Abortion discussion

Lorencio

Is this real life?
Sep 22, 2018
1,267
1,308
113
28
White House
Which brings me to one of my main points: there is no point to making it illegal. People will get abortions whether it's legal or illegal, safe or will 100% guaranteed kill them. They'll go to whatever length. And the people who have gotten abortions or have had their children get them is even more shocking: they'd even betray their own faith. There's been people who were so Christian that you'd think they could tell you any bible verse (English or Latin) without even needing to look back in the physical book that have either sent their children to get an abortion (whether at a clinic or an under-the-table one) or gotten one themselves.
Most Christians are just larpers.
See, I don't agree with your solution.
I think a better solution would be to create better laws which restrict abortion. Make it so that people can not go in different states and have an abortion. Or if they leave and do that, that they can't come back.

It's not for a while that the fetus really is its own life, and you're not necessarily what's inside you. If I have a tapeworm living inside me, that doesn't make me a tapeworm. It makes me a human that needs some medical attention because that tapeworm will more than likely kill me.
You see, that contradicts your logic. Your argument was that it's your own body, and thus the fetus is your body. Now you're saying that the tapeworm, who's living in you and fully dependent on you, is not your body.
The real answer is that both fetus and tapeworms are their own life whose existence depends on the host, on you.

Difference between a fetus and a parasite: the parasite usually has a means of survival before coming to you
Some do, some do not.

A fetus cannot live independently of the mother and if the mother dies, it loses all ability to survive.
Neither can some parasites, until they are fully developed and ready to spread to different hosts.

Except, like I said, the chance of prevention of fertilization (BC) and chance of expelling the fertilized egg (Day-after pill) are two completely independent events (despite the failure of the birth control leading to the need for a day-after pill).
To a smart and responsible woman those events are not completely independent and unrelated. They are all steps, links to preventing unwanted pregnancies.
With each steap (link) the chances of protection rise.

If those events were dependent on each other, my chances of wanting food after dinner would be, say, 5% (assuming I didn't vomit from eating way too much), so my chances of wanting breakfast would still be at 5%, and same with lunch, and dinner. I'd never eat again, basically.
Ok, let's take that example, even thought you skipped my example with tossing dices.
The more meals you have, the lesser are chances of you having another meal. This works until you feel hunger again. Ok.
Now, if you take birth control pills for a month, and then stop having them for two months and then get pregnant, taking the day-after pill will be unrelated to your birth control pills 3 months ago.
But, if you're on the birth control pills, the chances of you getting pregnant are lower, and thus the chances of you going for day-after pill is lower as well.
This is just with two steps, imagine the additional 3-4 steps I already mentioned.

should we really put a grieving mother up on trial in the first place for losing her baby that she wanted to have? Or a different kind of grieving mother who didn't want a baby but felt guilty that they did what they did?
Yes, if she was irresponsible with the way she handled her pregnancy.

The reason stem cells have that purpose is because they don't have an initial one.
No.
Every living thing has an initial purpose. That's how life and evolution works.

Okay, so you're saying we should prioritize cells of living beings. So we should stop eating plants, cutting trees, eating meat and eggs, and not even mess with water because there's living single-cell organisms inside of unfiltered water. And yes, I see the "humans > non-humans" but really all we are is a fancy type of animal, which would put us on the same level as other animals, so looks like we all have to go vegan.
We are more important than other living things. We are the apex predators. There is no reason for me to prioritize some plant over my children, unless that plant is something very special. But, usually it's just a plant.
That's how prioritizing works. Humans even prioritize between themselves. That's why history is full of wars. Look at how both men and women can be predatorial about their (potential) mating partners.
It's a hierarchy.

Likeliness =/= frequency. Just saying.
Sure. We are talking about rape per capita. It's about how likely you are to get raped in some area.

Oh LMAO I know EXACTLY the photo you're talking about. I would've put it in here, but I literally can't find it, I even looked way back in my Facebook groups. Shame.
lol, same.

Those aren't human fetuses, dude. I can tell you and assure you with great confidence that she was also joking. If you wanted to know what those were, that was a 6 pack of individually wrapped frozen thawed pinkie mice to feed reptiles. I used to get those EXACT mice from PetCo for my snakes; they're on fuzzies now. Next time I pick up food for them, I can show you the box they're in and the mice inside, which you'll find quite familiar. Or, if you want, the fuzzies I have in the freezer are in the same type of box and same individual packaging (although these smell way worse than the pinkies) if you need a photo for proof now. Just note, these won't look EXACTLY the same because fuzzies are one size up from pinkies and they'll have some stubble of tiny furs (thus the name).
Ha! That's amazing. Ok, I can live with that.

But honestly, comedy holds really no bounds. It's just satirical shit, whatever gets you to laugh. It can be as PG or god-awful as it wants. Me jokingly editing a guitar onto someone's corpse in a crime scene photo on here because she died looking like she was air-guitaring was pretty amusing to me, but doesn't make it any less disturbing or wrong. Comedy's limitless.
I dunno. Pedophilia comedy is not really my cup of tea, for example.

Medical school, huh? That's good. Just watch out for those liberal cucks, or rotten feminists of professors. They are not there to teach you any good.
 

Genevieve

There I was, guts splatted all over my titties...
Jul 17, 2019
45
42
18
The County Morgue
I think a better solution would be to create better laws which restrict abortion. Make it so that people can not go in different states and have an abortion. Or if they leave and do that, that they can't come back.
The issue with that solution is that it's not an easy feat to find out what their travels are for; some people need to travel for business or to see family while pregnant. Some may have no intention at all to abort, and others are going to that business-related trip or that family visit could have that secondary motive if that destination either involves traveling through somewhere where abortion is legal or is just in that place. Some could even say family or business but have full intention to abort. That being said, the paranoia of "what's their true intention?" could easily cause for a travel ban where no pregnant women are allowed to leave for any reason.

You see, that contradicts your logic. Your argument was that it's your own body, and thus the fetus is your body. Now you're saying that the tapeworm, who's living in you and fully dependent on you, is not your body.
The real answer is that both fetus and tapeworms are their own life whose existence depends on the host, on you.
Tapeworms aren't in your body because they solely depend on you, they're merely there because you had some bad meat. Tapeworms usually infect meat and water by laying their eggs there, or living animals because they like to hang out in pastures (and we all know deer and cows would kill for some fucking good grass). Just going off of that, I'm assuming that if the meat they were on did not get consumed, they'd likely just eat that and scavenge for food. Them being inside of you merely makes for convenience because now, they don't have to worry about scavenging, since you'll likely be scarfing down food like crazy and supplying them with plenty of food. It's like how we can grow and hunt for our own food, but having farmers that deliver to supermarkets makes it so much easier. In that situation, we're merely the supermarket for tapeworms.

Oh, also, they don't always really attach, and you could poop some tapeworms out. Fun fact.

The fetus, on the other hand, is very much attached, becomes a part of your uterus, and merely takes about half the nutrients you take in and utilize the oxygen and such to provide energy for the cells to undergo some rapid cell growth until it creates everything it needs to eventually become a full human baby.

So really, fetus depends on you and is a part of your body and will die if you die, tapeworm is just there to get food without all the work and doesn't really care what happens to you. If you die, they'll live on, likely scavenge a bit longer then die of old age.

To a smart and responsible woman those events are not completely independent and unrelated. They are all steps, links to preventing unwanted pregnancies.
With each steap (link) the chances of protection rise.
Yet looking at birth control, which is to prevent insemination, and the day-after pill, which is to expel the already fertilized egg, they both are independent despite both being forms of unwanted pregnancy prevention.

Ok, let's take that example, even thought you skipped my example with tossing dices.
The more meals you have, the lesser are chances of you having another meal. This works until you feel hunger again. Ok.
Now, if you take birth control pills for a month, and then stop having them for two months and then get pregnant, taking the day-after pill will be unrelated to your birth control pills 3 months ago.
But, if you're on the birth control pills, the chances of you getting pregnant are lower, and thus the chances of you going for day-after pill is lower as well.
This is just with two steps, imagine the additional 3-4 steps I already mentioned.
To put it briefly again:
Birth control: To prevent insemination in the first place
Day-after pill: To expel an already-fertilized egg

Yes, if she was irresponsible with the way she handled her pregnancy.
So the mother who lost the baby she tried to conceive should be punished, too, while already undergoing the grieving process?

Every living thing has an initial purpose. That's how life and evolution works.
Surprisingly, that's not how evolution works. Evolution is the weirdest shit ever.
Evolution is merely a guess and check of the science world. Let's use giraffes as an example.
Giraffes used to be THE derpiest thing ever seen; they used to have short necks. Picturing it, it would almost make you think of a developmentally challenged horse with scoliosis. Then, a giraffe had a genetic mutation that made their neck a little longer. This giraffe had an easier time eating leaves than its shorter neck relatives, who eventually had no way of getting to the leaves and died. Now, you'll find long-neck giraffes everywhere and not a single short-neck. This long neck also helped them regulate their body temps better, and males usually engage in "necking" (competing for a female by beating each other with their necks; usually longer necks won) but that's besides the point.

We are more important than other living things. We are the apex predators. There is no reason for me to prioritize some plant over my children, unless that plant is something very special. But, usually it's just a plant.
That's how prioritizing works. Humans even prioritize between themselves. That's why history is full of wars. Look at how both men and women can be predatorial about their (potential) mating partners.
It's a hierarchy.
That prioritization of humans, specifically children is just a simple trait of being a human. A cow's gonna prioritize its babies, a duck will prioritize its chicks, and so forth. We're not necessarily more important, we just see ourselves this way because we don't like to put ourselves as the same importance as our food. Otherwise, it would feel very morally and ethically wrong.

It's about how likely you are to get raped in some area.
Still, likeliness =/= frequency either way.

I dunno. Pedophilia comedy is not really my cup of tea, for example.
It isn't mine either, but some people have a real fucked up sense of humor and will laugh about those things. Pedophilia in general isn't my cup of tea, but it sure was Epstein's.

Medical school, huh? That's good. Just watch out for those liberal cucks, or rotten feminists of professors. They are not there to teach you any good.
I've always been moderate and tend to stand there pretty firmly. I'm already all too aware of the major divide we're hitting in this world. It hasn't been this bad since probably the civil war.
 

Lorencio

Is this real life?
Sep 22, 2018
1,267
1,308
113
28
White House
The issue with that solution is that it's not an easy feat to find out what their travels are for; some people need to travel for business or to see family while pregnant. Some may have no intention at all to abort, and others are going to that business-related trip or that family visit could have that secondary motive if that destination either involves traveling through somewhere where abortion is legal or is just in that place. Some could even say family or business but have full intention to abort. That being said, the paranoia of "what's their true intention?" could easily cause for a travel ban where no pregnant women are allowed to leave for any reason.
Maybe, maybe not. We should leave that to law makers.

Tapeworms aren't in your body because they solely depend on you, they're merely there because you had some bad meat. Tapeworms usually infect meat and water by laying their eggs there, or living animals because they like to hang out in pastures (and we all know deer and cows would kill for some fucking good grass). Just going off of that, I'm assuming that if the meat they were on did not get consumed, they'd likely just eat that and scavenge for food. Them being inside of you merely makes for convenience because now, they don't have to worry about scavenging, since you'll likely be scarfing down food like crazy and supplying them with plenty of food. It's like how we can grow and hunt for our own food, but having farmers that deliver to supermarkets makes it so much easier. In that situation, we're merely the supermarket for tapeworms.
We don't have to use tapeworms. We can use any, assuming that such organism exists, parasite that needs a host in order to develop, until it's ready to leave the host and spread into a new one.

Yet looking at birth control, which is to prevent insemination, and the day-after pill, which is to expel the already fertilized egg, they both are independent despite both being forms of unwanted pregnancy prevention.
I don't think you're getting my point.

To put it briefly again:
Birth control: To prevent insemination in the first place
Day-after pill: To expel an already-fertilized egg
If they are looked independently, their chances of failure are, let's say, 5%.
If they are combined, the chances are far less than 5%. You only have to take day-after pill if you get raped, and if birth control pills fail. These events are fully dependent on each other, as far as preventing pregnancies is concerned.

So the mother who lost the baby she tried to conceive should be punished, too, while already undergoing the grieving process?
Yes. If it it's clear that the lost was because of her own fault. (this assumes the previous talk we had about how that decision should be made).

Surprisingly, that's not how evolution works. Evolution is the weirdest shit ever.
True.

Evolution is merely a guess and check of the science world.
This is the approach many mainstream scientists make today, for the lack of better explanation. It's primarily a reactionary response to nature and ones environment. They see the developments of organisms as the consequences of random mutations and chances.
There is, however, a different approach.
This one is proactive. This idea states that all organism develop not as random chances, but as planned formations in attempts to control and overpower nature.
For example, a bird may develop a new type of claws and beaks not thought random genetic algorithm, but as conscious attempt to develop new ways of survival.
Nietzsche wrote about this.

Giraffes used to be THE derpiest thing ever seen; they used to have short necks. Picturing it, it would almost make you think of a developmentally challenged horse with scoliosis. Then, a giraffe had a genetic mutation that made their neck a little longer. This giraffe had an easier time eating leaves than its shorter neck relatives, who eventually had no way of getting to the leaves and died. Now, you'll find long-neck giraffes everywhere and not a single short-neck. This long neck also helped them regulate their body temps better, and males usually engage in "necking" (competing for a female by beating each other with their necks; usually longer necks won) but that's besides the point.
That's interesting.
This example, could be explained though both approaches.
I choose the latter one as the better one, but that's just my preference.

That prioritization of humans, specifically children is just a simple trait of being a human. A cow's gonna prioritize its babies, a duck will prioritize its chicks, and so forth. We're not necessarily more important, we just see ourselves this way because we don't like to put ourselves as the same importance as our food. Otherwise, it would feel very morally and ethically wrong.
Oh boy! There is so much to talk about in that single statement.
What do you think the origins of ethics and morality are? Have you ever wondered why some things are considered good, moral, ethical, all while some others are not and also while some other people consider them different?
The prioritization is not just a simple trait of being a human. It's probably the most important thing. What is more important than deciding what things are important and what are not.
We do that, as well as every other single organism, as the way of calculated interests. The mother calculates the interests of what her child will bring to her. And so does the society.
To get back on point, we are very much more important than other organisms, TO US. We care about ourselves primarily (both individually and collectively), and care about others secondarily only so they could help us. That's why you care about some people, and care less about some other people.

The question of abortion is really the question of calculated interests the society has to make. It needs to calculate if abortions brings more power to all people, or if not. The morality then follows, as the result of calculations.
Pro-life people see more benefit for society if babies are not aborted.
The pro-abortion people see more benefit in allowing women to abort.
The question is, whose calculations are more precise and who will have more power to implement the laws.

It isn't mine either, but some people have a real fucked up sense of humor and will laugh about those things. Pedophilia in general isn't my cup of tea, but it sure was Epstein's.
Exactly. See, I think there's a connection there. I might be wrong.

I've always been moderate and tend to stand there pretty firmly. I'm already all too aware of the major divide we're hitting in this world. It hasn't been this bad since probably the civil war.
You seem like a smart girl, so I have no doubt that you'll take care of yourself. (just drop that suicide mentality)
True, things are quite tense and it's getting even more tense by every day.
 

Lorencio

Is this real life?
Sep 22, 2018
1,267
1,308
113
28
White House
We can play a game about that argument. If I win the game, I win that argument. If you win the game, you win the argument.
The game is this:
We roll dices. And we have to get the number 3 (for example).
The thing is, I have to win it only once, but you have to get number 3 two times. And not only two times, but you have to get that number two times IN A ROW.
If chances of winning are equal, then this would be perfectly balanced and fair game.
Tell me now, who has the lower chances of winning?
 

Genevieve

There I was, guts splatted all over my titties...
Jul 17, 2019
45
42
18
The County Morgue
Maybe, maybe not. We should leave that to law makers.
Law makers can still go off of a lot of paranoia or hype. It makes me think back to why silencers are illegal. Someone commits a murder with a silencer, suddenly no more silencers. A lot of people leave to somewhere where abortion is legal when they're trying to stop that, just going off a pattern, I could only guess they'd suddenly get suspicious every time a pregnant woman travels.

We don't have to use tapeworms. We can use any, assuming that such organism exists, parasite that needs a host in order to develop, until it's ready to leave the host and spread into a new one
Parasites in general are different from fetuses. Parasites are harmful beings that merely use you as a convenience. Flu viruses can and do still grow when not in a human, roundworms can and do grow, mate, and have babies when not in a human, etc. Viruses and general parasites can and do survive out of human bodies. For example, if I died of influenza, my body's still infected for a period of time, at least, which means that virus is still alive even though I died. A fetus likely won't until a certain period when it's able to be independent of the mother's body.

I don't think you're getting my point.
I'm not too sure if you're getting mine.

If they are looked independently, their chances of failure are, let's say, 5%.
If they are combined, the chances are far less than 5%. You only have to take day-after pill if you get raped, and if birth control pills fail. These events are fully dependent on each other, as far as preventing pregnancies is concerned.
Like I said, they are both prevention methods, but in different ways that are completely independent of each other.
Birth control is to prevent insemination. Once that fails, it resets because the way it was supposed to prevent failed, that chance has been taken, it's done. It has to be prevented some other way.
The day after-pill then has to be taken to expel the egg. That alone is its own chance. That chance is not additive to the condom or the birth control pill. Their forms of protection make them independent of each other.

Yes. If it it's clear that the lost was because of her own fault. (this assumes the previous talk we had about how that decision should be made).
But this woman did not do anything to cause her miscarriage, the fetus just didn't develop normally.
If more states were to punish women for causing a miscarriage, that would mean more who miscarried because their fetus didn't develop properly would get punished, too. In that type of society, you're not gonna have people who are going to downright say "yes, I caused the miscarriage." Everyone you come across will say they spontaneously miscarried, even if one took the tumble down the stairs or took something and waited for it to be out of the bloodstream or tried something natural like papaya or parsley. What could make it worse is someone who was trying to have a baby may have eaten any of the foods that are listed as "could cause a miscarriage" not knowing they had properties that could've triggered a miscarriage, even if it was in such a small amount that it wouldn't have done anything (especially if the baby would've otherwise been strong). The paranoia I mentioned earlier would start to kick in (because they'd be saying "hey, this is a lot more miscarriages than we used to have") and suddenly, even innocent women would feel the wrath.

This is the approach many mainstream scientists make today, for the lack of better explanation. It's primarily a reactionary response to nature and ones environment. They see the developments of organisms as the consequences of random mutations and chances.
There is, however, a different approach.
This one is proactive. This idea states that all organism develop not as random chances, but as planned formations in attempts to control and overpower nature.
For example, a bird may develop a new type of claws and beaks not thought random genetic algorithm, but as conscious attempt to develop new ways of survival.
Nietzsche wrote about this.
As proactive as it sounds, that's unfortunately not how mutations work. Mutations don't take their time to understand the environment they're in and work randomly; the giraffe with the longer neck merely got lucky. Say at the same time, the goat with 8 legs and two different sets of genitalia existed (this is real by the way). This goat most likely did not live past a week. Also, there are a lot of cases of two-headed animals (my favorite being the two-headed corn snake Medusa, and the article also shows Billy the Squid, too!) that I'm not quite sure are merely survival-based. Also, remember: heterochromia and distichiasis (extra row or "accessory row" of eyelashes) are also mutations. Not all are exactly survival based, you'll get some unfortunate ones and others that are merely just aesthetic.

That's interesting.
This example, could be explained though both approaches.
I choose the latter one as the better one, but that's just my preference.
I usually go with the one I mentioned, since it makes more sense.

Oh boy! There is so much to talk about in that single statement.
What do you think the origins of ethics and morality are? Have you ever wondered why some things are considered good, moral, ethical, all while some others are not and also while some other people consider them different?
The prioritization is not just a simple trait of being a human. It's probably the most important thing. What is more important than deciding what things are important and what are not.
We do that, as well as every other single organism, as the way of calculated interests. The mother calculates the interests of what her child will bring to her. And so does the society.
To get back on point, we are very much more important than other organisms, TO US. We care about ourselves primarily (both individually and collectively), and care about others secondarily only so they could help us. That's why you care about some people, and care less about some other people.
Our prioritization is pretty much just something we've always had as creatures of the animal kingdom. As I mentioned, this sort of prioritization happens in more animals that just us. We see our needs and our blood's needs over the needs of others and that over needs of other species because it's instinctual. Like they say, blood is thicker than water (in fact, this exact topic is what brought on this saying). Prioritization is definitely important and has been the reason for a lot of surviving families (of other species included), but that alone doesn't make it more complicated.

The question of abortion is really the question of calculated interests the society has to make. It needs to calculate if abortions brings more power to all people, or if not. The morality then follows, as the result of calculations.
Pro-life people see more benefit for society if babies are not aborted.
The pro-abortion people see more benefit in allowing women to abort.
The question is, whose calculations are more precise and who will have more power to implement the laws.
With how a lot of politics play out now it seems, it's more of a game of "who stands for what and how will their office correspond?" It's an issue that takes a lot of protesting, it seems, to have any civilian involvement in, and sometimes even then they aren't thought of in the process. Personally, while I believe it gives more power to allow women to abort, it's also very obvious I would believe that as my own stance is pro-choice and there's a bias to that belief. It would truthfully take someone completely unbiased to the issue to think of which one really gives more power, but right now, that's extremely hard to find.

Exactly. See, I think there's a connection there. I might be wrong.
The whole takeaway about comedy is there's people with some fucked up mindsets and see no bars to jokes, even if it purely goes off of shock factor. What's definitely not my cup of tea could be someone else's joke of the year. And, to connect with the divide, there's a lot more jokes that go off of shock factor from the side they've chosen (if they've chosen to be part of that whole division), like the abortion jokes or kids joking on the internet that they're going to shoot up their school or bomb a Walmart (and yes, that actually happened where I live, it was a little kid behind it, too).

You seem like a smart girl, so I have no doubt that you'll take care of yourself. (just drop that suicide mentality)
True, things are quite tense and it's getting even more tense by every day.
The suicide situation there isn't how I am normally, lol, I'm not suicidal by any means. I'm also not going to prison anytime soon, so it makes it a lot easier to raise my child and be in his life.
And oh yeah, the divide is only getting further and further. It's come down to either being left or right, and if you consider yourself moderate, any differing opinions from each side will call you their opposing side as a means to offend. It's ridiculous.

We can play a game about that argument. If I win the game, I win that argument. If you win the game, you win the argument.
The game is this:
We roll dices. And we have to get the number 3 (for example).
The thing is, I have to win it only once, but you have to get number 3 two times. And not only two times, but you have to get that number two times IN A ROW.
If chances of winning are equal, then this would be perfectly balanced and fair game.
Tell me now, who has the lower chances of winning?
Not sure which argument this is for, but assuming the birth control one. And this is quite different from how the stats work on it, but I can use this.
What you have as my grounds for winning is the chances of birth control working if you, say, used a condom AND the pill. Let's say that 3 instead of me winning is like the birth control failing, and I roll it two times in a row (as little chance as there may be, it's very possible). That means all attempts to prevent insemination have failed, that method of prevention has failed, and now the only prevention I can now utilize is the day-after pill.
So now is where your chances come in, since it's one pill, one shot, one roll. Your odds of rolling a 3 are completely independent of mine, since it's not like the 3's vanished after I rolled them. You roll a 3, now all attempts at expelling the egg have failed and pregnancy resumes.
 

Lorencio

Is this real life?
Sep 22, 2018
1,267
1,308
113
28
White House
Parasites in general are different from fetuses. Parasites are harmful beings that merely use you as a convenience. Flu viruses can and do still grow when not in a human, roundworms can and do grow, mate, and have babies when not in a human, etc. Viruses and general parasites can and do survive out of human bodies. For example, if I died of influenza, my body's still infected for a period of time, at least, which means that virus is still alive even though I died. A fetus likely won't until a certain period when it's able to be independent of the mother's body.
Again, for the sake of argument we just need a single organism, out of hundreds of millions, who does such a thing. An organism that needs it's host long enough for that same organism to fully grow and then seprate.

I'm not too sure if you're getting mine.
Ok, consider the dice game I proposed.
The chances in that game are obviously in my favor. Why? Because it's much harder to get two things in a row, then just get it once. If you don't agree with this, then we can play that game for proof. And we can play it as many times as you want.

Like I said, they are both prevention methods, but in different ways that are completely independent of each other.
Birth control is to prevent insemination. Once that fails, it resets because the way it was supposed to prevent failed, that chance has been taken, it's done. It has to be prevented some other way.
The day after-pill then has to be taken to expel the egg. That alone is its own chance. That chance is not additive to the condom or the birth control pill. Their forms of protection make them independent of each other.
Play the game.
The events are completely dependent on each other. The woman will not take the day-after pill unless she gets raped and unless the birth contoll pills fail (apart from some other secutity measures I mentioned).

But this woman did not do anything to cause her miscarriage, the fetus just didn't develop normally.
Well, then THAT woman should not be punished. We already went over this.
We assume that doctros DID make a RIGHT diagnosis and then, and only then, can they proceed with a punishment. This is how I think it should be. This is what I already said.

If more states were to punish women for causing a miscarriage, that would mean more who miscarried because their fetus didn't develop properly would get punished, too. In that type of society, you're not gonna have people who are going to downright say "yes, I caused the miscarriage." Everyone you come across will say they spontaneously miscarried, even if one took the tumble down the stairs or took something and waited for it to be out of the bloodstream or tried something natural like papaya or parsley. What could make it worse is someone who was trying to have a baby may have eaten any of the foods that are listed as "could cause a miscarriage" not knowing they had properties that could've triggered a miscarriage, even if it was in such a small amount that it wouldn't have done anything (especially if the baby would've otherwise been strong). The paranoia I mentioned earlier would start to kick in (because they'd be saying "hey, this is a lot more miscarriages than we used to have") and suddenly, even innocent women would feel the wrath.
I really do not believe in this.
Let's take the usual example of what would happen. Mother is under constant influence of alchocol and drugs. The child, if even born alive, sufferers from some major deficiencies that are clearly caused by mother lack of responsibility. Doctors, who do this for a living every single day, see this and make a diagnosis. She gets punished. The message is sent.
This law, just like any law, should be made so that it minimizes the possibilities of innocent women suffering from it.

As proactive as it sounds, that's unfortunately not how mutations work. Mutations don't take their time to understand the environment they're in and work randomly
I disagree with that. The cases you mentioned are all examples of what we would call 'failed mutations'. They were the result of unfortunate situations. Mutations going the wrong way.

I usually go with the one I mentioned, since it makes more sense.
Same.

Our prioritization is pretty much just something we've always had as creatures of the animal kingdom. As I mentioned, this sort of prioritization happens in more animals that just us. We see our needs and our blood's needs over the needs of others and that over needs of other species because it's instinctual. Like they say, blood is thicker than water (in fact, this exact topic is what brought on this saying). Prioritization is definitely important and has been the reason for a lot of surviving families (of other species included), but that alone doesn't make it more complicated.
If wasn't complicated, we wouldn't be having this whole abortion discussion. Let alone the two of us. This is a global problem. And it still hasn't been fully resolved.
The problem of abortion is the problem of prioritization (of calculations).
Saying that we do something just because it's in our nature, or because it's instinctual does not explain it WHY is that in our nature and why is it so instinctual. To which you might reply with "well, it's just something that helped us evolve", to which I would respond with "help evolve how and why?".
For example, you probably heard some authorities saying that female clitoris is an useless organ. Thought my view, this can not be possible.

With how a lot of politics play out now it seems, it's more of a game of "who stands for what and how will their office correspond?" It's an issue that takes a lot of protesting, it seems, to have any civilian involvement in, and sometimes even then they aren't thought of in the process.
Very true. Add to that millions, if not billions, of dollars certain groups are making on both sides.

Personally, while I believe it gives more power to allow women to abort, it's also very obvious I would believe that as my own stance is pro-choice and there's a bias to that belief. It would truthfully take someone completely unbiased to the issue to think of which one really gives more power, but right now, that's extremely hard to find.
And yet, that person is extremely needed.

The whole takeaway about comedy is there's people with some fucked up mindsets and see no bars to jokes, even if it purely goes off of shock factor. What's definitely not my cup of tea could be someone else's joke of the year. And, to connect with the divide, there's a lot more jokes that go off of shock factor from the side they've chosen (if they've chosen to be part of that whole division), like the abortion jokes or kids joking on the internet that they're going to shoot up their school or bomb a Walmart (and yes, that actually happened where I live, it was a little kid behind it, too).
I dunno. Many of the convicted pedophiles were making pedo jokes on their Twitter. I'm just saying that if I hear someone making this type of joke, more than once, I would be on alert.

The suicide situation there isn't how I am normally, lol, I'm not suicidal by any means. I'm also not going to prison anytime soon, so it makes it a lot easier to raise my child and be in his life.
But, if you ever do have to go to prison, I would advice not to take the suicide road. That's just my advice, not that you asked for it.

And oh yeah, the divide is only getting further and further. It's come down to either being left or right, and if you consider yourself moderate, any differing opinions from each side will call you their opposing side as a means to offend. It's ridiculous.
Big true.
There is no middle ground.

Not sure which argument this is for, but assuming the birth control one.
Yes, the one about the chances.

Let's say that 3 instead of me winning is like the birth control failing, and I roll it two times in a row (as little chance as there may be, it's very possible). That means all attempts to prevent insemination have failed, that method of prevention has failed, and now the only prevention I can now utilize is the day-after pill.
So now is where your chances come in, since it's one pill, one shot, one roll. Your odds of rolling a 3 are completely independent of mine, since it's not like the 3's vanished after I rolled them. You roll a 3, now all attempts at expelling the egg have failed and pregnancy resumes.
So who do you think would win? Who would have lower chances of winning? And why?
 

TehBitch

Drawing Blood
VIP
Mar 24, 2018
137
749
93
In my sandy vagina
Abortion is one if those topics that each individual has their right to give an opinion..
I have mine.

I am pro choice. But, I also believe depending on the circumstances, partners should have a serious discussion about what is best for them. And that also includes other options.
I also believe that if a male or female do not want a pregnancy they BOTH should take precautions


I do not judge ANYONE for having an abortion or having children..because I will not judge someone's choice.
If abortions are made illegal ..it will still happen. But in back alleys by butchers.
Anyway that's my 2cents.
 
Top