Abortion discussion

Genevieve

There I was, guts splatted all over my titties...
Jul 17, 2019
45
47
18
The County Morgue
Been going to classes so let's pick this back up.

I'm sure that out of 6.5 million different kids of organism, we would find at another one. I would go and say that there are probably thousands of them. That would be my guess.
You'd be surprised just how different humans are from other organisms. Some have even posed the question of "are we really just animals in the animal kingdom" simply because we're so advanced (in fact, we're the most advanced in the world). While we have similarities, we also have many more differences that sets us apart, anatomically and mentally.

The only other organism that works like a human fetus is a fetus of another animal that gives live births (so think horses, cows and primates).

Then the whole point of being a parasite if lose, if by parasite we consider an organism that needs a host in order to survive. If they can feed of what they find looking around, then the meaning of parasites is lost.
Here's the difference between a fetus and a parasite, and it normally comes down to their ecological relationship.

A parasite is merely an invasive species of animal, such as a tapeworm, that only sticks around our bodies for food. They benefit at our loss. The ecological relationships between something like a tapeworm and a human or other animal it has invaded is simply called parasitism; the human is harmed while the tapeworm benefits. The lack of nutrients the host is losing to the tapeworm could potentially even kill them. Oh, also, these two have an interspecific relationship, which are between two animals of different kinds.

A fetus is a unborn offspring of the same species, making it an intraspecific relationship. Typically, the relationship between the two would be a Cooperation relationship, in which both have diverse tasks, but work together for their benefit. The fetus is working on growth and development while the mother works on her prenatal care and whatever else she has to do. For the most part, this is how a pregnancy goes, but the cooperation cannot exist if the mother did not want to conceive, and because they are of the same species, it cannot be considered parasitistic.

I never did, or I intended to make them the same thing, which they are not. However, now that you mentioned they are made for the same intention of preventing pregnancies, aka birth control.
They differ in the ways of how they function and how people should use them, among other things.
They are for the same purpose, but different times, different ways, and you'll see in the next statement how they're not dependent.

You can't pull balls out of second bag unless you first pull from the first one.
I think it's time someone taught you independent vs dependent variables.

An independent variable is one in which the first result does not affect the second result. Sure, you need a first bag to pull from the second, but that doesn't mean their variables are dependent, just their actions. If the first and second bag have the exact same amounts of the exact same balls, the chances of pulling a certain ball will be the same for both bags. Similarly, yes you go through plan A to get to plan B, but if you failed plan A, that doesn't make plan B any more or less likely to fail.

On the other hand, your variables are dependent if the first result affects the second by changing probabilities.

So let's bring the bag example back, but let's only use one bag now. Let's say you now have 3 green balls, 3 blue, 3 red and 1 white. So in this example, you have a 10% (or 1/10) chance of grabbing white.

For an independent variable, you take a ball out and see what color it is. Say it's the white one. You now put the ball back. What are your odds of grabbing the white ball? I'll give you a hint: it's 1/10 again.

For a dependent variable, you take a ball out and see it's a red ball. You don't put the ball back. Now what are your odds of grabbing a red ball? Hint: it went down to 2/9 from 3/10.

Are you starting to get it now?

You don't have to know it. You take it anyway after you get raped and suspect pregnancy.
And if a woman does not have $40 in her savings, then... she has bigger problems.
Not every woman who gets raped reports it, goes to the store right after or has money. Like I said, rapists don't care about the pleasure of sex, they care about the power and dominance they have over their victim. She could have the money but be too fearful and feel too weak from the shock. She could be broke, homeless and she could be applying to all the jobs she can trying to get out of her situation (because you can't just go un-broke like that, just so you're aware) and not be able to afford Plan B. Rapists don't just go for the attractive middle class or upper class women in bars, they will go for anyone they see vulnerable enough. Here's something to read about it, too.

I never said that it was easy. But, you're making it sound like it's hard to diagnose it even when the cases are obvious. Like the one I already mentioned.
Except, like I said, it's not always obvious.

That's hypocritical of you to say.
You don't know if she did something or not. You assumed that she did nothing wrong and that she's not lying to you, or telling you the full truth.
I'm not saying that she is lying, but I'm saying that you don't know it.
We should apply this uncertainty to you, just like you apply it to doctors.
You do realize the condition that woman's daughter has isn't traced to poor treatment of the fetus, right? The condition her daughter has is called Omphalocele, and here's proof she didn't do shit to her daughter. It's a birth defect. So you can just fuck right off on calling me a hypocrite, thanks. By the way, she was trying to shop for her daughter, too, so when she could be clear to go home, she'd have more clothes. So it's not like she was even trying to terminate her pregnancy.

And, funny enough, you can try and still end up with a perfectly healthy baby. My friend's mother admitted to her daughter that she tried to throw herself down the stairs to end the pregnancy that gave her my friend. My friend has 0 defects, 0 health issues, and is completely normal.

If the law is made correctly, then it wouldn't happen.
It's not necessary for a woman to admit to anything. It's only up to doctors to make a right diagnosis, and up to judges to make a right punishment.
Except, as I said, you can't always tell. Not every baby who has been abused has issues, and not every baby who has been given perfect care in the womb goes without birth defects. You can miscarry, and you can terminate a pregnancy and not have anything show in the test results. The only obvious time is if they tried to do so via the hanger, which could puncture the vaginal wall, and not everyone is going that route. So please, tell me exactly how you'd figure out the difference between attempted abortion, miscarriage, and spontaneous birth defect, since you seem to like to deem yourself the expert.

To which I respond with "Help involve how and why?".
Where is this question stemming from in the article?

Having eye sight can also lead to sexual reproduction. In that case the eyes play "sort of a role" for reproduction. That doesn't mean that that's their only role. Just like clitoris. Both those two organs have their roles, not just "sort of roles".
Okay, and your nose is also responsible for taste, despite us also having functional taste buds. Your point?

Interesting, I'm very suspicious about the way that should be done.
Suspicious on how wisdom teeth are removed? It's not that complicated... They knock you out on some heavy shit, take them out surgically (they aren't just yoinked out of your mouth), and by the time you wake up loopier than a tilt-a-whirl, they're out, and in a couple hours, you'll probably be hugging the bottle of Advil or whatever you take for pain calling it your best friend then apologizing to the bowl of ice cream next to you for betraying it.

I've had to be there for someone's wisdom teeth removal, it was a whole ride. I've never had mine removed, they fit comfy for me so I never saw it as necessary. People really only get them removed if they don't fit right and cause pain so intense you can't close your mouth fully.

The day after pill fails in 5%, not in 16.6%.
For condoms it's between 14% and 3%, depending on the usage. We can take it for 7%.
Similar to condoms, oral contraceptives have an average failure rate of 7%.
And don't forget many other factors that I already mentioned as barriers from getting raped and impregnated.
Even if we exclude condoms, since the attacker may or may not use one, it's still a very low chance of a woman getting impregnated through rape.
Nope.
The day after pill only has the failure rate of 5% if you take it within 24 hours. At 72 hours, it has a failure rate of 11-25%, and both of these rates are dependent on:
  1. Whether or not you throw it up after (throwing it up means it will definitely fail)
  2. Your BMI (it's less effective over a BMI of 25)
  3. If you start regular birth control right after (if you took Ella)
  4. If you're ovulating (ovulation = less likely to work)
Also, not everyone takes birth control, whether the reason is financial or health-related. So you'd be surprised the chances of failure.

Ok, let's make it simple.
Let's take just two factors. The ones we already used: birth control pills (oral contraceptives) and the day-after pill.
Failure chances are 7% and 5%.
Here's the question: If we have two women and both of them get raped and both of them take the day-after pill, however the first one was also on oral contraceptives, while the second was not. Which one of them has a lower chance of getting pregnant and why?
(note: don't forget the 'why' part)
It depends on various factors, and as I mentioned, your numbers for failure chances are quite off, but let's go with it. Let's start with the general factors:
  • What were their BMIs? (see: above, also heavier women are less likely to get pregnant, same with women who are highly underweight)
  • Were either ovulating? (see: above, the sperm may also have less obstacles since the egg's already there in the open)
  • How long between the rape and the pill? (see: above)
  • Did either throw up after taking their pill? (see: above)
  • Do either have fertility issues? (anything like that will make all of these a good preventative factor, but she'd be less likely to get pregnant anyways)
  • What are their ages? (Women do come to a time where they are less likely to be fertile)
  • Is the man himself able to produce children or is he shooting blanks? (yes, men can have fertility issues, too)
  • Is woman 2 on another form of contraceptive? (She could also be on an IUD or even a shot)
And as for woman 2:
  • What type of birth control were they on? (some are primarily made for other reasons, like cramps, period regulation and acne, but marketed as BC due to hormones, or some may be too weak, like the progestin-only pills)
  • What type of day after pill did she take? (see: above)
  • Does she take her oral contraceptives at the exact same time every day? (Missing doses or being inconsistent leaves more room for failure)
As you can see, it takes a lot more to come to those conclusions than you think. More pills and shit doesn't always mean less likely. It's not as simple as you wished it was.

I never said that there was no possibility, but there is a big different between 25% and 0.000025%. Imagine if your husbands revenue increased by 25% and if it increased by 0.000025%.
Except when you look at the real numbers, it's a bigger rate of failure than anyone really wishes it was.

Choice for what? For abortion?!?!
We were talking about pregnancies and rapes. So even when a woman has such a low chances of getting pregnant through rape, that should apply to all women who have regular pregnancies and want the same abortions?
Do you see the problem here?

In those situations there should be at least some discussion about letting a woman have an abortion. It should be possible, but not given freely.
I don't see a problem, because I believe women have more bodily autonomy than a fetus, that their lives are more important than a potential life that who knows what their living environment would be like. I'd rather see a woman have a baby when she is ready and willing and watch the child grow up in a good environment and happy household in a family that wanted them than in a poor living environment where the mother wishes she didn't have her child (whether they're a rape baby, or the baby father is in jail or a deadbeat) and, as a result, is abusive to the child, and yes, this happens much more than you think.

Sorry, but I see more of an issue with children being born into environments where they do not feel welcome and the mother is able to say "I didn't even want you in the first place" during an argument, and actually mean it. I see more of an issue with people seeing a fetus as more important than the woman that is carrying it, but as soon as she has this baby they spent *so* long "saving," they stop caring about what happens to the child.

Do you like school shooters or children who are lead into lives of crime? Because family dynamics like what I'd mentioned are *perfect* breeding grounds for those types of people. Not sure if you knew this, but a lot of killers grew up in bad family environments.

Nothing. But that doesn't mean she should be allowed to take the child's life.
Many parents are not good at parenting, but if she's goes and does some major harm to that child then we already have laws and institutions to deal with that.
So what you're saying is, is that we should just put innocent children into households of irresponsible mothers and see what happens? That we should act on child harm when it's too late, or even never, considering a lot of these times, most of these children don't even know about DCFS or CPS? That you'd rather have a child live a painful and sad existence than to just prevent them from feeling that pain all together? Also, the abortion cut-off time is when the fetus's brain develops and can finally feel things, about 27 weeks. If brain death is human death (before decay), then brain life should indicate human life.
 

Rubbish

Drawing Blood
Sep 27, 2017
363
864
93
47
Massachusetts
If you'd like to discuss Satan in terms of baby killing, look not to an effigy (because let's face it, what else other than fake wooden babies could they have used to protest abortion laws) at a protest, look for the real life examples. Here's one.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ohio-high-school-cheerleader-probation-abuse-corpse-newborn
Imagine if a guy did this? He would be labeled a monster. I have no opinion on the abortion thing, but this is straight up murder. The pretty white girl pussy pass worked again.
 

Lorencio

Run
VIP
Sep 22, 2018
1,426
1,711
113
28
White House
Been going to classes so let's pick this back up.
I'm glad to see you back. You got me worried there.

(in fact, we're the most advanced in the world).
Advanced in what in relation to who?
There are many things in which humans are infinitely more inferior than other organisms, as well as things in which we are far more advanced. On average, intellect is something which we were able cultivate the most in relation to other Earth organisms. But, put us bare handed in a cage with a tiger and you will know what superiority is.

The only other organism that works like a human fetus is a fetus of another animal that gives live births (so think horses, cows and primates).
What about eggs? Eggs can only be alive after they are created inside the mother, or in some other modern way.
A parasite is merely an invasive species of animal, such as a tapeworm, that only sticks around our bodies for food. They benefit at our loss. The ecological relationships between something like a tapeworm and a human or other animal it has invaded is simply called parasitism; the human is harmed while the tapeworm benefits. The lack of nutrients the host is losing to the tapeworm could potentially even kill them. Oh, also, these two have an interspecific relationship, which are between two animals of different kinds.

A fetus is a unborn offspring of the same species, making it an intraspecific relationship. Typically, the relationship between the two would be a Cooperation relationship, in which both have diverse tasks, but work together for their benefit. The fetus is working on growth and development while the mother works on her prenatal care and whatever else she has to do. For the most part, this is how a pregnancy goes, but the cooperation cannot exist if the mother did not want to conceive, and because they are of the same species, it cannot be considered parasitistic.
If it can not be seen as parasitic, then the fetus should not be described as such by those who support abortion. My arguments were a reaction to those of who try to put that value on fetus.

The human can also enter a cooperative relation with a parasite if the host decides to do so. The harm, or benefit of something is determined by the surplus, or deficit of interest. A host may make such calculation that they may derive value (interest) in having parasites on them. But, then that might be considered as a symbiotic relationship...
To add on this, the mother might calculate that her fetus is making her lose interest in which case she proceeds with removing that fetus (if possible). In that case, the host (mother) sees fetus as something harmful for her living in her off her, in which case the word 'parasite' is used.

I think it's time someone taught you independent vs dependent variables.

An independent variable is one in which the first result does not affect the second result. Sure, you need a first bag to pull from the second, but that doesn't mean their variables are dependent, just their actions. If the first and second bag have the exact same amounts of the exact same balls, the chances of pulling a certain ball will be the same for both bags. Similarly, yes you go through plan A to get to plan B, but if you failed plan A, that doesn't make plan B any more or less likely to fail.
The second results, is the final result we are trying to calculate here, which is the chances of pregnancies after ALL the necessary steps. We are not calculating the chances of success of one individual action, but in the final result of all those actions combined.
It doesn't make the plan B more likely to fail, but it makes the final result change. It also makes plan B more likely never to happen if plan A succeeds.

On the other hand, your variables are dependent if the first result affects the second by changing probabilities.
The final result changes, since plan B is, or is not implemented.
Go read over those textbooks.

So let's bring the bag example back, but let's only use one bag now. Let's say you now have 3 green balls, 3 blue, 3 red and 1 white. So in this example, you have a 10% (or 1/10) chance of grabbing white.

For an independent variable, you take a ball out and see what color it is. Say it's the white one. You now put the ball back. What are your odds of grabbing the white ball? I'll give you a hint: it's 1/10 again.

For a dependent variable, you take a ball out and see it's a red ball. You don't put the ball back. Now what are your odds of grabbing a red ball? Hint: it went down to 2/9 from 3/10.

Are you starting to get it now?
Great, now that we know the basics of math probability we should play the actual game.
You have to pull the same ball, the white one, two times in a row and I have to pull it just once. The chances of me winning are 10%, the chances of you winning are far lower. This works with the 6 cubs as well, which you and I can play right here - in the chat. If you want to.

Remember, we are not calculating the chances of birth control pills failing, we are calculating the chances of pregnancies failing when all the necessary steps are taken. Those are not the same things. You calculate them differently.

Not every woman who gets raped reports it, goes to the store right after or has money. Like I said, rapists don't care about the pleasure of sex, they care about the power and dominance they have over their victim. She could have the money but be too fearful and feel too weak from the shock. She could be broke, homeless and she could be applying to all the jobs she can trying to get out of her situation (because you can't just go un-broke like that, just so you're aware) and not be able to afford Plan B. Rapists don't just go for the attractive middle class or upper class women in bars, they will go for anyone they see vulnerable enough. Here's something to read about it, too.
Like I've said, if your homeless and absolutely broke, you are already far into the problems.
Every woman should have that pill stashed somewhere accessible if she suspects possible danger, or might not be able to get it on time. That goes into the "smart and responsible" box.

Except, like I said, it's not always obvious.
It doesn't have to be always, we already been thought this at least two times.

You do realize the condition that woman's daughter has isn't traced to poor treatment of the fetus, right? The condition her daughter has is called Omphalocele, and here's proof she didn't do shit to her daughter. It's a birth defect. So you can just fuck right off on calling me a hypocrite, thanks.
At least make this hard for me.

not known.PNG


My point is that you can't be absolutely certain if she ever did, or didn't do something bad for her child. The exact point this article proves.

And, funny enough, you can try and still end up with a perfectly healthy baby. My friend's mother admitted to her daughter that she tried to throw herself down the stairs to end the pregnancy that gave her my friend. My friend has 0 defects, 0 health issues, and is completely normal.
I doubt. No one is that perfect.

Except, as I said, you can't always tell. Not every baby who has been abused has issues, and not every baby who has been given perfect care in the womb goes without birth defects. You can miscarry, and you can terminate a pregnancy and not have anything show in the test results. The only obvious time is if they tried to do so via the hanger, which could puncture the vaginal wall, and not everyone is going that route. So please, tell me exactly how you'd figure out the difference between attempted abortion, miscarriage, and spontaneous birth defect, since you seem to like to deem yourself the expert.
Please, don't make me repeat myself for the third time.

Where is this question stemming from in the article?
Everywhere.
To a question: why do bridges look the way they look? A biologist would say 'because they help us survive'. An engineer would tell you exactly why they look in a certain way and not in some other way. They would present you with actual calculations and all the other possible scenarios. All of that apart from telling you that bridges can help you survive.
In this case (in case of life), the engineer is Nature itself.

Okay, and your nose is also responsible for taste, despite us also having functional taste buds. Your point?
My point is that clitoris does not have a "supportive" role, but an actual primary role. Just like your eyes and nose does.

Suspicious on how wisdom teeth are removed? It's not that complicated... They knock you out on some heavy shit, take them out surgically (they aren't just yoinked out of your mouth), and by the time you wake up loopier than a tilt-a-whirl, they're out, and in a couple hours, you'll probably be hugging the bottle of Advil or whatever you take for pain calling it your best friend then apologizing to the bowl of ice cream next to you for betraying it.

I've had to be there for someone's wisdom teeth removal, it was a whole ride. I've never had mine removed, they fit comfy for me so I never saw it as necessary. People really only get them removed if they don't fit right and cause pain so intense you can't close your mouth fully.
actual lol
I was suspicious of the necessity to remove something which developed in your body for millions of years. But see, you said something very important here. You didn't remove them, because they didn't bother you too much.
#notAllWisdomTeeth

Nope.
The day after pill only has the failure rate of 5% if you take it within 24 hours. At 72 hours, it has a failure rate of 11-25%, and both of these rates are dependent on:
  1. Whether or not you throw it up after (throwing it up means it will definitely fail)
  2. Your BMI (it's less effective over a BMI of 25)
  3. If you start regular birth control right after (if you took Ella)
  4. If you're ovulating (ovulation = less likely to work)
Also, not everyone takes birth control, whether the reason is financial or health-related. So you'd be surprised the chances of failure.
That's why you have to be smart and responsible. It's dishonest of you to say "nope" like that, when it's true that that's the right number under right circumstances. The circumstances which can be obtained with little to none effort.

It depends on various factors, and as I mentioned, your numbers for failure chances are quite off, but let's go with it. Let's start with the general factors:
  • What were their BMIs? (see: above, also heavier women are less likely to get pregnant, same with women who are highly underweight)
  • Were either ovulating? (see: above, the sperm may also have less obstacles since the egg's already there in the open)
  • How long between the rape and the pill? (see: above)
  • Did either throw up after taking their pill? (see: above)
  • Do either have fertility issues? (anything like that will make all of these a good preventative factor, but she'd be less likely to get pregnant anyways)
  • What are their ages? (Women do come to a time where they are less likely to be fertile)
  • Is the man himself able to produce children or is he shooting blanks? (yes, men can have fertility issues, too)
  • Is woman 2 on another form of contraceptive? (She could also be on an IUD or even a shot)
And as for woman 2:
  • What type of birth control were they on? (some are primarily made for other reasons, like cramps, period regulation and acne, but marketed as BC due to hormones, or some may be too weak, like the progestin-only pills)
  • What type of day after pill did she take? (see: above)
  • Does she take her oral contraceptives at the exact same time every day? (Missing doses or being inconsistent leaves more room for failure)
As you can see, it takes a lot more to come to those conclusions than you think. More pills and shit doesn't always mean less likely. It's not as simple as you wished it was.
ceteris paribus
Now answer the question and DON'T forget the WHY part.
I don't see a problem, because I believe women have more bodily autonomy than a fetus, that their lives are more important than a potential life that who knows what their living environment would be like. I'd rather see a woman have a baby when she is ready and willing and watch the child grow up in a good environment and happy household in a family that wanted them than in a poor living environment where the mother wishes she didn't have her child (whether they're a rape baby, or the baby father is in jail or a deadbeat) and, as a result, is abusive to the child, and yes, this happens much more than you think.

Sorry, but I see more of an issue with children being born into environments where they do not feel welcome and the mother is able to say "I didn't even want you in the first place" during an argument, and actually mean it. I see more of an issue with people seeing a fetus as more important than the woman that is carrying it, but as soon as she has this baby they spent *so* long "saving," they stop caring about what happens to the child.
This is of such importance.
I believe that the life of a fetus (which is baby) is more important than the life of a woman giving birth to that baby. This depends heavily on the certain situation, like woman's fertility and so on...
I'd rather see the baby brought to live and given a chance to fight their own life. Die if necessary, but die with grace. Die fighting. Not die by the hand of a weak mother.
chance to live > no chance to live, regardless of the type of life. Even the absolute hell of life is valuable to a brave soul. A soul which that baby might have.

Do you like school shooters or children who are lead into lives of crime? Because family dynamics like what I'd mentioned are *perfect* breeding grounds for those types of people. Not sure if you knew this, but a lot of killers grew up in bad family environments.
Funny you mentioned this. I think there might be a correlation between feminism and mass school shootings.
A lot of people also grew up in same or worse family environments and don't commit those crimes. Those shooters also grew up in a social environment that devalues and degrades the value of life. Those shooters grew up in a place constantly hostile to them. Not saying that they are the result of feminism, but I'm also not ruling that out.
Feminism is the result of men going weak, which is also the exact reason why families get dysfunctional, since men are the head of families as well as the society. By men I mean men. Not male women (beta-males).
The solution: fix men. Don't breed weak men. Make actual moral strong women who raise strong boys. Which can only be done under the guidance of a strong father.

So what you're saying is, is that we should just put innocent children into households of irresponsible mothers and see what happens? That we should act on child harm when it's too late, or even never, considering a lot of these times, most of these children don't even know about DCFS or CPS?
No, if the mother is irresponsible and prone to harm the child then the child should be taken away.

That you'd rather have a child live a painful and sad existence than to just prevent them from feeling that pain all together?
Yes. 100%

Also, the abortion cut-off time is when the fetus's brain develops and can finally feel things, about 27 weeks. If brain death is human death (before decay), then brain life should indicate human life.
No it shouldn't, because the organism does not think with their brain, but with their whole body. You are walking into dangerous waters here.
 

Lorencio

Run
VIP
Sep 22, 2018
1,426
1,711
113
28
White House
If you'd like to discuss Satan in terms of baby killing, look not to an effigy (because let's face it, what else other than fake wooden babies could they have used to protest abortion laws) at a protest, look for the real life examples. Here's one.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ohio-high-school-cheerleader-probation-abuse-corpse-newborn
Murder. Guilty. Send her to life in prison, or death.
Give her a chance to repent and live the right way, but if that promise is broken she should be dealt with public flogging and ended with public hanging. The public part is very important. Message needs to be sent.
 
Top