The real reason why the left has gone insane

a reply to: DBCowboy

Look, as I eluded too in my previous reply, there is no point debating this with a right-to-lifer. Unless you're properly educated on the topic beyond opinion and indoctrination, its a truly pointless conversation. As you said, you have every right to your free speech.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Badams
a reply to: DBCowboy

Ahh, clearly someone religious with no medical education I see - I just assumed you were ignorant, silly me!. I apologise for wasting both our times talking about this then.

I never mentioned religion other than in passing.

An unborn child has it's own unique DNA, it's own blood type. It's an individual just like you or me.

Well maybe not you.

The guy just swooped on the right to life, free speech and religious freedom. Ten bucks he's
from the UK without bring' n up gun rights.

Oh austala! Same thing really

a reply to: randyvs

An Aussie.


*shrugs*

a reply to: randyvs

Australian, and extremely thankful for it (and not that its pertinent to the conversation, but a shooter aswell) . If that's what you've taken from the conversation I've had, you have mis-understood rather badly. I'm simply of the position no government has jurisdiction over anyone's body, and those that believe they do are simply; in my opinion and luckily the majority of forward thinking people, wrong.

Ugh....so much stupidity to debunk. Let us seeif i have the patience.

"....her body" Mmmmm, no. Thats incorrect. The medical procedure of induced abortion most directly affects the body of the fetus, not the mother. This is not debatable, it is fact. Basic logic here.

"....its murder!" Again, no. Words have meanings folks, and the word Murder means the illegal killing of a Human being. Its killing, yes; Murder, not as of right now. Legality =/= Morality.

"....constitutional right to Abortion" There is nowhere in the document that Abortion is spoken about. The SCOTUS rules on if something is constitutional by its own -interpretation- of the document.

"....Right to Life!" Well, if you read the constitution, you would realize that extends only to naturally born humans, currently.

"....but abortions in back Alleys!" see: Appeal to Emotion logical fallacy.....

"Woman's choice, no uterus, no voice." Pfft. It takes two to make a baby.

"...punishment for sex!" The biological purpose of sex is procreation. Next.

"...but my God says" Nobody cares what your God says.

"...clump of cells" You mean exactly what you are as well? A huge clump of cells?


The VAST majority of induced abortions are nit a medical necessity, and happen as a form of Birth Control. It negates personal responsibility for ones own actions by taking the choice of living from another Human. Unless youre saying Humans have started having non-Humans. Good luck with that if you are. Oh! Here comes another one!

"....but rape! Or incest!" These represent a tiny minority of induced abortion cases, but let us address it anyways: In rape, a violation of consent has occured. In normal pregnancy, not so much. Incest is known to result in deformities, so would be a medical necessity. Also: that you can only use these extreme cases illustrates that you cant debunk the normative cases which vastly outnumber them.

"...dont care for them after birth" By far this is, what i consider the single most stupid argument ever. Conflation. That a individual believes everyone should have a right to life, does not somehow indebt them to said life.

originally posted by: Badams
a reply to: Muninn

I love some banter and name calling! Please tell me more about how unmanly and fragile I am for believing in the rights of others!

Let me fix this for you. What you meant to say is:
"...believing in the rights of SOME others."

originally posted by: Badams
a reply to: randyvs

Australian, and extremely thankful for it (and not that its pertinent to the conversation, but a shooter aswell) . If that's what you've taken from the conversation I've had, you have mis-understood rather badly. I'm simply of the position no government has jurisdiction over anyone's body, and those that believe they do are simply; in my opinion and luckily the majority of forward thinking people, wrong.

And how do you feel towards any and all
provisions a govt. might offer to assist
in a personal decision?

originally posted by: Badams
a reply to: DBCowboy

Look, as I eluded too in my previous reply, there is no point debating this with a right-to-lifer. Unless you're properly educated on the topic beyond opinion and indoctrination, its a truly pointless conversation. As you said, you have every right to your free speech.

"properly educated", ok. Ive studied induced abortion. Spent roughly a hundred hours. Talked to several dozen Doctors, and Nurses. Not religious either, so i wouldnt suggest that angle. Yeah, ive done my homework.

originally posted by: Badams
a reply to: randyvs

Australian, and extremely thankful for it (and not that its pertinent to the conversation, but a shooter aswell) . If that's what you've taken from the conversation I've had, you have mis-understood rather badly. I'm simply of the position no government has jurisdiction over anyone's body, and those that believe they do are simply; in my opinion and luckily the majority of forward thinking people, wrong.

Ok, lets test this. How much will you stand behind your words?

Suicide? Thats a person doing what they want with their body. You behind that?
Hard Drugs? Yet another thing someone does to their own body.
Self-mutilation? You ok with that?
What about prostitution?

a reply to: jjsr420

Lets debunk this simplistic view of the topic.

Foetuses - little darlings - unborn babies , whatever you choose to call them and personify them with, don't even begin to form the necessary biological mechanisms for "consciousness" untill approximately 13 weeks into the pregnancy. It's then not possible to even be though of as self aware untill around the 23 - 28 week mark, let alone be properly conscious as we know it.

It's also good to know, at this point in the foetus' brains development, if a regular fully grown human was to have this level of neural activity - they would be considered brain dead. People in this state often have the machines keeping them alive, turned off, due to the fact they don't meet the criteria set that says they'll able to make a full recovery. This alludes to the fact, without a mother, the foetus wouldn't be able to sustain itself.

I cant speak to laws of other countries - as I don't know them, but there is usually a limit on how far along a pregnancy can be, and still be aborted. This is because past this point, yes, they are considered to be a cognizent person. This limit is here to prevent a properly formed human capable of self sustaining being denied a chance to live. This is not what happens during the early stages of the pregnancy when abortions happen 95% of the time.

The way foetus' are spoken about in this kind of topic, makes them sound like babies are born wearing little suits, drinking a cup of tea and happy to give you their opinions on life.

a reply to: jjsr420

A person can take their own life if they choose to, it'd be hard to regulate it, then punish someone for doing that. Its obviously a horrible thing I don't endorse, but its a different kettle of fish all together and not relevant to abortions.

Hard drugs, hell no, the strain users put on the already struggling medical systems of almost every country is ridiculous, that's why drugs are illegal.

Self harm - Its something thats typically associated with a mental disorder of one description or another. Also, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do you want to punish people for having mental disorders they cannot help?

Prostitution? If done in a safe environment, not a problem with it at all. Do I have problems with girls on a street corner that are putting themselves in harms way, absolutely. If they work in a safe environment like a brothel, its just another job.

Any more moral quandaries you want opinion on?

originally posted by: Badams
a reply to: jjsr420

Lets debunk this simplistic view of the topic.

Foetuses - little darlings - unborn babies , whatever you choose to call them and personify them with, don't even begin to form the necessary biological mechanisms for "consciousness" untill approximately 13 weeks into the pregnancy. It's then not possible to even be though of as self aware untill around the 23 - 28 week mark, let alone be properly conscious as we know it.

It's also good to know, at this point in the foetus' brains development, if a regular fully grown human was to have this level of neural activity - they would be considered brain dead. People in this state often have the machines keeping them alive, turned off, due to the fact they don't meet the criteria set that says they'll able to make a full recovery. This alludes to the fact, without a mother, the foetus wouldn't be able to sustain itself.

I cant speak to laws of other countries - as I don't know them, but there is usually a limit on how far along a pregnancy can be, and still be aborted. This is because past this point, yes, they are considered to be a cognizent person. This limit is here to prevent a properly formed human capable of self sustaining being denied a chance to live. This is not what happens during the early stages of the pregnancy when abortions happen 95% of the time.

The way foetus' are spoken about in this kind of topic, makes them sound like babies are born wearing little suits, drinking a cup of tea and happy to give you their opinions on life.

Far to easy sir. *yawns*

Science has yet to pin down where conciousness comes from. Unless youre somehiw privy to ground-breaking science the rest of us arent. Can you nail down the exact moment conciousness begins? Dont worry, ill wait.

Pretty sure we all know that, under a certain point, a fetus will not make it. I know first hand. My son was born at 26 weeks, and survived. A few weeks earlier, and he would have died. Thank you captain obvious.

They are still Human, by virtue of their Human DNA. So outside of scientific speculation (again, ill wait for you to provide empirical data to illuatrate when conciousness begins. Good luck.), and stating the obvious, what exactly have you debunked? Nothing. Not a single thing.

But wait...dont tell me youre not properly educated on this topic? Oh my goodness, say it aint so!

And the last part? Please, refer to the Argumentum Ad Absurdium logical fallacy, as thats what you have there. Nowhere did i mention conciousness, or personhood. Fail #1 for you, sir. Try again.

originally posted by: Badams
a reply to: jjsr420

A person can take their own life if they choose to, it'd be hard to regulate it, then punish someone for doing that. Its obviously a horrible thing I don't endorse, but its a different kettle of fish all together and not relevant to abortions.

Hard drugs, hell no, the strain users put on the already struggling medical systems of almost every country is ridiculous, that's why drugs are illegal.

Self harm - Its something thats typically associated with a mental disorder of one description or another. Also, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do you want to punish people for having mental disorders they cannot help?

Prostitution? If done in a safe environment, not a problem with it at all. Do I have problems with girls on a street corner that are putting themselves in harms way, absolutely. If they work in a safe environment like a brothel, its just another job.

Any more moral quandaries you want opinion on?

So, your courage does not match the conviction of your words? Surprise surprise, im not shocked at all.

Ive known many users of hard drugs that dont ever interact with medical professionals. Thats a nice cop-out though.

originally posted by: Badams
a reply to: jjsr420

A person can take their own life if they choose to, it'd be hard to regulate it, then punish someone for doing that. Its obviously a horrible thing I don't endorse, but its a different kettle of fish all together and not relevant to abortions.

Hard drugs, hell no, the strain users put on the already struggling medical systems of almost every country is ridiculous, that's why drugs are illegal.

Self harm - Its something thats typically associated with a mental disorder of one description or another. Also, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do you want to punish people for having mental disorders they cannot help?

Prostitution? If done in a safe environment, not a problem with it at all. Do I have problems with girls on a street corner that are putting themselves in harms way, absolutely. If they work in a safe environment like a brothel, its just another job.

Any more moral quandaries you want opinion on?

Oh, and all of this IS relevant to a position you FALSELY claimed to hold. That being that a government has no place telling someone what to do with their own body.

You came to a battle of wits unarmed. Even the position you claimed to hold ive easilly illustrated you dont actually hold. Youre fine with people owning their bodies, except when, except when.

So the truth is, if you arent comfortble with what a person is doing, its rather easy to come up with excuses to have the government step in, and not allow them the actions.

a reply to: DBCowboy


If abortions (aka baby murders) are left up to the states, all the anti-life crowd should move to California or New York. Those states would allow the sale and use of at-home abortion kits.

a reply to: jjsr420

I'm no more privy to university education or even the numerous papers on google scholar than you are. I cant tell you the precise point at which consciousness begins in every single pregnancy, but I can tell you within reasonable doubt when it shouldn't be referred to as a living, thinking person seeing as the foetus doesn't have the anatomy to support it. However, I fail to see how any of the points above are related to abortion. As, none of the above are regulated in Australia like it seems they are in america. And wow, 100 hours, colour me impressed, its not like doctors take 8 years to become a general practitioner, and roughly a minimum of 12 to specialize in anything specific.

a reply to: Badams

I doubt you will, but here is some advice:
Go learn to debate. Especially the various methodologies of debating. It can help you not make the mistakes you made here. Im serious too. Watch some debates, read up on the methods of tearing an opponents argument down, while making your own as solid as you can.

originally posted by: Badams
a reply to: jjsr420

I'm no more privy to university education or even the numerous papers on google scholar than you are. I cant tell you the precise point at which consciousness begins in every single pregnancy, but I can tell you within reasonable doubt when it shouldn't be referred to as a living, thinking person seeing as the foetus doesn't have the anatomy to support it. However, I fail to see how any of the points above are related to abortion. As, none of the above are regulated in Australia like it seems they are in america. And wow, 100 hours, colour me impressed, its not like doctors take 8 years to become a general practitioner, and roughly a minimum of 12 to specialize in anything specific.

Living? Define the qulifiers youre using for this word, because a fetus is very much so alive.

Thinking? Again, gonna need some qualifiers for the definition youre using for this?

Without these qualifiers im left to decide what you meant on my own. Thinking could be described as neural activity, which fetuses have; just not the same amount as an Adult Human.

You fail to see how a systematic debunking of arguments for (and a few against) abortion are relevant to a discussion on abortion? Oooook.

You still have yet to debunk even a single thing ive said.

Within a reasonable doubt? Reasonable fails as its a subjective term. Changes from person to person. Need something more objective. Try again.