_Ishmael (09-27-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> How come you thought that was directed at you?


In this case, I didn't. It was clearly directed at the unfortunate females who found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. It's still an insult to people who I don't feel deserve it.

----------


## Authentic

> We don't agree on terms- this is one of the biggest pitfalls in this type of debate. Where I see embryos and fetuses, you see babies. The best I can do is translate what you see into what I see, just as you are doing with me.


I don't change your posts. Don't need to. Their ugliness is on full display for all to see.

There can be no debate with baby killers and their enablers.

----------


## phoenyx

> As usual, you're totally misrepresenting reality.
> 
> The number of rapes is TINY...


Alright, hold the phone a second there. Are you saying that you would support abortions if the pregnancy was due to rape?

----------


## Authentic

> Yes, but many teens/women don't want to carry a pregnancy to term. I strongly believe that no one should be forced to do that.


How about not getting pregnant in the first place?

----------


## Kodiak

> Yes, but many teens/women don't want to carry a pregnancy to term. I strongly believe that no one should be forced to do that.


Ahh, only thinking only of themselves.  If they are that selfish, they never should have spread their legs with the possibilty of creating another life.

----------


## phoenyx

> I don't change your posts.


Fair enough, but you can't deny that where I define a pregnancy as an embryo or a fetus, you define it as a baby. So the best I can do is translate what you are saying into the language I use.

----------


## Authentic

> Alright, hold the phone a second there. Are you saying that you would support abortions if the pregnancy was due to rape?


Would you ONLY support abortion in the case of rape?

----------


## nonsqtr

> In this case, I didn't. It was clearly directed at the unfortunate females who found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. It's still an insult to people who I don't feel deserve it.


And babies "deserve" to be murdered, in your view?

----------


## phoenyx

> How about not getting pregnant in the first place?


Clearly, that would be ideal. So perhaps more energy should be put into preventing unwanted pregnancies instead of forcing females with unwanted pregnancies to carry them to term?

----------


## Canadianeye

> Alright, well I can certainly agree that it can affect people differently. My stepmother had an abortion and she thought is was the right decision. I firmly believe that female teens/women should always have the choice. They may regret the choice to either abort or not abort, or feel they made the right choice either way as well, but I strongly feel that the choice should always be theirs.
> 
> 
> I also find it so sad that everyone is so focused on forcing female teens/women to have babies while aproximately 15,000 children die every day:
> Child and Infant Mortality - Our World in Data
> 
> 
> I remember a former young female friend of mine who was pro life who essentially said it didn't matter after they were born. There you have it I guess.


It helps with a life time of observring what the "issue" really is all about for the collective left.

Abortion, or Pro Abortion is simply voting demographics being applied by Progs/Libs/Dems. The issue was created to split and divide for the resultant voting demographic positioning.

Think about it. The narrative produced towards that end, was body, my right. It was clearly manufactured...because the "State" still told you when you could kill the baby in your womb, and, when you could not kill the baby in your womb. This trimester or that trimester.

This what now collides with that manufactured narrative, because Progs being progs, libs being libs and Dems being Dems...they have to go further in support of that contrived narrative of RvW - being killing a baby just prior to first breath.

That is now perfectly fitting of the narrative my body, my right.

And we all know it isn't stopping there, or rather...it hasn't stopped there.

----------


## Authentic

> Clearly, that would be ideal. So perhaps more energy should be put into preventing unwanted pregnancies instead of forcing females with unwanted pregnancies to carry them to term?


LOL. Alright, lets hear your proposals and see how they match up with mine.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Alright, hold the phone a second there. Are you saying that you would support abortions if the pregnancy was due to rape?


I never "support" abortions.

VERY rarely it is indicated for medical reasons.

And I'm in no position to"support" that either. I think it's a great tragedy.

You did jump on that one though, didn't you? Just like a stupid liberal

----------

Authentic (09-27-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> We don't agree on terms- this is one of the biggest pitfalls in this type of debate. Where I see embryos and fetuses, you see babies. The best I can do is translate what you see into what I see, just as you are doing with me.


You see what we see. A beating heart. Brain activity. Movement. Expression of pain.  You have simply given new names to those small humans who are candidates for convenience abortion.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> In this case, I didn't. It was clearly directed at the unfortunate females who found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. It's still an insult to people who I don't feel deserve it.
> 
> 
> And babies "deserve" to be murdered, in your view?


It's not a matter of whether fetuses "deserve" to be removed from females that don't want to carry them to term. For me, it's ultimately a matter of intelligence. There's evidence that chickens are more intelligent than toddlers in some ways:
Are Baby Chickens Smarter Than Your Toddler? Study Says Newborn Chicks Understand Physics And Math Better Than Children [VIDEO] | HuffPost Life

What I'm getting at is that I think that a female teen/adult is vastly more intelligent than an embryo or fetus. I believe that for this reason, said female should get to decide whether or not she carries said embryo or fetus to term.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Clearly, that would be ideal. So perhaps more energy should be put into preventing unwanted pregnancies instead of forcing females with unwanted pregnancies to carry them to term?


Hey, condoms are 25 cents at your local corner 7-11. How hard can it be?

----------


## phoenyx

> It helps with a life time of observring what the "issue" really is all about for the collective left.
> 
> Abortion, or Pro Abortion is simply voting demographics being applied by Progs/Libs/Dems. The issue was created to split and divide for the resultant voting demographic positioning.
> 
> Think about it. The narrative produced towards that end, was body, my right. It was clearly manufactured...because the "State" still told you when you could kill the baby in your womb, and, when you could not kill the baby in your womb. This trimester or that trimester.
> 
> This what now collides with that manufactured narrative, because Progs being progs, libs being libs and Dems being Dems...they have to go further in support of that contrived narrative of RvW - being killing a baby just prior to first breath.
> 
> That is now perfectly fitting of the narrative my body, my right.
> ...



I agree with the my body, my right bit. I also think it's ironic that some on the right have noticed the hypocrisy of many on the left supporting females right to choose to abort but also supporting vaccine mandates. So it's like they get that hypocrisy, but they don't get the corollary- that is, if people should have a right to choose what goes in their body, they should also have a right to choose what -stays- in their body. 

As to the trimester thing, even the left seems a bit divided there, so I won't wade into that one. 

I think we can all agree that the ideal situation is to avoid unwanted pregnancies, because without those, the issue of whether or not to have an abortion becomes moot- unless we allow for abortions if an embryo/fetus has known genetic defects (I would be in support of abortions in that case). 

I think that life for the born can be hard, and as mentioned previously, around 15,000 children die every day. I don't really think we need force females to have more babies, I think we need to focus on trying to ensure that females don't get unwanted pregnancies to begin with and also to try to reduce the amount of children who are dying every day.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Clearly, that would be ideal. So perhaps more energy should be put into preventing unwanted pregnancies instead of forcing females with unwanted pregnancies to carry them to term?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Alright, lets hear your proposals and see how they match up with mine.


I have no proposals for how to make these things happen, I just think that's where people should be putting their energy instead of trying to force females to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. But I'd be willing to hear your proposals.

----------


## phoenyx

> I never "support" abortions.
> 
> VERY rarely it is indicated for medical reasons.
> 
> And I'm in no position to"support" that either.



What does that mean, exactly? That it doesn't matter how high the risk is to the mother, the pregnancy must come to term regardless?





> I think it's a great tragedy.


What do you think is a great tragedy?




> You did jump on that one though, didn't you? Just like a [insult removed]


The insults just never stop around here -.-

----------


## nonsqtr

> What does that mean, exactly? That it doesn't matter how high the risk is to the mother, the pregnancy must come to term regardless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is a great tragedy?
> 
> 
> 
> The insults just never stop around here -.-


I'm done with you snowflake liberal bullshit.

We all know what you are now.

Have a nice day.

----------

Authentic (09-27-2021),BooBoo (09-28-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> I have no proposals for how to make these things happen, I just think that's where people should be putting their energy instead of trying to force females to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. But I'd be willing to hear your proposals.


My proposal is simple - don't spread your legs if you don't want a baby.

----------

East of the Beast (09-28-2021)

----------


## Dan40

> What does that mean, exactly? That it doesn't matter how high the risk is to the mother, the pregnancy must come to term regardless?
> .-


Nobody has said or infered that.  More of your liberal bullshit diversion attempts.  What is a MEDICALLY NECESSARY procedure is just that.  Necessary!  It is abortion i.e. baby murder, as birth control,that we object to..  Women demanded that birth control be provided by health insurance.   They should use that in lieu of infanticide.  I feel for the child born to a mother that does not want the child.  But you think murder is the better choice.

----------

Authentic (09-27-2021)

----------


## Rutabaga

> We're talking about gender here, not sex, although even in regards to sex, there are exceptions to the rule, as I pointed out in post Post #59:
> Insane House... - Page 6


nonsense...

----------

BooBoo (09-28-2021)

----------


## Dan40

> nonsense...


TRUE, total nonsense.  Gender refers to the use of language.  When talking about people, we're talking sex.  More utter liberal stupidity.  2 sexes, M & F.  That's all the choices, 2.

----------

BooBoo (09-28-2021),Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> My proposal is simple - don't spread your legs if you don't want a baby.


Sigh -.-. I just thought about a proposal that I think is best- listen to people who have gotten unwanted pregnancies and see how it happened, then work on ways to avoid those types of things from happening. I was briefly an english teacher in Mexico and the way I'd figure out how to help them learn english properly was basically reverse engineering their mistakes- figuring out why they made them and then incorporating that knowledge into my future lessons.

----------


## East of the Beast

> Sigh -.-. I just thought about a proposal that I think is best- listen to people who have gotten unwanted pregnancies and see how it happened, then work on ways to avoid those types of things from happening. I was briefly an english teacher in Mexico and the way I'd figure out how to help them learn english properly was basically reverse engineering their mistakes- figuring out why they made them and then incorporating that knowledge into my future lessons.


Bullshit.......Oh, I was walking down the street and I tripped and fell on some guys dick and he accidentally ejaculated into my vagina.
,

----------

Authentic (09-28-2021),BooBoo (09-28-2021),nonsqtr (09-28-2021)

----------


## msc

> I'm a solid lefty on this issue, so I fully support it. Looks like it's unlikely to pass the Senate though:
> 
> House approves measure to protect abortion rights amid threats from states and the courts | nytimes.com


Sad to hear that you believe in murdering innocent children, endorsing a society that encourages selfishness and has little respect for human life.  

And by the way, a person who performs an abortion is not exercising a right to do what they want with their own body.  A person who performs an abortion is killing a child in someone else's body.  Even if a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body, that right does not include a right to services from other human beings, that include murdering a third party.  

I delivered two children that passed away in my body.  One was a boy at 20 weeks and one was a girl at 17 weeks.  I held them both.  They were perfectly beautiful little humans.  Perhaps had you held them in your arms as I did, and touched their little noses, face, fingers, arms and legs, you may feel differently imagining someone ripping them apart when they were alive, moving away trying to avoid the scissors that will bring them torture and death, that humans and living creatures instinctually try to avoid. The child does not miraculously go from a lump of an unwanted tumor to a human being because they pass through a canal into a different environment with a different means to sustain their life. There is no scientific logic behind that, nor is there a moral decency to support it.  We all begin life the same way.

----------

BooBoo (09-28-2021),QuaseMarco (09-28-2021)

----------


## QuaseMarco

> Sad to hear that you believe in murdering innocent children, endorsing a society that encourages selfishness and has little respect for human life.  
> 
> And by the way, a person who performs an abortion is not exercising a right to do what they want with their own body.  A person who performs an abortion is killing a child in someone else's body.  Even if a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body, that right does not include a right to services from other human beings, that include murdering a third party.  
> 
> I delivered two children that passed away in my body.  One was a boy at 20 weeks and one was a girl at 17 weeks.  I held them both.  They were perfectly beautiful little humans.  Perhaps had you held them in your arms as I did, and touched their little noses, face, fingers, arms and legs, you may feel differently imagining someone ripping them apart when they were alive, moving away trying to avoid the scissors that will bring them torture and death, that humans and living creatures instinctually try to avoid. The child does not miraculously go from a lump of an unwanted tumor to a human being because they pass through a canal into a different environment with a different means to sustain their life. There is no scientific logic behind that, nor is there a moral decency to support it.  We all begin life the same way.


Powerful!

----------

BooBoo (09-28-2021),East of the Beast (09-28-2021)

----------


## East of the Beast

> Sad to hear that you believe in murdering innocent children, endorsing a society that encourages selfishness and has little respect for human life.  
> 
> And by the way, a person who performs an abortion is not exercising a right to do what they want with their own body.  A person who performs an abortion is killing a child in someone else's body.  Even if a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body, that right does not include a right to services from other human beings, that include murdering a third party.  
> 
> I delivered two children that passed away in my body.  One was a boy at 20 weeks and one was a girl at 17 weeks.  I held them both.  They were perfectly beautiful little humans.  Perhaps had you held them in your arms as I did, and touched their little noses, face, fingers, arms and legs, you may feel differently imagining someone ripping them apart when they were alive, moving away trying to avoid the scissors that will bring them torture and death, that humans and living creatures instinctually try to avoid. The child does not miraculously go from a lump of an unwanted tumor to a human being because they pass through a canal into a different environment with a different means to sustain their life. There is no scientific logic behind that, nor is there a moral decency to support it.  We all begin life the same way.


Beautifully put

----------

BooBoo (09-28-2021),QuaseMarco (09-28-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Sad to hear that you believe in murdering innocent children


No, I don't, at least not by my definition of children. I and many others define children as having been born. I know that you don't. 

Anyway, I think it's become clear to me that when it comes to this particular issue, people can "insult at will" and the administration here will say that it's all fine, so I figure it'd probably be best if I just get out of this subject here. A bit like trying to get out of a whirlpool, but I'm working at it.

----------

BooBoo (09-28-2021)

----------


## Trinnity

> No, I don't, at least not by my definition of children. I and many others define children as having been born. I know that you don't. 
> 
> *Anyway, I think it's become clear to me that when it comes to this particular issue, people can "insult at will" and the administration here will say that it's all fine,* so I figure it'd probably be best if I just get out of this subject here. A bit like trying to get out of a whirlpool, but I'm working at it.


*That's a lie.* You have a lot of nerve. I'm well known for being fair and modding by the rules, not  my emotions or bias. Don't you complain about insults when you've been told by me several times to read the rules where insults are covered. Sending multiple reports on people and taking potshots at me in public makes you look ignorant and petty.

----------

BooBoo (09-28-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> *That's a lie.* You have a lot of nerve. I'm well known for being fair and modding by the rules, not  my emotions or bias. Don't you complain about insults when you've been told by me several times to read the rules where insults are covered. Sending multiple reports on people and taking potshots at me in public makes you look ignorant and petty.


Well, in my defense, I did say I -think- it's become clear. If I'd really been sure, I would have said I believe. Thank you for the private conversations we had. You'll note that I admit that I was surprised regarding a certain stance you have. As to the rules on insults, I admit that I either didn't read or forgot the part where it mentioned specific insults that were in the 'don't do' zone, but they were listed as examples, not as the complete list. Perhaps one day the list could become a bit more complete. In any case, I've frequently felt that there are some subjects that some forums don't take well and I think it's clear that voicing one's support for the pro choice movement just doesn't fly well here.

----------

BooBoo (09-28-2021)

----------


## BooBoo

The Forum Rules are Made for Every Member, Not Individual Members...!!!

----------


## BooBoo

> Sigh -.-. I just thought about a proposal that I think is best- listen to people who have gotten unwanted pregnancies and see how it happened, then work on ways to avoid those types of things from happening. *I was briefly an english teacher in Mexico* and the way I'd figure out how to help them learn english properly was basically reverse engineering their mistakes- figuring out why they made them and then incorporating that knowledge into my future lessons.


*Explains alot*...!!!

----------


## phoenyx

> *Explains alot*...!!!


How so?

----------


## Gator Monroe

> How so?


It shows your bias towards Brown Dwarfs .

----------


## Rutabaga

> TRUE, total nonsense.  Gender refers to the use of language.  When talking about people, we're talking sex.  More utter liberal stupidity.  2 sexes, M & F.  That's all the choices, 2.


yes, "gender" is fluid, like the ice cream flavor of the day...its mental, not physical, not tangible.

sex is what father nature gave you at birth...play acting wont change that, ever...and no amt. of whining will convince sane people that sex can "change"  all you can change are some bits and pieces to help complete the costume...

----------


## Rutabaga

> Fair enough, but you can't deny that where I define a pregnancy as an embryo or a fetus, you define it as a baby. *So the best I can do is translate what you are saying into the language I use.*


*
*
can i "translate what you say into the language that i use"?

example:

you say "my body, my choice"

i translate what you say into what i use to "i like killing babies"

you see no problem with changing the vernacular/meaning of others thoughts into your own vernacular/meaning because you are incapable of being objective.

grow up.


the human brain does not fully develop until mid to late 20's.

you need about 10 more years of development before you're operating at full capacity...

and no, lil girl, i dont believe you are an adult.

----------

Call_me_Ishmael (09-28-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> My proposal is simple - don't spread your legs if you don't want a baby.


Full surgical castration of males who are proven violent rapists.  Remove the ovaries of those women who get a convenience abortion.

----------

Authentic (09-28-2021),East of the Beast (09-28-2021),Kodiak (09-28-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> Sigh -.-. I just thought about a proposal that I think is best- listen to people who have gotten unwanted pregnancies and see how it happened, then work on ways to avoid those types of things from happening. I was briefly an english teacher in Mexico and the way I'd figure out how to help them learn english properly was basically reverse engineering their mistakes- figuring out why they made them and then incorporating that knowledge into my future lessons.


Are you one of those lefties who think that guns go off on their own?

----------


## Authentic

One of the vaccines was developed using cells of an aborted baby.

----------

phoenyx (09-28-2021)

----------


## Trinnity

> Well, in my defense, I did say I -think- it's become clear.


You cast aspersions on _my character._





> You'll note that I admit that I was surprised regarding a certain stance you have.


You're been pretty clear your political leanings, but I don't talk a lot about myself. You made assumptions about me. 




> As to the rules on insults, I admit that I either didn't read or forgot the part where it mentioned specific insults that were in the 'don't do' zone, but they were listed as examples, not as the complete list. Perhaps one day the list could become a bit more complete.


There is no list and there won't be. I told you fuck you etc, and cunt are the only words I consider insults. Fuck is specifically covered. You send in too many trivial reports over this one issue. The rules say be reasonably civil. Adults are expected to balance their language and expectations. 




> In any case, I've frequently felt that there are some subjects that some forums don't take well and I think it's clear that voicing one's support for the pro choice movement just doesn't fly well here.


I don't care about your feelings. It's a political forum. Thicken your skin. Ffs, I thought you were a girl...

----------

Oceander (09-28-2021)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> I think one of the biggest problems in talking about this issue is that we frequently can't even agree on definitions. For many of those pro choice movement, a pregnant woman is strictly speaking carrying either an embryo or a fetus, not a baby. Wikipedia defines these terms as follows: "A fetus or foetus is the unborn offspring of an animal that develops from an embryo.[1] Following embryonic development the fetal stage of development takes place. In human prenatal development, fetal development begins from the ninth week after fertilisation (or eleventh week gestational age) and continues until birth.[2]"
> 
> Source:
> Fetus - Wikipedia
> 
> I've debated with people who think that women should be forced to carry their embryos or fetuses to term. As with vaccines, I think that people should always be at choice as to what is in their body, but just as many used to be ok with slavery, many currently believe that the governments should be able to force what is in people's bodies.


And we all know that embryos and fetuses NEVER become human.

----------


## Authentic

I had to to tone down my rhetoric in this thread to remain reasonably civil. It's been a long time since I 've been in an abortion debate. I should go to the old lefty forum and see what I said there.

----------


## Authentic

> It shows your bias towards Brown Dwarfs .


I am biased toward Red Dwarfs.

----------


## Authentic

I see that on the old forum, I took on a mocking tone.

 Someone suggested that we the living may not be here if another baby hadn't been aborted, to which I responded:

LOL! Please explain how one baby being murdered influences the likelihood of another baby being conceived and born.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> I see that on the old forum, I took on a mocking tone.
> 
>  Someone suggested that we the living may not be here if another baby hadn't been aborted, to which I responded:
> 
> LOL! Please explain how one baby being murdered influences the likelihood of another baby being conceived and born.


They were suggesting your mother aborted an earlier one and that if she had carried it to birth, you might not have been conceived.

It is a retard response for sure

----------

Authentic (09-28-2021),msc (09-29-2021)

----------


## Authentic

Reading on, I did back then what I am doing here - calling abortion murder and suggesting that pro-choicers use "abortion" because it sounds clinical and helps ease their conscience.

You can't let lefties define terms and circumscribe the language.

----------

msc (09-29-2021),Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## Gator Monroe

> Reading on, I did back then what I am doing here - calling abortion murder and suggesting that pro-choicers use "abortion" because it sounds clinical and helps ease their conscience.
> 
> You can't let lefties define terms and circumscribe the language.


Because they will push Legalized Drugs & Open Borders & Socialism with the language guidelines

----------


## Rutabaga

the little turd blossom has been flooding trin with butthurt reports...


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Rutabaga

> Reading on, I did back then what I am doing here - calling abortion murder and suggesting that pro-choicers use "abortion" because it sounds clinical and helps ease their conscience.
> 
> You can't let lefties define terms and circumscribe the language.



correct...as if a "progressive" is actually a good thing, when the reality is, they are regressive...clamoring for segregation, racism, sexism, discrimination, ALL THE THINGS THE REPUBLICANS FOUGHT THEM OVER AND ABOLISHED BEFORE.

----------

Authentic (09-28-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> the little turd blossom has been flooding trin with butthurt reports...


I saw that he was PMing.

----------

phoenyx (09-28-2021),Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> [/B]
> can i "translate what you say into the language that i use"?
> 
> example:
> 
> you say "my body, my choice"
> 
> i translate what you say into what i use to "i like killing babies"


Of course you can translate what I say into your own words- you're doing it and may have done it before. The main problem in all of this is that we're not agreeing on definitions for words. Without an agreement on such a basic thing, meaningful conversation tends to grind to a halt.

----------


## phoenyx

> Reading on, I did back then what I am doing here - calling abortion murder and suggesting that pro-choicers use "abortion" because it sounds clinical and helps ease their conscience.
> 
> You can't let lefties define terms and circumscribe the language.


As if there was only one set of definitions for the words we've been using. I think it's clear that the right and the left don't agree on various word definitions. And this is precisely the problem. If we can't even agree on the definitions of words for the purposes of a discussion, the discussion might as well just stop.

----------


## Rutabaga

> I saw that he was PMing.


little girls always cry for mommy when somebody disagrees with them...


pathetic...this aint our first rodeo, and reading these kids is like reading a dr. suess book, it aint complicated...


snivelers are disgusting,,,their collective weakness sickens me...

----------


## phoenyx

> Are you one of those lefties who think that guns go off on their own?


Do you have any evidence that any serious person on the left believes that?

----------


## Authentic

The pro-choicers really like the red herring of "what if a woman conceives after rape?"

Well first, rape is a despicable crime against nature. So is murder. Do we compound one crime by committing another?

Second, I've never met a lefty who deployed this not so clever wedge tactic who would ever agree to making abortion legal ONLY in the case of rape.

It also ignores that the feminists are busy trying to make _all_ sex rape and/or portray all men as potential rapists.

When that happens, there is no limit on when or why abortion can be performed as a sacrament of the feminist religion.

----------

Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## Authentic

Abortion is sacrificing children to Molech.

----------

Call_me_Ishmael (09-28-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> One of the vaccines was developed using cells of an aborted baby.


Yes, I heard that. Perhaps more than one. You know I'm not a fan of vaccines, so it's unlikely that I'll ever take one of those.

----------


## Rutabaga

> As if there was only one set of definitions for the words we've been using. I think it's clear that the right and the left don't agree on various word definitions. And this is precisely the problem. If we can't even agree on the definitions of words for the purposes of a discussion, *the discussion might as well just stop.*


*
*
translation:

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Of course you can translate what I say into your own words- you're doing it and may have done it before. The main problem in all of this is that we're not agreeing on definitions for words. Without an agreement on such a basic thing, meaningful conversation tends to grind to a halt.


Not sure i agree . You made your position very clear. And it was meaningful. You support convenience killing of people who:

- you believe are property
- you believe are not human 
- cannot vote or have a voice in legislation or judicial proceedings

This sounds familiar.

----------

Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> The pro-choicers really like the red herring of "what if a woman conceives after rape?"
> 
> Well first, rape is a despicable crime against nature. So is murder. Do we compound one crime by committing another?


Is it murder if you someone kills a chicken? And yet...
Are Baby Chickens Smarter Than Your Toddler? Study Says Newborn Chicks Understand Physics And Math Better Than Children [VIDEO] | HuffPost Life

----------


## Authentic

> Do you have any evidence that any serious person on the left believes that?


Sure. They want to control guns. Here is my response:

----------


## Rutabaga

> Of course you can translate what I say into your own words- you're doing it and may have done it before. The main problem in all of this is that we're not agreeing on definitions for words. Without an agreement on such a basic thing, meaningful conversation tends to grind to a halt.



i "may have" done what before?


so far, ONLY YOU changed a post to reflect YOUR definition/meaning...


thats dishonest, and the fact that you are incapable of recognizing that, is indicative of a morally bankrupt quasi human...


shame on you.

you are DISSMISSED.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> the little turd blossom has been flooding trin with butthurt reports...


For someone calling him a loon. Cheesus. "Loon" is a Mary Poppins kind of insult.

----------

Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> Is it murder if you someone kills a chicken? And yet...
> Are Baby Chickens Smarter Than Your Toddler? Study Says Newborn Chicks Understand Physics And Math Better Than Children [VIDEO] | HuffPost Life


HuffPo Life? LOL!

----------


## phoenyx

> Not sure i agree . You made your position very clear. And it was meaningful. You support convenience killing of people who:
> 
> - you believe are property
> - you believe are not human 
> - cannot vote or have a voice in legislation or judicial preceding 
> 
> This sounds familiar.



I support pregnant human females having the option of aborting an embryo or a fetus if they so choose. I think that Canada is exemplary in regards to defending females' freedom in this regard. From Wikipedia's page on Abortion in Canada:
**
*Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy (regardless of the reason) and is publicly funded as a medical procedure under the combined effects of the federal Canada Health Act and provincial health-care systems.[1] However, access to services and resources varies by region.[2] While some non-legal barriers to access continue to exist,[1] Canada is the only nation with absolutely no legal restrictions to access abortion services.[3][4]*

[snip]
Roughly 90 percent of abortions are performed within the first trimester (12 weeks).[11]
**

Source:
Abortion in Canada - Wikipedia

----------


## Rutabaga

> For someone calling hom a loon. Cheesus. "Loon" is a Mary Poppins kind of insult.


I prefer, asshole, needledickbugfucker, shithead, etc,,,loon would never enter my vernacular unless we are talking about birds.

----------


## Rutabaga

> I support pregnant human females having the option of aborting an embryo or a fetus if they so choose. I think that Canada is exemplary in regards to defending females' freedom in this regard. From Wikipedia's page on Abortion in Canada:
> **
> *Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy (regardless of the reason) and is publicly funded as a medical procedure under the combined effects of the federal Canada Health Act and provincial health-care systems.[1] However, access to services and resources varies by region.[2] While some non-legal barriers to access continue to exist,[1] Canada is the only nation with absolutely no legal restrictions to access abortion services.[3][4]*
> 
> [snip]
> Roughly 90 percent of abortions are performed within the first trimester (12 weeks).[11]
> **
> 
> Source:
> Abortion in Canada - Wikipedia




who cares?


this is the  USA, not our cap...

----------


## Authentic

> I support pregnant human females having the option of aborting an embryo or a fetus if they so choose. I think that Canada is exemplary in regards to defending females' freedom in this regard. From Wikipedia's page on Abortion in Canada:
> **
> *Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy (regardless of the reason) and is publicly funded as a medical procedure under the combined effects of the federal Canada Health Act and provincial health-care systems.[1] However, access to services and resources varies by region.[2] While some non-legal barriers to access continue to exist,[1] Canada is the only nation with absolutely no legal restrictions to access abortion services.[3][4]*
> 
> [snip]
> Roughly 90 percent of abortions are performed within the first trimester (12 weeks).[11]
> **
> 
> Source:
> Abortion in Canada - Wikipedia


Do you... ahh never mind. You are in Canada and don't have freedom of speech.

----------

Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Sure. They want to control guns. Here is my response:


I'm actually more to the right on guns than Canada allows. I think that, ideally, all guns would be registered, but that would only apply if we could trust governments to not take that information and remove people's guns with it later. They've done that in Canada.

----------


## phoenyx

> Do you... Ahh never mind. You are in Canada and don't have freedom of speech.


Pffft. We still have freedom of speech here. Thought the way things are going both here and in the U.S., not sure how much longer that will last.

----------


## Authentic

> I prefer, asshole, needledickbugfucker, shithead, etc,,,loon would never enter my vernacular unless we are talking about birds.


I was on Topix and someone was being called out for being a snowflake. He actually threatened to call the police because he was being "cyberbullied".

----------

Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Is it murder if you someone kills a chicken? And yet...
> Are Baby Chickens Smarter Than Your Toddler? Study Says Newborn Chicks Understand Physics And Math Better Than Children [VIDEO] | HuffPost Life


i have no doubt at all that the average chicken is more intelligent than the average prog..none at all..you reinforce that fact with every post...

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I support pregnant human females having the option of aborting an embryo or a fetus if they so choose. I think that Canada is exemplary in regards to defending females' freedom in this regard. From Wikipedia's page on Abortion in Canada:
> **
> *Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy (regardless of the reason) and is publicly funded as a medical procedure under the combined effects of the federal Canada Health Act and provincial health-care systems.[1] However, access to services and resources varies by region.[2] While some non-legal barriers to access continue to exist,[1] Canada is the only nation with absolutely no legal restrictions to access abortion services.[3][4]*
> 
> [snip]
> Roughly 90 percent of abortions are performed within the first trimester (12 weeks).[11]
> ...


cap? Anyway, there is a world outside of the U.S.'s borders- just as I care about what happens in the U.S, I think it stands to reason that those in the U.S. should care about what happens outside of its borders. And even in the U.S., opinion is clearly divided on the issue of abortion.

----------


## phoenyx

> i have no doubt at all that the average chicken is more intelligent than the average prog..none at all..you reinforce that fact with every post...


The comparison was between chickens and toddlers- can you at least -attempt- to try to stay on the subject of abortion?

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> I prefer, asshole, needledickbugfucker, shithead, etc,,,loon would never enter my vernacular unless we are talking about birds.


I might say it to a friend who just said something wacky. "Mutherf_er" is high on my list of insults. Sonofabitch is a pretty serious one too.  But I often fall back on FkingAsshole as my  default insult.  Loon? Or even Lunatic? They are the cookies of insults... the slight punch on the arm, a verbal rolling of the eyes. 

What a loon!

----------


## Authentic

And it started because someone changed his screenname. He had posted as a guest. We explained to him that Topix was pretty much a free for all (The Jerry Springer Show of boards), that he could always register if he wanted to protect his identity, and to suck it up, buttercup.

----------

Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> cap? Anyway, there is a world outside of the U.S.'s borders- just as I care about what happens in the U.S, I think it stands to reason that those in the U.S. should care about what happens outside of its borders. And even in the U.S., opinion is clearly divided on the issue of abortion.


A globalist too?

----------

Authentic (09-28-2021)

----------


## Rutabaga

> cap? Anyway, there is a world outside of the U.S.'s borders- just as I care about what happens in the U.S, I think it stands to reason that those in the U.S. should care about what happens outside of its borders. And even in the U.S., opinion is clearly divided on the issue of abortion.


my concern is HERE

FIRST AND FOREMOST..

THIS is my country/family, and I PUT MY FAMILIES INTEREST BEFORE YOURS.

----------


## Authentic

> The comparison was between chickens and toddlers- can you at least -attempt- to try to stay on the subject of abortion?


Leftists behave like toddlers.

----------

Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> A globalist too?


A rather vague term. I'm certainly not a fan of isolationism. Just saying it might help if you guys tried to put yourself in the shoes of the many people, inside and outside of the U.S., that are pro choice. Unfortunately, it seems most here just want to hurl insults with them.

----------


## Authentic

> A rather vague term. I'm certainly not a fan of isolationism. Just saying it might help if you guys tried to put yourself in the shoes of the many people, inside and outside of the U.S., that are pro choice. Unfortunately, it seems most here just want to hurl insults with them.


I put myself in your shoes by checking myself when I realized that answering my question could result in a visit to you from the RCMP.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Is it murder if you someone kills a chicken? And yet...
> Are Baby Chickens Smarter Than Your Toddler? Study Says Newborn Chicks Understand Physics And Math Better Than Children [VIDEO] | HuffPost Life


Not sure about newly hatched. But adult chickens seem to know the difference between hens and roosters of their species. Progs in the human species seem to be confused over who is a woman and who is a man. So when it comes to biology... chickens 1, human progs 0.

----------

Authentic (09-28-2021),Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## Rutabaga

> The comparison was between chickens and toddlers- can you at least -attempt- to try to stay on the subject of abortion?



i made the comparison between you and a chicken and how from your story chickens are smarter than humans. i agreed, chickens are smarter than a prog..chickens give us eggs and meat,,,i see nothing you contribute to society.

btw, i dont take directions from somebody dumber than a chicken, but only slightly more intelligent than a sack of hammers. :Cool20:

----------

Authentic (09-28-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> I put myself in your shoes by checking myself when I realized that answering my question could result in a visit to you from the RCMP.


That sentence made no sense.

----------


## Rutabaga

> A rather vague term. I'm certainly not a fan of isolationism. Just saying it might help if you guys tried to put yourself in the shoes of the many people, inside and outside of the U.S., that are pro choice. Unfortunately, it seems most here just want to hurl insults with them.



canada, and the entire rest of S.America exists under the protective umbrella of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S military might...

thats WHY you can spend so little on your military and more on social programs, BECUSE THE US TAXPAYER IS PAYING TO PROTECT YOU.


without our protection, you would be russian or chinese by now...


be a little more grateful to the ones paying/dying so you can run your mouth here..

----------


## phoenyx

> i made the comparison between you and a chicken


Yeah, you're focusing on ad hominem attacks and have left the discussion of abortion entirely.

----------


## Kodiak

> Pffft. We still have freedom of speech here. Thought *the way things are going both here and in the U.S., not sure how much longer that will last.*


Thanks to your leftist freedom-hating buddies.

----------

Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Yeah, you're focusing on ad hominem attacks and have left the discussion of abortion entirely.


and?

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> A rather vague term. I'm certainly not a fan of isolationism. Just saying it might help if you guys tried to put yourself in the shoes of the many people, inside and outside of the U.S., that are pro choice. Unfortunately, it seems most here just want to hurl insults with them.


Well I lived in Turkey for awhile. They arn't real hot on abortion either. After 10 weeks .... there have to be some health reasons to get an abortion. And the father has a say. Or the parents if she's under 18.  None of this "oh... it would fuck up my life" business. 

Now, your buddies in China were abortion experts.  

Where all have you lived?  I don't think you did your research , sparky. 


There are more countries that have constraints on abortion than those that don't.

----------


## phoenyx

> canada, and the entire rest of S.America exists under the protective umbrella of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S military might...
> 
> thats WHY you can spend so little on your military and more on social programs, BECUSE THE US TAXPAYER IS PAYING TO PROTECT YOU.
> 
> 
> without our protection, you would be russian or chinese by now...
> 
> 
> be a little more grateful to the ones paying/dying so you can run your mouth here..


I think there are far better ways of protecting everyone than having the biggest military arsenal. Here's a book that I think gets into what I think of most war by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC:
General Smedley D. Butler: War Is A Racket - Oath Keepers

----------


## Authentic

> That sentence made no sense.


Why not?

----------


## potlatch

> I see that on the old forum, I took on a mocking tone.
> 
>  Someone suggested that we the living may not be here if another baby hadn't been aborted, to which I responded:
> 
> LOL! Please explain how one baby being murdered influences the likelihood of another baby being conceived and born.


 @Authentic @Call_me_Ishmael

I haven't read this thread but your discussion caught my eye about how one baby being aborted could affect the future of another.

It's a hypothetical, sort of a 'time machine' kind of thought. The aborted baby could have been the person who saved the second baby's life in the future, or the aborted baby could have been the person pushing a Nuke or other bomb killing many in the future.

 Just my meandering thoughts....but how do we know that isn't a possibility.... :Dontknow:

----------


## Authentic

> canada, and the entire rest of S.America exists under the protective umbrella of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S military might...
> 
> thats WHY you can spend so little on your military and more on social programs, BECUSE THE US TAXPAYER IS PAYING TO PROTECT YOU.
> 
> 
> without our protection, you would be russian or chinese by now...
> 
> 
> be a little more grateful to the ones paying/dying so you can run your mouth here..


Vancouver is pretty much Chinese.

----------


## phoenyx

> Well I lived in Turkey for awhile. They arn't real hot on abortion either. After 10 weeks .... there have to be some health reasons to get an abortion. And the father has a say. Or the parents if she's under 18.  None of this "oh... it would fuck up my life" business. 
> 
> Now, your buddies in China were abortion experts.  
> 
> Where all have you lived?  I don't think you did your research , sparky. 
> 
> 
> There are more countries that have constraints on abortion than those that don't.


I never said that most nations were pro choice. I've certainly never done a survey of all the countries on the world on this issue. I simply said that many nations are pro choice, and many people in the U.S. are as well.

----------


## phoenyx

> Why not?


You know what, maybe it's better that I don't know what you actually meant.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> I never said that most nations were pro choice. I've certainly never done a survey of all the countries on the world on this issue. I simply said that many nations are *pro choice*, and many people in the U.S. are as well.


We are back to your euphemisms ..

When is the child given a choice?

----------

Authentic (09-28-2021),Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> You know what, maybe it's better that I don't know what you actually meant.


That is my point. It is why I never asked the question.

----------


## phoenyx

> We are back to your euphemisms ..


Not a euphemism at all- it's simply a different focus. Those who are against abortions like to focus on the embryos and the fetuses. Those for abortion like to focus on the fact that they want to give pregnant females the choice on whether or not they'd like to bring their pregnancy to term.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> @Authentic @Call_me_Ishmael
> 
> I haven't read this thread but your discussion caught my eye about how one baby being aborted could affect the future of another.
> 
> It's a hypothetical, sort of a 'time machine' kind of thought. The aborted baby could have been the person who saved the second baby's life in the future, or the aborted baby could have been the person pushing a Nuke or other bomb killing many in the future.
> 
>  Just my meandering thoughts....but how do we know that isn't a possibility....


I didn't interpret it that way.  But regardless of the intent of the post that Authentic mentioned.... your time machine thoughts are valid. But I think it's only the *details* of history have been changed through abortion.  I think (and every once in awhile post similar words ) that the flow of history is only facilitated by individuals ...not driven. Facilitators may seem like special people to us but they are but a midwife to the pregnant universe that is ready to give birth to a new era, a major event in the history of the world. And they are replaceable. 

Those are my meandering thoughts.  :Smiley20:

----------

Authentic (09-28-2021),phoenyx (09-28-2021),potlatch (09-28-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> Not a euphemism at all- it's simply a different focus. Those who are against abortions like to focus on the embryos and the fetuses. Those for abortion like to focus on the fact that they want to give pregnant females the choice on whether or not they'd like to bring their pregnancy to term.


You are leaving out what is involved in that process. 

Abortionists like to use sanitized language like "medical procedure", abortion "clinic", "reproductive rights", or "women's healthcare".

All this obfuscates the fact that you are talking about tearing up a sentient human being and throwing the whole bloody mess in the trash.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Not a euphemism at all- it's simply a different focus. Those who are against abortions like to focus on the embryos and the fetuses. Those for abortion like to focus on the fact that they want to give pregnant females the choice on whether or not they'd like to bring their pregnancy to term.


Disagree.  Most of those who oppose the current abortion climate recognize the rights and needs of the woman AND the unborn child. That is why many of us don't fight abortion before heartbeats, or abortion for violent rape or incest. But whether we do or not,  in weighing both the needs of the mother and the needs of the child, the things we are weighing are different for convenience abortions. LIFE on the one hand, convenience on the other.  

Whereas you people make no compromise whatsoever. You do not try to balance the needs of the unborn child with the needs of the woman. It's death death death...and death by the most heinous methods.  No ifs ands or buts.

So you are lying... or just so stupid as to the facts that you think you can just say what you did. "Different focus".  :Lame:   :Wtf20:

----------

Authentic (09-28-2021)

----------


## potlatch

> I didn't interpret it that way.  But regardless of the intent of the post that Authentic mentioned.... your time machine thoughts are valid. But I think it's only the *details* of history have been changed through abortion.  I think (and every one in awhile post similar words ) that the flow of history is only facilitated by individuals ...not driven. Facilitators may seem like special people to us but they are but a midwife to the pregnant universe that is ready to give birth to a new era, a major event in the history of the world. And they are replaceable. 
> 
> Those are my meandering thoughts.


You meander well Call_me_Ishmael.  :Smile:  There's so much we don't know.  :Dontknow:

----------


## phoenyx

> You are leaving out what is involved in that process.


When dealing with a subject as large as abortion, any 2 words will leave out a lot. "Pro life" and "pro choice" are perhaps the best examples.






> Abortionists like to use sanitized language like "medical procedure", abortion "clinic", "reproductive rights", or "women's healthcare".



Conversely, anti abortionists don't like focusing on the fact that their goal is to force females to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Some on the right get the fact that there are paralells between forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies and forcing people to take unwanted vaccines, but they only see the fact that many on the left are hypocritical here. They don't see that they too are being hypocritical when they demand the right to refuse vaccines but turn a blind eye to females being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. 




> All this obfuscates the fact that you are talking about tearing up a sentient human being and throwing the whole bloody mess in the trash.


Most meat eaters have no problem with killing other sentient animals for nourishment, and I'm not talking about animal embryos and fetuses. There seems to be a strong streak of speciesism here. I think the primary focus should be on intelligence, and I think no one doubts that a teen or a woman are -far- more intelligent than an embryo or a fetus.

----------


## Rutabaga

i knew it, turd blossom is a vegan..
[btw, most vegans are female juveniles, as they "auto correct" as they mature]

they just cant help but bring that into every conversation...


"hello, my names turdblossom and i'm a vegan"

 :Geez:

----------

Captain Kirk! (09-28-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Disagree.  Most of those who oppose the current abortion climate recognize the rights and needs of the woman AND the unborn child. That is why many of us don't fight abortion before heartbeats, or abortion for violent rape or incest. But whether we do or not,  in weighing both the needs of the mother and the needs of the child, the things we are weighing are different for convenience abortions. LIFE on the one hand, convenience on the other.  
> 
> Whereas you people make no compromise whatsoever. You do not try to balance the needs of the unborn child with the needs of the woman. It's death death death...and death by the most heinous methods.  No ifs ands or buts.


As a male, I will never have to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy in my own body to term. Only females will ever have to make that choice, assuming they have a choice. I can still voice my opinion on the matter, especially if it's my partner who is considering having an abortion, but I don't feel that I have the right to tell them what to do, one way or the other. This is the primary reason that I'm pro choice. 

You bring up other terms, terms that I believe I need to constantly translate into my own terminology. Like most if not all who are on the pro choice side, when discussing the issue of abortion, I define children as those who have been born into this world and have spent a few years in it. As to life, we kill it every day as a matter of course- we wouldn't be able to even live if we weren't killing it every day. Because of that, I strongly believe that we need to differentiate different life forms. I strongly believe that we should stick to eating the less intelligent life forms and avoid eating the more intelligent ones. Similarly, if a more intelligent life form wants to remove a less intelligent life form from their body, I believe they should generally be allowed to do so.

----------


## phoenyx

> i knew it, [insult removed] is a vegan..


Ever with the assumptions. I'm not even vegetarian.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Ever with the assumptions. I'm not even vegetarian.


if you think we believe one word of the personal persona you are attempting to present here, you are delusional...


you are a liar, first and foremost.

----------

Captain Kirk! (09-28-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> As a male, I will never have to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy in my own body to term. Only females will ever have to make that choice, assuming they have a choice. I can still voice my opinion on the matter, especially if it's my partner who is considering having an abortion, but I don't feel that I have the right to tell them what to do, one way or the other. This is the primary reason that I'm pro choice. 
> 
> You bring up other terms, terms that I believe I need to constantly translate into my own terminology. Like most if not all who are on the pro choice side, when discussing the issue of abortion, I define children as those who have been born into this world and have spent a few years in it. As to life, we kill it every day as a matter of course- we wouldn't be able to even live if we weren't killing it every day. Because of that, I strongly believe that we need to differentiate different life forms. I strongly believe that we should stick to eating the less intelligent life forms and avoid eating the more intelligent ones. Similarly, if a more intelligent life form wants to remove a less intelligent life form from their body, I believe they should generally be allowed to do so.


You complete side stepped my post.

----------

Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> As a male, I will never have to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy in my own body to term. Only females will ever have to make that choice, assuming they have a choice. I can still voice my opinion on the matter, especially if it's my partner who is considering having an abortion, but I don't feel that I have the right to tell them what to do, one way or the other. This is the primary reason that I'm pro choice. 
> 
> You bring up other terms, terms that I believe I need to constantly translate into my own terminology. Like most if not all who are on the pro choice side, when discussing the issue of abortion, I define children as those who have been born into this world and have spent a few years in it. As to life, we kill it every day as a matter of course- we wouldn't be able to even live if we weren't killing it every day. Because of that, I strongly believe that we need to differentiate different life forms. I strongly believe that we should stick to eating the less intelligent life forms and avoid eating the more intelligent ones. Similarly, if a more intelligent life form wants to remove a less intelligent life form from their body, I believe they should generally be allowed to do so.


This nonsense of using euphemisms and "translating to your terminology"...


It's just you covering your ears and shouting
LALALALALALALALA

----------

Captain Kirk! (09-28-2021),Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> You complete side stepped my post.


I don't think I did, but you're free to explain why you think I did.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> As a male, I will never have to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy in my own body to term. ...


Well you see, I'm a human first and a man second.  And I've been that unborn child... what you call a fetus. And so I CAN AND I WILL represent them. And I'm telling you that they want to live. Their *choice* is to NOT die. Neither you - by cowardly throwing the decision onto the mother - or their very mother can overide that choice.

----------

Authentic (09-28-2021)

----------


## Rutabaga

> You complete side stepped my post.


she doesnt know what to say when you go off script with her...


like how its just a clump of cells with not constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when the mother kills the unborn but that same "clump of cells" magically becomes a full fledged human being, with all the same rights, considerations afforded the mother when somebody else kills the same clump of cells...


the hypocrisy from  the pro-death advocates is astounding...

----------


## Authentic

@phoenyx, you talk a lot about "unwanted pregnancies". What does that term mean? What are the time perameters on the term?

----------


## phoenyx

> Well you see, I'm a human first and a man second.  And I've been that unborn child... what you call a fetus. And so I CAN AND I WILL represent them. And I'm telling you that they want to live. Their *choice* is to NOT die.


Living beings do tend to want to keep on living. By the same token, we literally need to kill thing things to live. Even vegans need to do so. Man has always been fairly speciest, thinking that it's ok to kill anything so long as it's not human in origin, although I think it's safe to say that most people who are against abortions are fine if sperm die unmourned. Conversely, I always find it hard to comprehend how much effort those against abortions put into forcing females to carry unwanted pregnancies to term even as around 15,000 children die every day around the globe. Even more confounding is how they want to turn back unauthorized migrants from the border, including children. As a former anti abortionist friend of mine used to say, what happens after they are born is not her concern. Just another paradox in the world I suppose.

----------


## phoenyx

> @phoenyx, you talk a lot about "unwanted pregnancies". What does that term mean? What are the time perameters on the term?


Pregnant females who don't want to carry their pregnancies to term.

----------


## phoenyx

> she doesnt know what to say


I'm a man.

----------


## Authentic

> I'm a man.


Men protect the young.

----------

Call_me_Ishmael (09-28-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> Pregnant females who don't want to carry their pregnancies to term.


Alright. Any limits you would put on when this decision can be made?

----------


## Trinnity

> As if there was only one set of definitions for the words we've been using. I think it's clear that the right and the left don't agree on various word definitions. And this is precisely the problem. If we can't even agree on the definitions of words for the purposes of a discussion, the discussion might as well just stop.


The left likes to use words for trickery,   when they want to lie and pretend it's the truth,  like* equality and equity*. *One is a hippy pipe dream and the other is a euphemism for reparations.* Both are irrelevant and malicious. What we  have is "equal justice under the law" that elected officials violate. Words have real definitions but dems love to say things like "seem to indicate"; it's just crap.





> Is it murder if you someone kills a chicken? And yet...


That's ridiculous. Mr Veritis would would say you're not a serious person. He'd be right. I'd call it trolling. You fooled me at first because of your covid stance. Did you vote for Biden in the primaries or just the General?

----------

Kodiak (09-28-2021)

----------


## Trinnity

> A rather vague term.


No, it's not, Everyone understands what a globalist is.




> Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy (regardless of the reason)


That's disgusting.




> Not a euphemism at all- it's simply a different focus.


That statement is a perfect example of what I call "weasel words". People know what that means too.



> You are leaving out what is involved in that process. Abortionists like to use sanitized language like "medical procedure"


...reproductive rights. Abortion staff have SEEN babies  on ultrasound trying to get away from the suction. Some have quit over it. 




> Living beings do tend to want to keep on living.


They certainly do. Living things like human babies.


It's my opinion after the first trimester, the woman has had enough time to get it done. After that, life of the mother or deformed baby is acceptable to me. Who gets to decide, the parent or the politician?

I know a couple with twin Downs boys in their 20s. The parents gave up everything including any additional children - to take care of those boys. I KNOW they regret it because it CONSUMED their life and happiness. They're slam worn out. Exhausted and used up. Some people on the right say Downs babies should be not  be aborted and exempted from it by law. I disagree vehemently. How dare politicians condemn anyone to that fate !! But who decides and by what right? And round it goes.




I think you're flamebaiting the forum.

----------

Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> You bring up other terms, terms that I believe I need to constantly translate into my own terminology. Like most if not all who are on the pro choice side, when discussing the issue of abortion, I define children as those who have been born into this world *and have spent a few years in it.*


Kook alert.

Does this mean that you are in favor of fourth trimester abortion?

----------


## Authentic

phoenyx's definition of child - no younger than 3 years of age.

Obama's definition of child - no older than 26.

We have a lower and upper bound. Let's graph the function!

----------

MisterVeritis (09-28-2021),Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## Authentic

This sounds like the logic that justified Mo banging Aisha at 9.

----------

Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## Dan40

> Living beings do tend to want to keep on living. By the same token, we literally need to kill thing things to live. Even vegans need to do so. Man haKs always been fairly speciest, thinking that it's ok to kill anything so long as it's not human in origin, although I think it's safe to say that most people who are against abortions are fine if sperm die unmourned. Conversely, I always find it hard to comprehend how much effort those against abortions put into forcing females to carry unwanted pregnancies to term even as around 15,000 children die every day around the globe. Even more confounding is how they want to turn back unauthorized migrants from the border, including children. As a former anti abortionist friend of mine used to say, what happens after they are born is not her concern. Just another paradox in the world I suppose.


"Things" are not people.  Sperm are not people.  "Things" kill other things to live.  Your premise is both childish and liberal lying bullshit.  You claim 15,000 children die every day around the world..  1,250,000 are aborted every year.  You mention fetus and/or embryos,  what kind of fetus?  Unknown or HUMAN?  Did you know that in NY more than half of black pregnancies are aborted?  Since you are pro abortion on demand, you are a racist by your own admission.

----------

Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## MisterVeritis

> Kook alert.
> 
> Does this mean that you are in favor of fourth trimester abortion?


I love kook alerts.

----------

Authentic (09-28-2021),Rutabaga (09-28-2021)

----------


## Kodiak

> Not a euphemism at all- it's simply a different focus. Those who are against abortions like to focus on the embryos and the fetuses. Those for abortion like to focus on the fact that they want to give pregnant females the choice on whether or not they'd like to bring their pregnancy to term.


Which of course means the living being inside her has no say in the matter.   Again like I said earlier, it is pure selfishness.  If she doesn't want the child it can always be adopted.

----------


## Rutabaga

> I'm a man.


i dont believe you...

----------


## phoenyx

> Men protect the young.


That depends on whose young we're talking about. Some are up at arms that Biden would dare reunite young children with their families. It takes all kinds...
Video shows Biden  flying migrant children into Tennessee

----------


## Authentic

> That depends on whose young we're talking about. Some are up at arms that Biden would dare reunite young children with their families. It takes all kinds...
> Video shows Biden  flying migrant children into Tennessee


Those children would not have been separated from their parents if the "migrants" hadn't tried to enter the United States illegally.

 We can handle our border without input from a Canadian who is fine with babies being butchered in the womb.

----------

MisterVeritis (09-29-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Alright. Any limits you would put on when this decision can be made?


I'm not sure. I know that 90% of abortions in Canada are done within the first trimester, that is, the first 12 weeks. I suspect most people who support at least some abortion would go that far.

----------


## Authentic

> I'm not sure. I know that 90% of abortions in Canada are done within the first trimester, that is, the first 12 weeks. I suspect most people who support at least some abortion would go that far.


I'd say that the decision to want a pregnancy should be made the moment a woman decides to spread her legs.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> As if there was only one set of definitions for the words we've been using. I think it's clear that the right and the left don't agree on various word definitions. And this is precisely the problem. If we can't even agree on the definitions of words for the purposes of a discussion, the discussion might as well just stop.
> 
> 
> 
> The left likes to use words for trickery,   when they want to lie and pretend it's the truth,  like* equality and equity*. *One is a hippy pipe dream and the other is a euphemism for reparations.* Both are irrelevant and malicious. What we  have is "equal justice under the law" that elected officials violate. Words have real definitions but dems love to say things like "seem to indicate"; it's just crap.


I looked up the terms you mentioned. For equality:
**
the quality or state of being equal
**
Source:
Equality | Definition of Equality by Merriam-Webster


I think that we can agree that in this world, there is a lot of inequality, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work towards giving everyone certain basics, such as decent food and shelter.


For equity:
**
_formal_ *:* fairness or justice in the way people are treated
**
Source:
Equity | Definition of Equity by Merriam-Webster

You brought up reparations. I think that makes sense, if it concords with fairness or justice in the way people are treated. 





> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Is it murder if you someone kills a chicken? And yet...
> Are Baby Chickens Smarter Than Your Toddler? Study Says Newborn Chicks Understand Physics And Math Better Than Children [VIDEO] | HuffPost Life
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous. Mr Veritis would would say you're not a serious person. He'd be right. I'd call it trolling.


Now you've offended -me-. Turnabout's fair play I suppose. Why do you think my argument is "ridiculous"?





> You fooled me at first because of your covid stance.



How did I fool you? I always said I considered myself to generally be left wing, with the exception of Covid and gun control to some extent.





> Did you vote for Biden in the primaries or just the General?


I'm Canadian, so I didn't vote for any American politician. I supported Bernie Sanders though. Since he didn't win, I supported Biden over Trump. Certainly not ideal, but I definitely believed he'd be better than Trump. I still think that, but he also didn't meet my expectations, which were already not that great.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> A rather vague term. I'm certainly not a fan of isolationism. Just saying it might help if you guys tried to put yourself in the shoes of the many people, inside and outside of the U.S., that are pro choice. Unfortunately, it seems most here just want to hurl insults with them.
> 
> 
> No, it's not, Everyone understands what a globalist is.


How are you so sure? I actually went online before I responded. I'd certainly heard the term before, but I wasn't sure how it was defined. Here's one definition:
**
someone who believes that economic and foreign policy should be planned in an international way, rather than according to what is best for one particular country
**

Source:
GLOBALIST | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


I think that planning economies in a global way makes sense to -some- extent- we all live on the same world after all, and if one country is putting out a lot of pollution, it's going to affect more than the single country. I just did a bit more digging however, and I think I now understand why you dislike the term. In essence, it requires one to be familiar with Trump's definition of the term, which I had not been...

**
America is winning again. America is respected again because we are putting America first. We’re putting America first. It hasn’t happened in a lot of decades. We’re putting them first. We’re taking care of ourselves for a change folks… But radical Democrats want to turn back the clock… for the rule of corrupt, power-hungry, globalists. You know what a globalist is? You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much.
And you know what, we can’t have that. You know they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist, and I say really, we’re not supposed to use that word. You know what I am? I’m a nationalist, okay? I’m a nationalist. Nationalist. Nothing wrong. Use that word. Use that word.
**
Source:
https://qz.com/1433675/how-trump-def...d-nationalist/


The article goes on:
**
Like all dog-whistling, the term is intentionally vague. However, the word’s history is intertwined with conspiracy theories that have accused Jews of plotting to take over the world since the early 1900s. (Whether Trump is familiar with that history or not, he and other current and former members of his cabinet have called Jewish members of the team, such as former National Economic Council director Gary Cohn and senior advisor Jared Kushner, globalists.)

Alt-right commentators such as Alex Jones—who calls himself “Globalist Enemy Number One”—have expanded the globalist definition to rail against LGTBI rights, Hollywood, China, and pretty much anyone they don’t agree with.
**





> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> *Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy (regardless of the reason)*
> 
> 
> That's disgusting.


I don't see it that way, although I will note that while it may technically be legal, there are caveats:
**
Nationally, abortion is legal through all nine months (40 weeks) of pregnancy.[8] However, few providers in Canada offer abortion care beyond 23 weeks and 6 days.
**




> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Not a euphemism at all- it's simply a different focus. Those who are against abortions like to focus on the embryos and the fetuses. Those for abortion like to focus on the fact that they want to give pregnant females the choice on whether or not they'd like to bring their pregnancy to term.
> 
> 
> That statement is a perfect example of what I call "weasel words".


How so?





> ...reproductive rights. Abortion staff have SEEN babies  on ultrasound trying to get away from the suction. Some have quit over it.


That's certainly understandable. Most people would prefer not to work in slaughterhouses as well- I'm sure you would agree that most animals don't want to get slaughtered.




> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Living beings do tend to want to keep on living.
> 
> 
> They certainly do. Living things like human babies.


Sure. But I must point out that in this case we're talking about embryos and fetuses. I know that many like lumping embryos, fetuses and humans that have been born all into the category of baby, but for the purposes of this discussion, that can be misleading. And as mentioned previously, human embryos and/or fetuses are certainly not the only animals who want to avoid death. 



> It's my opinion after the first trimester, the woman has had enough time to get it done. After that, life of the mother or deformed baby is acceptable to me. Who gets to decide, the parent or the politician?
> I know a couple with twin Downs boys in their 20s. The parents gave up everything including any additional children - to take care of those boys. I KNOW they regret it because it CONSUMED their life and happiness. They're slam worn out. Exhausted and used up. Some people on the right say Downs babies should be not  be aborted and exempted from it by law. I disagree vehemently. How dare politicians condemn anyone to that fate !! But who decides and by what right? And round it goes.


For the first trimester, at least, we are in completely agreement.




> I think you're flamebaiting the forum.


You've now offended me again -.- Why do you think that?

----------


## phoenyx

> Those children would not have been separated from their parents if the "migrants" hadn't tried to enter the United States illegally.


Have you ever considered the possibility that they entered the country to try to provide a better future for their children? Also, it seems like you are ok with punishing the children for what their parents have done.

----------


## Trinnity

> That depends on whose young we're talking about. Some are up at arms that Biden would dare reunite young children with their families. It takes all kinds...
> Video shows Biden  flying migrant children into Tennessee


Excuses for law-breaking.

And the article is from May.

----------

Authentic (09-28-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> I'd say that the decision to want a pregnancy should be made the moment a woman decides to spread her legs.


Believe it or not, not everyone has sex for the sole purpose of procreation.

----------


## Kodiak

> Believe it or not, not everyone has sex for the sole purpose of procreation.


No, but everyone does know the possible consequences of the act and should bear responsibility for it.

----------

Authentic (09-28-2021)

----------


## Kodiak

> Have you ever considered the possibility that they entered the country to try to provide a better future for their children? Also, it seems like you are ok with punishing the children for what their parents have done.


What don't you understand about the term "illegally"?

----------

Authentic (09-28-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Authentic
> ...


This branch of conversation started after Authentic had stated that men protect the young. By that definition, Biden was doing his part, working to make sure that these children were reunited with their families or at least put in group homes. I always think it's immensely sad that those who are so concerned about embryos and fetuses seem to have such a callous disregard for young children if they weren't born in their own country.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered the possibility that they entered the country to try to provide a better future for their children? Also, it seems like you are ok with punishing the children for what their parents have done.
> 
> 
> 
> What don't you understand about the term "illegally"?


I wasn't even talking about the law- I was talking about one of the reasons that migrants leave their homelands for other countries. As to the law, one of my favourite lines from the Dune series of books:
"Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?"

Now, don't get me wrong, -ideally- laws are chosen to reflect a good morality structure. Unfortunately, that frequently doesn't happen.

----------


## Authentic

> Also, it seems like you are ok with punishing the children for what their parents have done.


LOL. Says the guy who is OK with butchering children in the womb after their parents have conceived them.

----------


## Authentic

> Believe it or not, not everyone has sex for the sole purpose of procreation.


Alright. There are ways to do that which don't involve abortion. Why don't these people who don't want to procreate avail themselves of those options?

----------


## Authentic

> Have you ever considered the possibility that they entered the country to try to provide a better future for their children?


We have laws, sir. I can assure you that if I tried to enter Canada illegally, it would not be looked upon kindly.

----------


## Trinnity

> I always think it's immensely sad that those who are so concerned about embryos and fetuses seem to have such a callous disregard for young children if they weren't born in their own country.


Oh stop the passive aggressive trolling. Law breaking is law breaking. People aren't entitled to come here outside the immigration or asylum process. If you don't like the law, work to change it instead of supporting the undermining of it. If the law doesn't matter to you, your opinion doesn't matter to me. I don't support crime and have no respect for people who do,

----------


## Trinnity

Abortion as a topic on forums is a waste of time. No one's mind is changed. I'm bored with this thread. Sorry, Patrick, but it's been sullied by trolling.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered the possibility that they entered the country to try to provide a better future for their children? Also, it seems like you are ok with punishing the children for what their parents have done.
> 
> 
> LOL. Says the guy who is OK with butchering children in the womb



I know you like to lump together embryos and fetuses with children who have been born and lived for many years, but they are in fact fairly different. One day, someone will come up with a way of measuring that difference, but I suspect that actual children that are older than toddlers are probably smarter than chickens in various ways. Also, I notice that while you criticized me for wanting to let pregnant females the right to choose whether they bring their pregnancy to term, you didn't even -try- to defend yourself against the charge that there is a callous disregard among many Americans when it comes to actual children born outside of the U.S., as well as their parents.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, not everyone has sex for the sole purpose of procreation.
> 
> 
> 
> Alright. There are ways to do that which don't involve abortion. Why don't these people who don't want to procreate avail themselves of those options?


When we stop being angry at others for not agreeing with us and instead start focusing on why they do things differently than us, the path to wisdom is opened. People have put some effort into finding answers to your question. Here's a paper that surveyed the answers from 207 people who had abortions:
[Causes of unwanted pregnancies and reasons for their interruption] - PubMed


Here's an article on that asks and answers the question of whether people can get surprise questions:
Surprise Pregnancy: Why Unplanned Pregnancies Happen

The Cliff Notes version is that yes, they can, and then explains how that tends to happen.


Another article from the CDC cites and paper from that found that over half of pregnancies were unintended in 2008, but that this rate had declined to 45% in 2011, which I think is good:
Unintended Pregnancy | Unintended Pregnancy  | Reproductive Health | CDC


The saddest thing is that the people who can least afford to raise a child are also the most likely to not get an abortion, according to another article:
Why Poor Women with Unintended Pregnancies Are Less Likely to Get Abortions | Institute for Family Studies

----------


## Authentic

> I know you like to lump together embryos and fetuses with children who have been born and lived for many years, but they are in fact fairly different. One day, someone will come up with a way of measuring that difference, but I suspect that actual children that are older than toddlers are probably smarter than chickens in various ways. Also, I notice that while you criticized me for wanting to let pregnant females the right to choose whether they bring their pregnancy to term, you didn't even -try- to defend yourself against the charge that there is a callous disregard among many Americans when it comes to actual children born outside of the U.S., as well as their parents.


What is it with you and children who have lived many years? What about a newborn? You still haven't answered my question about fourth trimester abortion.

 As for children born outside of the U.S., they shouldn't be aborted either. If you wish to discuss another aspect of those children, start a thread

----------


## Authentic

> When we stop being angry at others for not agreeing with us and instead start focusing on why they do things differently than us, the path to wisdom is opened. People have put some effort into finding answers to your question. Here's a paper that surveyed the answers from 207 people who had abortions:
> [Causes of unwanted pregnancies and reasons for their interruption] - PubMed
> 
> 
> Here's an article on that asks and answers the question of whether people can get surprise questions:
> Surprise Pregnancy: Why Unplanned Pregnancies Happen
> 
> The Cliff Notes version is that yes, they can, and then explains how that tends to happen.
> 
> ...


Citing PubMed and CDC? Thought you were against the COVID jab.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered the possibility that they entered the country to try to provide a better future for their children? Also, it seems like you are ok with punishing the children for what their parents have done.
> 
> 
> We have laws, sir.


I did not ask you if you had laws, I asked you if you had considered why parents of children would head to the U.S. I'm sure we can agree that the journey has its dangers.





> I can assure you that if I tried to enter Canada illegally, it would not be looked upon kindly.


The fact that Canada doesn't share a large border with Mexico changes some things- I suspect that the U.S. never had a program that allows migrants from Mexico and elsewhere to come work in Canada on a seasonal basis, or if it does/did, that it is much smaller. The reason is simple- migrants simply cross the border to the U.S. illegally, allowing U.S. employers a steady cheap labour pool- getting to Canada is a much longer trek. Not that some don't do it- especially during the Trump years, we actually did get a significant influx from the U.S.. Covid has changed things though:
Trudeau says migrants attempting to cross border will be rejected - The Globe and Mail

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> This branch of conversation started after Authentic had stated that men protect the young. By that definition, Biden was doing his part, working to make sure that these children were reunited with their families or at least put in group homes. I always think it's immensely sad that those who are so concerned about embryos and fetuses seem to have such a callous disregard for young children if they weren't born in their own country.
> 
> 
> Oh stop the passive aggressive trolling.


I'm simply trying to point out an important truth.





> Law breaking is law breaking.


Obviously. What I'm getting at is the justice of laws and how they can at times show a nation's hypocrisy.





> People aren't entitled to come here outside the immigration or asylum process.


Yes, I know what the law entitles people to do.





> If you don't like the law, work to change it instead of supporting the undermining of it.


I'd say I'm working on changing it at this very moment. Laws are influenced by people's beliefs. It is of course convenient to hide behind the law when its ugly truths are put into the spotlight.




> If the law doesn't matter to you, your opinion doesn't matter to me.


I never said that. I am simply asking people to consider the consequences of certain immigration laws and what it does to children that have long ago left the womb.

----------


## phoenyx

> Abortion as a topic on forums is a waste of time. No one's mind is changed.


People do change their mind on abortion. From pro choice to pro life:
Pro-Life Students Change 17 Peoples Minds about Abortion in Just Two Hours - Students for Life

And from pro life to pro choice:
https://ourbodies.hercampus.com/16-c...about-abortion

I have never seen a case where a forum changed a person's mind, but that doesn't mean that there is no value in discussing it. That being said, I do believe that trying to maintain civility in any discussion is very important. Without that, the value of any discussion can dwindle to nothing.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I know you like to lump together embryos and fetuses with children who have been born and lived for many years, but they are in fact fairly different. One day, someone will come up with a way of measuring that difference, but I suspect that actual children that are older than toddlers are probably smarter than chickens in various ways. Also, I notice that while you criticized me for wanting to let pregnant females the right to choose whether they bring their pregnancy to term, you didn't even -try- to defend yourself against the charge that there is a callous disregard among many Americans when it comes to actual children born outside of the U.S., as well as their parents.
> 
> 
> What is it with you and children who have lived many years? What about a newborn?


Once a baby is born, things become vastly different- at that point, the female can give up the baby for adoption. No one is forcing her to care for this life at this point.





> You still haven't answered my question about fourth trimester abortion.


There is no such thing as a fourth trimester:
Pregnancy trimesters: Everything you need to know




> As for children born outside of the U.S., they shouldn't be aborted either. If you wish to discuss another aspect of those children, start a thread


If only I could get people to stop verbally attacking me with that type of logic :-p. Getting back on topic, I think the subject of abortions outside of the U.S. is certainly an important subject. It's so easy to say that people anywhere shouldn't have abortions, but the fact of the matter is, people outside of developed countries have even more reason to have them and generally have less capability to do so. Unicef has the following to say on child deaths:
**
 Despite the global progress in reducing child mortality rates over the past few decades, an estimated 5.2 million children under age five died in 2019—more than half of those deaths occurred in sub-Saharan Africa.
**

Source:
Child Mortality - UNICEF DATA


I imagine that many of the females who had the pregnancies that led to birthing these children that died so young either knew or suspected that their lives were likely to not last long, but I also imagine that they frequently didn't have the availability of abortions.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> When we stop being angry at others for not agreeing with us and instead start focusing on why they do things differently than us, the path to wisdom is opened. People have put some effort into finding answers to your question. Here's a paper that surveyed the answers from 207 people who had abortions:
> [Causes of unwanted pregnancies and reasons for their interruption] - PubMed
> 
> 
> Here's an article on that asks and answers the question of whether people can get surprise questions:
> Surprise Pregnancy: Why Unplanned Pregnancies Happen
> ...


You know I am. That doesn't mean that all information from the CDC is flawed, however. As to PubMed, not all papers they publish are favourable of the Covid jab. Here's one that comes to the conclusion that some people shouldn't get the jab at all:
Do COVID-19 RNA-based vaccines put at risk of immune-mediated diseases? In reply to âpotential antigenic cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 and human tissue with a possible link to an increase in autoimmune diseasesâ

----------


## msc

> Yes, I heard that. Perhaps more than one. You know I'm not a fan of vaccines, so it's unlikely that I'll ever take one of those.


I too oppose the government putting something into my body against my will, such as this new experimental vaccine.  I would also oppose the government putting a baby into my body against my will. No one is advocating for, and there are no laws mandating that a person is required to have a baby put into their body.  Completely different situation.   So let's not use a false parallel in the future. One is the gov't trying to take control of your body, the other is the government making it law for others not to get involved with your body if it includes taking a human life.  A human life as defined by science and well, the obvious common sense.

----------

East of the Beast (09-30-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> I too oppose the government putting something into my body against my will, such as this new experimental vaccine.  I would also oppose the government putting a baby into my body against my will. No one is advocating for, and there are no laws mandating that a person is required to have a baby put into their body.


Agreed so far.





> Completely different situation. So let's not use a false parallel in the future. One is the gov't trying to take control of your body, the other is the government making it law for others not to get involved with your body if it includes taking a human life.



I didn't actually come up with the parallel myself. The parallel has been brought up in various articles, such as this one:
Vaccine Passports: What Happened to My Body, My Choice?  MassCentral

Here's an excerpt:
**
*First, a little background. In the 1970’s feminists leading the legal fight for abortion to be a “woman’s choice” succeeded in rallying support under the slogan “My Body, My Choice.” Fast forward to 2021, and we see these same feminists, radical leftists, Democrats, and those opposed to individual freedom and patient autonomy have now completely abandoned their earlier commitment to individual choice about medical treatments. Patient autonomy, and CHOICE about medical treatments such as both vaccination and access to early treatment at home for COVID, have been thrown out the window by the same people who demanded: “my body, my choice” for abortion rights. The hypocrisy is stunning. And dangerous when patients are coerced or forced into an experimental vaccine.*
**

The thing about issues like this, though, is that hypocrisy is often a 2 way street. So to get back to your statement, you're right, the government certainly isn't coercing people to get pregnant, but it -is- frequently making it very hard for them to have an abortion. Think about it this way- if there were a fairly simple way for people to remove toxic vaccines from their body, would you deny it to them? Now, I certainly agree that vaccines and unwanted pregnancies aren't the same thing, but they can both have consequences that can last a lifetime.

----------


## Authentic

Abortion = not taking responsibility for actions.

----------


## phoenyx

> Abortion = not taking responsibility for actions.


The opposite could also be argued- -not- having an abortion, if it's an available option, could be seen as not taking responsibility for one's actions. So many on the pro life side only think about bringing a pregnancy to term. They don't think too much of what happens after that. If the female can't or won't take care of the baby, it'll just be adopted and things will be peachy keen. Unfortunately, that's frequently not the case. Here's an excerpt from an article on the U.S. Foster Care system that I found surprising in a dark way:

**
The foster care system is broken. Children go from house to house never knowing what home really means. They are taught that it’s best not to make friends because within a short period of time they’ll leave your life forever. Children have trust issues because of this broken system; they are torn from whatever family they have left; they are given the feeling that they are not important or wanted or loved. The foster care system is broken. Children spend years going from one foster home to another, being traded between social workers like a game of hot potato. The foster care system is broken, it was made in a different time and now needs to be modernized and fixed to today's issues.

First is the number of children put into foster care compared to the meager amount of homes available. The CCAI, Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, stated that there are currently 500,000 children in the system and only 3,000 foster homes available. This leads to other issues associated with too many children in one house. First, there isn’t enough of anything to go around. Some homes are supplied with a garbage bag full of clothes every once in awhile. Once it was opened and its contents spread out on the floor it was clear that it’d be enough for one child, maybe two if they shared. But there are far more than two in the homes. So they fight over what they are going to wear and they go day by day, trading clothes that don’t fit.

Another issue with the overpopulation is the lack of personal attention received.
[snip]
There are stories of children running away and being brought back by the police only to realize the foster parents didn’t realize they were gone because they were too busy with all of the others they are responsible for.
**

Full article:
The Broken US Foster Care System

----------


## Dan40

> The opposite could also be argued- -not- having an abortion, if it's an available option, could be seen as not taking responsibility for one's actions. So many on the pro life side only think about bringing a pregnancy to term. They don't think too much of what happens after that. If the female can't or won't take care of the baby, it'll just be adopted and things will be peachy keen. Unfortunately, that's frequently not the case. Here's an excerpt from an article on the U.S. Foster Care system that I found surprising in a dark way:
> 
> **
> The foster care system is broken. Children go from house to house never knowing what home really means. They are taught that it’s best not to make friends because within a short period of time they’ll leave your life forever. Children have trust issues because of this broken system; they are torn from whatever family they have left; they are given the feeling that they are not important or wanted or loved. The foster care system is broken. Children spend years going from one foster home to another, being traded between social workers like a game of hot potato. The foster care system is broken, it was made in a different time and now needs to be modernized and fixed to today's issues.
> 
> First is the number of children put into foster care compared to the meager amount of homes available. The CCAI, Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, stated that there are currently 500,000 children in the system and only 3,000 foster homes available. This leads to other issues associated with too many children in one house. First, there isn’t enough of anything to go around. Some homes are supplied with a garbage bag full of clothes every once in awhile. Once it was opened and its contents spread out on the floor it was clear that it’d be enough for one child, maybe two if they shared. But there are far more than two in the homes. So they fight over what they are going to wear and they go day by day, trading clothes that don’t fit.
> 
> Another issue with the overpopulation is the lack of personal attention received.
> [snip]
> ...


I see,  rather than put a child in a POTENTIALLY bad foster system ---------KILL IT!  Do not fix the system.

----------

Authentic (09-30-2021),East of the Beast (09-30-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> The opposite could also be argued- -not- having an abortion, if it's an available option, could be seen as not taking responsibility for one's actions. So many on the pro life side only think about bringing a pregnancy to term. They don't think too much of what happens after that. If the female can't or won't take care of the baby, it'll just be adopted and things will be peachy keen. Unfortunately, that's frequently not the case. Here's an excerpt from an article on the U.S. Foster Care system that I found surprising in a dark way:
> 
> **
> The foster care system is broken. Children go from house to house never knowing what home really means. They are taught that it’s best not to make friends because within a short period of time they’ll leave your life forever. Children have trust issues because of this broken system; they are torn from whatever family they have left; they are given the feeling that they are not important or wanted or loved. The foster care system is broken. Children spend years going from one foster home to another, being traded between social workers like a game of hot potato. The foster care system is broken, it was made in a different time and now needs to be modernized and fixed to today's issues.
> 
> First is the number of children put into foster care compared to the meager amount of homes available. The CCAI, Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, stated that there are currently 500,000 children in the system and only 3,000 foster homes available. This leads to other issues associated with too many children in one house. First, there isn’t enough of anything to go around. Some homes are supplied with a garbage bag full of clothes every once in awhile. Once it was opened and its contents spread out on the floor it was clear that it’d be enough for one child, maybe two if they shared. But there are far more than two in the homes. So they fight over what they are going to wear and they go day by day, trading clothes that don’t fit.
> 
> Another issue with the overpopulation is the lack of personal attention received.
> [snip]
> ...


You do know that there are alternatives to foster care, right?

Boy's Town and Covenant House are two that I can think of right away specifically for youth. 

Mooseheart (operated by the Moose) is one that takes children from infancy to eighteen. 

There are many more. 

Have you considered any of those and/or fixing the foster system before advocating for baby murder?

----------


## El Guapo

*"My body my choice''* ...much like most illogical, irrational, warped, post modernist proglodyte  brain malfunction masquerading as reasoned thought... doesn't work when referring to abortion. Because it's _somebody else's_ body they're talking about.

----------

Authentic (09-30-2021)

----------


## Canadianeye

> Agreed so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't actually come up with the parallel myself. The parallel has been brought up in various articles, such as this one:
> Vaccine Passports: What Happened to My Body, My Choice?  MassCentral
> 
> ...


It may be in some cases...but predominantly it is the left, your political ideology of choice - that far outstrips the right in hypocrisy.

You make comparisons to death penalty executions in regards to abortion...but you know, and I know one is convict/criminal and one is a baby.

Your dilemma, and your hypocrisy...is that you have to pretend it *isn't* an innocent baby in the womb that you support the murder of, and, try to spin that - to people who know and acknowledge that that is a baby in a womb, that shouldn't be murdered.

Because that is heinous.

----------

Authentic (09-30-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> I see,  rather than put a child in a POTENTIALLY bad foster system ---------KILL IT!  Do not fix the system.


1- There are a lot of people in the U.S. and elsewhere who don't see an embryo or a fetus as a child.

2- You don't have to condemn abortion in order to try to fix the foster care system.

----------


## phoenyx

> You do know that there are alternatives to foster care, right?
> 
> Boy's Town and Covenant House are two that I can think of right away specifically for youth. 
> 
> Mooseheart (operated by the Moose) is one that takes children from infancy to eighteen. 
> 
> There are many more. 
> 
> Have you considered any of those and/or fixing the foster system before advocating for baby murder?



First of all, there are many people who don't equate embryos and fetuses to babies and secondly, one can try to fix the foster care system without needing to condemn abortion. As a matter of fact, making it easier to have abortions could possibly go a long way -to- fixing the foster care system, as there would be less people who would need it. 

I have heard of Covenant House, they have that here in Canada too. I hadn't heard of Boy's Town. In any case, the fact that the foster care system still exists suggests to me that Covenant House and Boy's Town can't be a panacea- if they were, I think the foster care system would have already been abolished.

----------


## East of the Beast

> You do know that there are alternatives to foster care, right?
> 
> Boy's Town and Covenant House are two that I can think of right away specifically for youth. 
> 
> Mooseheart (operated by the Moose) is one that takes children from infancy to eighteen. 
> 
> There are many more. 
> 
> Have you considered any of those and/or fixing the foster system before advocating for baby murder?


Or even a sudden dose of morality would go a long way of preventing unwanted pregnancies.As usual the progressives are trying tow work the problem backwards.It is always....always, a matter of the heart.

----------

Authentic (09-30-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> *"My body my choice''* ...much like most illogical, irrational, warped, post modernist proglodyte  brain malfunction masquerading as reasoned thought... doesn't work when referring to abortion. Because it's _somebody else's_ body they're talking about.


No, as wikipedia states, "*My body, my choice is a feminist slogan used in several countries, most often surrounding issues of bodily autonomy and abortion.*" 

Source:
My body, my choice - Wikipedia

Now, those who are pro life have mentioned that there is -another- body involved in regards to abortion, that of the embryo or fetus. This is true. I believe the main issue comes down to respecting the wishes of the more the body that I believe is much more intelligent by any metric, the pregnant female's. If people are so concerned for the lives of fairly young humans, I think their efforts would be better spent on saving the millions of children who die every year before the age of 5.

----------


## phoenyx

> It may be in some cases...but predominantly it is the left, your political ideology of choice - that far outstrips the right in hypocrisy.
> 
> You make comparisons to death penalty executions in regards to abortion...but you know, and I know one is convict/criminal and one is a baby.
> 
> Your dilemma, and your hypocrisy...is that you have to pretend it *isn't* an innocent baby in the womb


I understand the desire for those who don't want to give a pregnant female's right to choose on whether or not to have an abortion to refuse to differentiate between an embryos, a fetus and a baby who has been born and no longer requires a female's body to survive. If the pro life stance were a product, lumping all 3 of these stages of human development together would be seen as incredibly good marketing. They of course make no mention of sperms for some reason. I think Robin Williams was really on to something with his short skit on the death of a sperm...

----------


## East of the Beast

Her right to choose is before she decides to have unprotected sex...not after.

----------


## East of the Beast

I can't remember the the guys name. I remember he caused the radical feminist heads to explode.He was asked on national TV how to stop unwanted pregnancy and he replied,...'that the woman should hold an aspirin between her knees.".....Beautiful!

Foster Friess was the name.

Foster Friess: In my day,  for contraception - POLITICO

----------


## phoenyx

> Or even a sudden dose of morality would go a long way of preventing unwanted pregnancies.


I'm a strong supporter of having high moral standards, but the issue of the right and the wrong thing to do in a given situation can frequently be hard to decipher. Things can frequently get even more difficult when drugs and alcohol are involved. I personally never got into drinking alcohol- even a little seemed to have very strong effects on me and I've never been a fan of losing any control of my cognitive abilities. The most I've done in the realm of non prescription drugs was getting hot boxed in a car with marijuana in the air. 

I think what really does it for me, however, is this indignation of many when it comes the abortion of embryos and fetuses, even though chickens are more intelligent than actually born toddlers in several respects. In essence, it would appear that this whole outrage over abortion is just an extension of unwarranted speciesism- that somehow, because one is a human animal and the other is a chicken animal, it doesn't matter how intelligent the chicken is. But even if we were to ignore the issue of speciesism, there is still the fact that the pregnant female is probably much more intelligent than the embryo or fetus and thus should have the choice over whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term.

----------


## phoenyx

> Her right to choose is before she decides to have unprotected sex...not after.


Why stop at conception? Sperms can potentially be fully developed humans as well, but no one is saying that sperms dying in untold numbers is sacrilege.

----------


## phoenyx

> I can't remember the the guys name. I remember he caused the radical feminist heads to explode.He was asked on national TV how to stop unwanted pregnancy and he replied,...'that the woman should hold an aspirin between her knees.".....Beautiful!
> 
> Foster Friess was the name.
> 
> Foster Friess: In my day,  for contraception - POLITICO


Clicked on the link- I'm not sure what Foster was trying to say- was it to use contraception?

----------


## East of the Beast

> I'm a strong supporter of having high moral standards, but the issue of the right and the wrong thing to do in a given situation can frequently be hard to decipher. Things can frequently get even more difficult when drugs and alcohol are involved. I personally never got into drinking alcohol- even a little seemed to have very strong effects on me and I've never been a fan of losing any control of my cognitive abilities. The most I've done in the realm of non prescription drugs was getting hot boxed in a car with marijuana in the air. 
> 
> I think what really does it for me, however, is this indignation of many when it comes the abortion of embryos and fetuses, even though chickens are more intelligent than actually born toddlers in several respects. In essence, it would appear that this whole outrage over abortion is just an extension of unwarranted speciesism- that somehow, because one is a human animal and the other is a chicken animal, it doesn't matter how intelligent the chicken is. But even if we were to ignore the issue of speciesism, there is still the fact that the pregnant female is probably much more intelligent than the embryo or fetus and thus should have the choice over whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term.


Situational ethics is liberal contrivance that gives them license to justify anything.I don't buy that load BS.And it is not a matter who is smarter the woman or the embryo Again, that is just a stupid rationale for anything goes.

The fact is you created a life,AT CONCEPTION, separate from your own, who has it's own rights as a human being that you as mother are bound by nature and morality to protect.

----------


## East of the Beast

> Clicked on the link- I'm not sure what Foster was trying to say- was it to use contraception?


You are dense aren't you? Holding an aspirin between her knees means should could not spread her legs......get it?

----------


## msc

> Agreed so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't actually come up with the parallel myself. The parallel has been brought up in various articles, such as this one:
> Vaccine Passports: What Happened to My Body, My Choice?  MassCentral
> 
> ...


As far as the article goes, it is not equating a right of a person to refuse a foreign substance being put into your body, to a right to have someone kill your unborn child.  It only compares the reasoning used by abortionists, claiming body autonomy is a human right, when it comes to killing a child, yet the argument for body autonomy goes out the window with those same people when it comes to the vaccine.   

Claiming My body, My choice, as a reasoning for being able to get an legal abortion is at very least flawed.  It's illogical and frankly just plain stupid.  When a third party is involved it has nothing to do with a woman making her own choice about what she want to do with her own body.  Abortion rights is about legalized murder of a human being. If you're killing a child in someone else's body, it's murder, not exercising your right to body autonomy.  

Yes, laws like the Texas Heart Beat law, make it harder for a woman to get someone else to kill her child.  

Many things have consequences that can last a life time. The nature of life has designed it this way.  Human civilization is not responsible for ALL consequences.  The best we can do is try to do our best to work with nature and make wise choices.  Mass genocide of human beings, because other humans categorized these people to be less than human, is not a wise decision, and there are and will be consequences for that decision that last beyond one's lifetime.

----------


## phoenyx

> Situational ethics is liberal contrivance that gives them license to justify anything.


Who said anything about situational ethics? I'm talking about cognitive abilities. Now, you could make a case that to avoid the less of cognitive abilities, people should avoid alcohol and other drugs in various risky situations. I myself follow that code (I actually follow it 24/7), but most people don't. I firmly believe that everyone does what they do for 2 reasons- to increase their happiness and to decrease their unhappiness. If they think that drinking alcohol and/or taking various drugs will help them in these pursuits, who am I to judge? When it comes to various prescription drugs, doctors will even recommend them. Personally, the only medicine I take comes from a tree bark- not aspirin, a different tree (the P'au Darco tree to be precise).  





> And it is not a matter who is smarter the woman or the embryo Again, that is just a stupid rationale for anything goes.


I think all life has some intelligence. I also think that most people agree that larger animals, especially mammals, are exceptionally so. We literally can't live without consuming other living things, and most of us include animal flesh in that equation. In most cultures, very few animals aren't fair game, despite the fact that some animals are exceptionally intelligent. Yet for some reason many fail to employ this calculus on our own species, even if it's in embryo or early fetus form. It's hypocrisy, plain and simple.





> The fact is you created a life,AT CONCEPTION


At conception, were just a few cells put together- not that much different from sperms and eggs, but no one mourns their losses if they aren't joined. What is the big difference between the 2?

----------


## phoenyx

> You are dense aren't you?



You're a real charmer aren't you -.-?





> Holding an aspirin between her knees means should could not spread her legs......get it?


That's a simplistic solution to a very complex problem. There are many reasons why people end up with unwanted pregnancies. According a study cited by the CDC (source: Unintended Pregnancy | Unintended Pregnancy  | Reproductive Health | CDC ), over half of pregnancies were unintended in 2008. The same study that this number had declined to 45% in 2011, but that's still quite a few pregnancies. It's hard to say how many abortions would have been performed if there was no stigma on having them, but it does suggest that the issue of unwanted pregnancies is a large one. As mentioned elsewhere, people don't just have sex for pro creative reasons, which I imagine is a large part of the issue.

----------


## phoenyx

> As far as the article goes, it is not equating a right of a person to refuse a foreign substance being put into your body, to a right to have someone kill your unborn child.



Or embryo/fetus for those who like to differentiate between those who are born and those who aren't.





> It only compares the reasoning used by abortionists [snip], yet the argument for body autonomy goes out the window with those same people when it comes to the vaccine.


Agreed on that count.    




> Claiming My body, My choice, as a reasoning for being able to get a legal abortion is at very least flawed. It's illogical and frankly just plain stupid.  When a third party is involved it has nothing to do with a woman making her own choice about what she want to do with her own body.


The fact that a third party is generally involved when it comes to abortions doesn't take away that it's the woman's choice to get an abortion, not a third party's. A third party is generally involved when it comes to get a vaccine as well.





> Many things have consequences that can last a life time. The nature of life has designed it this way.  Human civilization is not responsible for ALL consequences.  The best we can do is try to do our best to work with nature and make wise choices.  Mass genocide of human beings, because other humans categorized these people to be less than human, is not a wise decision, and there are and will be consequences for that decision that last beyond one's lifetime.


Sperms and eggs could be classified as human beings, but for some reason, those in the 'pro life' camp choose not to do so. Why do you think that is?

----------


## Trinnity

> First of all, there are many people who don't equate embryos and fetuses to babies





> I'm a strong supporter of having high moral standards


I can't comment on this w/o criticizing your character, so I'll just let it sit there and stink on its own.

----------

Authentic (09-30-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> I can't comment on this w/o criticizing your character, so I'll just let it sit there and stink on its own.


Alright, so you think less of me because I, like many others, differentiate between embryos, fetuses and babies who are born into this world. Would you like to try to explain why you feel this way?

----------


## Dan40

> 1- There are a lot of people in the U.S. and elsewhere who don't see an embryo or a fetus as a child.
> 
> 2- You don't have to condemn abortion in order to try to fix the foster care system.


Two completely useless responses.  1. Their OPINIONS do not trump mine, neither do yours.  2..  Abortion on demand needs to be condemned on its own lack of merits.  Foster care can be included in the unending list of problems unsolved by politicians.  We HAVE all the laws needed, what we lack is the backbone to enforce existing law.

----------


## Dan40

> Alright, so you think less of me because I, like many others, differentiate between embryos, fetuses and babies who are born into this world. Would you like to try to explain why you feel this way?


When the (fetus)(embryo) has a detectable heartbeat,,,,,,,what then?   KILL IT before it becomes human?

----------


## Dan40

> Or embryo/fetus for those who like to differentiate between those who are born and those who aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed on that count.    
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No sperm and eggs cannot be classified as human any more than ham and eggs.  Once sperm and an egg join,  the situation has changed.  You don't eat fertilized chicken eggs for breakfast o you?  Maybe you do.........

----------


## East of the Beast

> Who said anything about situational ethics? I'm talking about cognitive abilities. Now, you could make a case that to avoid the less of cognitive abilities, people should avoid alcohol and other drugs in various risky situations. I myself follow that code (I actually follow it 24/7), but most people don't. I firmly believe that everyone does what they do for 2 reasons- to increase their happiness and to decrease their unhappiness. If they think that drinking alcohol and/or taking various drugs will help them in these pursuits, who am I to judge? When it comes to various prescription drugs, doctors will even recommend them. Personally, the only medicine I take comes from a tree bark- not aspirin, a different tree (the P'au Darco tree to be precise).  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think all life has some intelligence. I also think that most people agree that larger animals, especially mammals, are exceptionally so. We literally can't live without consuming other living things, and most of us include animal flesh in that equation. In most cultures, very few animals aren't fair game, despite the fact that some animals are exceptionally intelligent. Yet for some reason many fail to employ this calculus on our own species, even if it's in embryo or early fetus form. It's hypocrisy, plain and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because new  being is not formed unless they are joined......It is truly amazing the way so called intellectuals are so cavalier about the incredible miracle of life . It's like they think it's something they could do in their spare time. When the opposite is true.The Mystery of Life is as far from our understanding as the east is from the west.

----------


## Authentic

East meets west at the International Date Line.

----------


## East of the Beast

> East meets west at the International Date Line.


 :Geez: That could be said at any point on the globe.Point,is no matter where you start east and west will never be headed in the same direction.

----------

Authentic (09-30-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 1- There are a lot of people in the U.S. and elsewhere who don't see an embryo or a fetus as a child.
> 
> 2- You don't have to condemn abortion in order to try to fix the foster care system.
> 
> 
> 
> Two completely useless responses.  1. Their OPINIONS do not trump mine, neither do yours.


Agreed. However, your opinions/beliefs don't trump mine either. Do you see how this puts us at an impasse?





> 2..  Abortion on demand needs to be condemned on its own lack of merits.


I strongly disagree.





> Foster care can be included in the unending list of problems unsolved by politicians. We HAVE all the laws needed, what we lack is the backbone to enforce existing law.


Yes well, until it is solved, I can understand why a pregnant female might want to terminate the pregnancy instead of putting a prospective child into a miserable situation.

----------


## donttread

> ...of Representatives passes an abortion bill intended to kill millions of babies and protect men.
> 
> 
> "A Democratic bill legalizing abortion on demand nationwide includes provisions for "every person capable of becoming pregnant," including "transgender men."
> 
> 
> "The House on Friday passed the Women’s Health Protection Act along near party lines, in an effort to codify _Roe v. Wade into federal law before the Supreme Court considers a case that could overturn the landmark decision. The bill notes that "transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender … are unjustly harmed by restrictions on abortion services." 
> Democratic Abortion Bill Protects  - Washington Free Beacon[_




The repub congress folks should laugh their asses off in unison. We should stop accepting this as just sillyness and "just say no" As in no we will not vote on a bill that states that men need access to abortions. Especially when most of them don't even think men should have the right to an opinion on the issue! Thwey hate men, well white men, except when they want to offer them rights to biological impossibilities

----------


## phoenyx

> When the (fetus)(embryo) has a detectable heartbeat,,,,,,,what then?   KILL IT before it becomes human?


As mentioned previously, I'm not female, so I will never have to make the choice of whether or not I should terminate a pregnancy. As to why pregnant females do choose to terminate their pregnancies, there have already been surveys of why pregnant females have done so. I made a post with various links, the first of which includes 207 females who gave answers on this:
https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...=1#post2870336

----------


## phoenyx

> No sperm and eggs cannot be classified as human any more than ham and eggs.  Once sperm and an egg join,  the situation has changed.  You don't eat fertilized chicken eggs for breakfast o you?  Maybe you do.........


I'm not sure if I've ever eaten a fertilized chicken egg, but I've certainly eaten chicken, which was certainly more intelligent than any fertilized chicken egg would be before its death. And sure, the "situation has changed" once a sperm joins with an egg, but I don't think the -intelligence- of the combined sperm and egg has changed all that much, at least initially. So why should this combo suddenly go from being not that important to "can't end their lives" important?

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> At conception, with just a few cells put together- not that much different from sperms and eggs, but no one mourns their losses if they aren't joined. What is the big difference between the 2?
> 
> 
> 
> Because new  being is not formed unless they are joined......It is truly amazing the way so called intellectuals are so cavalier about the incredible miracle of life . It's like they think it's something they could do in their spare time. When the opposite is true.The Mystery of Life is as far from our understanding as the east is from the west.


Oh, I completely agree that life is simply incredible. The problem with your logic is that the miracle of a sperm's life, as well as that of an egg's is pretty much just as miraculous. Joining them together doesn't immediately make any great changes in complexity. I think that most if not all birthed mammals would be more complex than that stage of complexity. Most people have no problem eating something as complex as an adult cow, but somehow many are also outraged when something as relatively simple as an embryo is killed. As far as I can tell, the only reason for this is speciesism. Even on -that- count, however, there is another factor, and that is the pregnant female that doesn't want the pregnancy. In that case, they are both human, but one is far more intelligent than the other. Now, if we could separate the fetus and have them birthed artificially, an argument could be made to do that. However, that's not currently an option, at least not within the first 2 trimesters, which means that at that point, at least, the only way to continue their life if the pregnant female doesn't want to continue carrying the embro or fetus is to not allow anyone to remove it, which I and many others believe is an infringement on their rights.

----------


## Authentic

> That could be said at any point on the globe.Point,is no matter where you start east and west will never be headed in the same direction.


It all depends on where the beast is located.

----------

East of the Beast (09-30-2021)

----------


## East of the Beast

> It all depends on where the beast is located.


damn straight

----------


## Dan40

> I'm not sure if I've ever eaten a fertilized chicken egg, but I've certainly eaten chicken, which was certainly more intelligent than any fertilized chicken egg would be before its death. And sure, the "situation has changed" once a sperm joins with an egg, but I don't think the -intelligence- of the combined sperm and egg has changed all that much, at least initially. So why should this combo suddenly go from being not that important to "can't end their lives" important?


We humans are constructed in certain ways.  Those ways include that we are omnivores, with a few mostly temporary herbivores.  But even herbivores cause plants to 'die' to feed them so you mindless prattle about killing "things" to sustain ourselves is sophomoric at best.  Our bodies are designed to produce sperm(MEN) and eggs(WOMEN) on a regular basis.  We also produce ordinary cells of all types that serve their purpose and are resorbed   like sperm.  But when a sperm and an egg combine, a human is begun.  Your arguments, more and more, are evidencing anal origins.

----------


## phoenyx

> We humans are constructed in certain ways.  Those ways include that we are omnivores, with a few mostly temporary herbivores.  But even herbivores cause plants to 'die' to feed them so you mindless prattle about killing "things" to sustain ourselves is sophomoric at best.


I agree, we were designed to be eat omnivorously. And I also agree that even herbivores cause plants to die to feed themselves- in fact, I think I made that exact point in a previous post. 





> Our bodies are designed to produce sperm(MEN) and eggs(WOMEN) on a regular basis.  We also produce ordinary cells of all types that serve their purpose and are resorbed   like sperm.


Agreed.





> But when a sperm and an egg combine, a human is begun.


Not so fast. Just because sperms and eggs are reabsorbed if they aren't joined doesn't take away from the fact that they are clearly the precursors of an embryo. It's like saying that a put together puzzle is so much better than one that hasn't yet been put together. Why? They are still the same pieces of the puzzle, just reorganized in a new way.

----------


## Dan40

> I agree, we were designed to be eat omnivorously. And I also agree that even herbivores cause plants to die to feed themselves- in fact, I think I made that exact point in a previous post. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How many puzzles have you dated lately?  Things, puzzles ,etc are not humans.  Things are here for us to use as needed.  Your post have become so full of childish crap, your eyes must be brown.    Abortions are about humans, only humans.  Animals and pregnant puzzles are not part of the discussion.  The thread is about human abortions.  The killing of babies!  Quit your bullshitting.

----------

Authentic (09-30-2021),East of the Beast (10-01-2021)

----------


## Authentic

This thread has become puzzling.

----------

phoenyx (10-01-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> This thread has become puzzling.


You are letting a liberal play you. He did that to me for awhile.

----------

Authentic (09-30-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> How many puzzles have you dated lately?


How many embryos have you dated lately? 




> Things, puzzles ,etc are not humans.


I've noticed that pro lifers tend to have this singular focus on -human- life, to the exclusion of all others. Again, the issue of other life comes up- if chickens are more intelligent than toddlers in some ways, I think it's safe to say that the difference would be even more pronounced between embryos and fetuses and chickens. And frankly, chickens don't strike me as the most intelligent of creatures. Cows strike me as much more advanced, but I suspect most pro lifers aren't forgoing burgers. 





> Things are here for us to use as needed.


Things? Are you referring to things like cows?




> Abortions are about humans, only humans.


No, abortions happen in other animals as well- no doctors required. In several cases of captive rodents, female rodents will abort if they're exposed to strange males:
An Exteroceptive Block to Pregnancy in the Mouse | Nature

Initially, it was thought that this might just be an effect of captivity, but there's now evidence that it happens in geladas as well. For those who don't know, geladas are a relative of the baboon. Here's an excerpt from an article on this phenomenon:
**
In the realm of biology, it is an organism's ability to pass its genetic information on to subsequent generations that is the ultimate gauge of what evolutionary biologists call reproductive fitness. Geladas are no different. This evolutionary principle can explain both the infanticidal habits of usurping gelada males, and the tendency for females to terminate their pregnancies following a successful coup. Female geladas know a thing or two about sacrifice — but their bodies understand the cold hard facts of evolutionary success.
**
Source:
Gelada monkeys offer evidence that abortion is part of evolutionary fitness





> Animals and pregnant puzzles are not part of the discussion.


You'd like that, wouldn't you? Avoiding the fact that abortion is a part of nature, and that while pro lifers are so very concerned about embryos and fetuses (while not caring much about sperms and eggs), they don't seem to care that animals that are more intelligent than either in several ways are killed all the time for human consumption. And then there are the millions of children who die each year. A bit on them:
**
Globally, infectious diseases, including pneumonia, diarrhoea and malaria, remain a leading cause of under-five deaths, along with preterm birth and intrapartum-related complications. Moreover, malnourished children, particularly those suffering from severe acute malnutrition, are at a higher risk of death from these common childhood illnesses. Access to life saving interventions is critical to ensuring steady mortality declines in low- and middle-income countries.
**
Source:
Child Mortality - UNICEF DATA

If only pro lifers would put a little more energy into making sure all of those humans who have already been -born- could survive. They are certainly more intelligent than human embryos and fetuses.

----------


## phoenyx

> This thread has become puzzling.


Frequently, the first step to learning something new is to realize that what we thought we knew is not the whole truth. Sometimes, we may find that what we thought we knew isn't even the truth at all.

----------


## Gator Monroe

> Frequently, the first step to learning something new is to realize that what we thought we knew is not the whole truth. Sometimes, we may find that what we thought we knew isn't even the truth at all.


Learning that Social Liberalism is a mental disorder is a long thread tree

----------

Dan40 (10-01-2021),East of the Beast (10-01-2021)

----------


## Canadianeye

What lengths some have to go to for the validation of their core beliefs...that it is okay, and actually a grand thing - to murder innocent babies in the womb.

They virtue signal to replace their void of conscience.

----------


## phoenyx

> What lengths some have to go to for the validation of their core beliefs...


If it wasn't getting increasingly difficult for females to have abortions, I may well have not commented at all. I see the restrictions on abortion rights the same way I see restrictions on unvaccinated rights- all well in good if people are just talking theory, but when they start restricting what you can do, at that point, I feel it's important to start pushing back.

----------


## Authentic

> If it wasn't getting increasingly difficult for females to have abortions, I may well have not commented at all. I see the restrictions on abortion rights the same way I see restrictions on unvaccinated rights- all well in good if people are just talking theory, but when they start restricting what you can do, at that point, I feel it's important to start pushing back.


You want to pushback on women being restricted from killing their babies.

----------


## Gator Monroe

> If it wasn't getting increasingly difficult for females to have abortions, I may well have not commented at all. I see the restrictions on abortion rights the same way I see restrictions on unvaccinated rights- all well in good if people are just talking theory, but when they start restricting what you can do, at that point, I feel it's important to start pushing back.


LOL (How many abortion clinics are in Saudi Arabia or Syria or Lebanon or Iraq or Iran or Jordan or Turkey or Egypt ...

----------


## phoenyx

> You want to pushback on women being restricted from killing their babies.


Once again, you'd like to make vague what I am being very specific about. The pushback is only on allowing women to abort embryos and fetuses. While some do define embryos and fetuses as babies, -everyone- defines recently born human beings as babies, and no one in the pro choice movement is even suggesting that anyone be allowed to kill them.

----------


## phoenyx

> LOL (How many abortion clinics are in Saudi Arabia or Syria or Lebanon or Iraq or Iran or Jordan or Turkey or Egypt ...


You really think they're the types of examples the U.S. and other relatively free nations should follow?

----------


## Gator Monroe

> You really think they're the types of examples the U.S. and other relatively free nations should follow?


Compared to Russia & China & North Korea & in Manilla and Japan and Venezuela ...

----------


## Authentic

> Once again, you'd like to make vague what I am being very specific about. The pushback is only on allowing women to abort embryos and fetuses. While some do define embryos and fetuses as babies, -everyone- defines recently born human beings as babies, and no one in the pro choice movement is even suggesting that anyone be allowed to kill them.


No, you are being vague by utilizing euphemisms. I am saying specifically what you support, women killing babies.

Why does calling a spade a spade upset you so much? Conscience bothering you?

----------


## Authentic

@phoenyx, would you support the "right of a woman to choose" if you were the one being aborted?

----------


## Dan40

> How many embryos have you dated lately? 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that pro lifers tend to have this singular focus on -human- life, to the exclusion of all others. Again, the issue of other life comes up- if chickens are more intelligent than toddlers in some ways, I think it's safe to say that the difference would be even more pronounced between embryos and fetuses and chickens. And frankly, chickens don't strike me as the most intelligent of creatures. Cows strike me as much more advanced, but I suspect most pro lifers aren't forgoing burgers. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your capabilities of diversion, avoidance, and useless childish bullshit are all you have.

----------

