I Have Been Saying

[Aquapod770]

(12-09-2016, 03:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What I have noticed about most Pro-Choice people, is that your biggest argument is for those that are raped or incest was involved.

Do you know that less that 1% of all abortions involved rape victims?
I have stated over and over that abortion should be allowed if someone was raped.

Well technically, Incest can be consensual, and if it's between consensual 2 adults then why do you care? What they do in their bed is their business is it not? That's the message you've been telling right wingers for years about same-sex marriage, but that's another argument for another thread.

Now if it was incest was not consensual then it would fall under rape. Which again, I have stated over and over that abortion should be allowed.

I'm sure that most right wingers are fine with abortion due to rape. So it's really not a valid part of your argument anymore.

2012 is the latest information for me to pull from:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6410a1.htm?s_cid=ss6410a1_e

A total of 699,202 abortions were reported to CDC for 2012


Seems to me that this is the normal ratio of abortions for several years running:
95% of abortions are done as birth control, 1% are done because of rape/incest, 1% because of fetal abnormalities, and 3% due to the mother's health problems.

95% 664,242 from Birth Control
3% 20,976 from mother's health problems
1% 6,992 Rape/incest
1% 6,992 fetal abnormalities

Now of that, I am fine with aborting for the 5% reasons. No problems there for me or most right wingers either, so toss them out.

How do we deal with the 95%.

Those screaming for abortions because of rape are almost always the same ones who say that because 2% of rape accusations are false we shouldn't care about false rape accusations 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-14-2016, 10:56 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Those screaming for abortions because of rape are almost always the same ones who say that because 2% of rape accusations are false we shouldn't care about false rape accusations 

From reading the threads related to Donald Trump and sexual assault, my impression is the exact opposite. 

[fredtoast]

(12-14-2016, 10:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What gave you and/or anyone else that idea and how does that equal me being confused? 

Because we were discussion abortion laws and you claimed the father should have control over his offspring before it was born the same as after it is born.

But you can just clear all of this up by stating that you do not believe that the law should treat unborn children the same way they treat children after they are born.

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2016, 11:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Because we were discussion abortion laws and you claimed the father should have control over his offspring before it was born the same as after it is born.

But you can just clear all of this up by stating that you do not believe that the law should treat unborn children the same way they treat children after they are born.

Yep, it's obvious I'm confused. You are now just making up things that were said and it was apparent to all others I was talking about unborn as the person that replied to the comment used the term zygote. So I cannot be held responsible for your inability to keep up and I am in no way confused.

However; I will clear it up for the slower among us. I think unborn children "should" have rights; unfortunately. I understand the 'sensibility" behind many abortions, so I will conceed that is a bridge too far. What I do think could be a viable solution is that if a father shows want and ability to raise a child, he should be afforded that right; regardless of the temporary inconvenince to the mother; as the offspring is half his.

[fredtoast]

(12-15-2016, 01:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What I do think could be a viable solution is that if a father shows want and ability to raise a child, he should be afforded that right; regardless of the temporary inconvenince to the mother; as the offspring is half his.

Exdactly.  You think that giving the man power over the woman's body is "fair" because it benefits the man.

I don't think it is fair to give the father rights over the woman's body.  The "temporary inconvenience" could result in permanant medical problems, interfere with a job or education, or any number of other issues that are far from "temporary".

Men and women are different.  A man can not get pregnant.  But the only way to treat them equally is to let each of them have control over their own body.  When technology advances to the point that the man can take the zygote and raise it as his own then he should have every right to do that, but the way things are right now there is no way you can give the father rights to the child without violating the individual rights of the mother.  If the law is changed to favor the father then they are still unfair.

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2016, 01:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exdactly.  You think that giving the man power over the woman's body is "fair" because it benefits the man.

I don't think it is fair to give the father rights over the woman's body.  The "temporary inconvenience" could result in permanant medical problems, interfere with a job or education, or any number of other issues that are far from "temporary".

Men and women are different.  A man can not get pregnant.  But the only way to treat them equally is to let each of them have control over their own body.  When technology advances to the point that the man can take the zygote and raise it as his own then he should have every right to do that, but the way things are right now there is no way you can give the father rights to the child without violating the individual rights of the mother.  If the law is changed to favor the father then they are still unfair.

Actually it benefits the father and the child. You think it is fair that the vote of one overrides the welfare and wishes of 2 because the one has a womb.

I already mentioned that if it is a medical condition (other than just being pregnant) then the father has no say (remember I had put in the disclaimer because folks are silly).

You roll with the same tired her body, her choice slogan and somehow reason in your head that it does not benefit the woman strictly because of sex.

Is there anything else you are still confused on?

[fredtoast]

(12-15-2016, 01:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You roll with the same tired her body, her choice slogan and somehow reason in your head that it does not benefit the woman strictly because of sex.

Is there anything else you are still confused on?

You are confused by the fact that I never said the law did not benefit the woman based on her sex.  that is exactly the point I have been trying to make.

And your version of the law would benefit the man based on his sex.  A woman would never be able to force a man to carry a baby he did not want to.

As I have clearly stated, since there is a huge difference between men and women the law is going to effect them differently.  But the only way to be fair is to give each of them control over their own bodies.  

Your version of the law gives individual rights to something that is not an individual.  It only survives because it is attached to a real individual.  When technology advances to the point that it can survive when not attached to a real individual then it will be entitled to the individual rights you want to give it then.

Until that point we can not let a man make a decision about a woman's body that could cost her a job, an education, a spouse, or medical problems for life (not all problems can be discovered in advance).

You can not give "individual rights" to something that can not survive without being attached to and living off a real individual.

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2016, 03:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are confused by the fact that I never said the law did not benefit the woman based on her sex.  that is exactly the point I have been trying to make.

And your version of the law would benefit the man based on his sex.  A woman would never be able to force a man to carry a baby he did not want to.

As I have clearly stated, since there is a huge difference between men and women the law is going to effect them differently.  But the only way to be fair is to give each of them control over their own bodies.  

Your version of the law gives individual rights to something that is not an individual.  It only survives because it is attached to a real individual.  When technology advances to the point that it can survive when not attached to a real individual then it will be entitled to the individual rights you want to give it then.

Until that point we can not let a man make a decision about a woman's body that could cost her a job, an education, a spouse, or medical problems for life (not all problems can be discovered in advance).

You can not give "individual rights" to something that can not survive without being attached to and living off a real individual.

Fair response ( guess you threw me off when you said No is post 71); I suppose the difference is that i see the woman as not forced into getting pregnant. Seems as if the "get out of jail free" card were not an option; more thought may be given to our actions.

I do appreciate that we agree that the laws are biased to women based on nothing more than biological sex.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-09-2016, 10:45 AM)Griever Wrote: a fetus isnt a baby

a fetus is basically a parasite, therefore has no rights

If a fetus isn't a baby, then a baby isn't a toddler, which isn't a child, which isn't a teenager, which isn't a young adult, which isn't a mature adult, which isn't an elderly. Oh wait, those are all just descriptions of the various stages of Human Being's Life Cycle.

an infant is basically a parasite, so the mother should be able to "abort" them as well if she feels like it?

(12-09-2016, 02:22 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Someone wants to protect the right to life of what they believe to be a human life? Dear god the horror!!!!! Don't they know the bill of rights states everyone has the right to "choice, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"???????

No doubt, confusing. Some people are happy to go to war to help the innocent in other countries, but won't defend the innocent right here in our own backyard.

(12-09-2016, 06:49 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What I have noticed is that most "Anti-Abortion" proponents incorrectly identify fertilization as the "beginning" of life.  I've already pointed out your incorrect understanding of a life cycle with the chicken-egg paradox.  Oogenesis has to occur before fertilization.  A living single celled spermatoza, a living signle celled ovum, and a living single celled zygote the moment after fertilization are all "life."  The difference is in the ploidy.  But, the religious right only wants to recognize a zygote as "life" and dismiss the other two as "just a cell" while accusing their opponents of treating the zygote as "just a cell."  If the spermatozoa or the ovum aren't alive, guess what happens?  Nothing.  Fertilization doesn't occur.  "Life" is a prerequisite for fertilization to occur so life can "begin" at fertilization, but if the gametes aren't already alive (e.g. "life") then "life" can't "begin."  If NASA found a single celled alien gamete on a distant planet the headline would read, "ALIEN LIFE FOUND!"

*sighs
In order for an Abortion to be possible, a living Spermatoza and living Ovum have already been ruled as present and fertilization has already occurred.  We have created the zygote. If that was not the case, then abortion wouldn't be an option and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-15-2016, 03:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can not give "individual rights" to something that can not survive without being attached to and living off a real individual.

Mistook the "and" for an "or". Ignore comments

[fredtoast]

(12-15-2016, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  

I do appreciate that we agree that the laws are biased to women based on nothing more than biological sex.

The law is written to treat everyone equally.  So the law is not biased.  Women just benefit because of the biology of their sex.

[fredtoast]

(12-15-2016, 04:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: We can't? How about the Laci and Connor act?
Infants and Toddlers (hell we can go as high as teenagers if we want to) live off of a real individual. Should we be allowed to abort them as well?
Once we are elderly and can no longer take care of ourselves, should we be aborted then?

I don't understand any of this?  I think you are very confused.

Who are Conner and Laci?

Infants and toddlers are not required to be attached to another individual to live.  Don't know what you mean there.

Old people are not required to be attached to another individual to live either.

I said that you can not give individual rights to something that can not survive unless it is attached to and living off the body of another indovidual.  That has nothing to do with infants or old people.

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2016, 05:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The law is written to treat everyone equally.  So the law is not biased.  Women just benefit because of the biology of their sex.

So it's biased (preference for one thing over another, especially an unfair one).

How is it equal that the man must pay to support the child, but the woman can voluntarily choose not to do so?

Do you think we should pick and choose which laws should give an unfair say based on biological sex?

For instance if bathroom laws are based on biological sex then everyone gets to use the bathroom, it's just that those that are not transgendered get to use the ones that align with their gender based on sex.

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2016, 05:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't understand any of this?  I think you are very confused.

I think I've identified a common denominator in this confusion issue.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-15-2016, 04:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If a fetus isn't a baby, then a baby isn't a toddler, which isn't a child, which isn't a teenager, which isn't a young adult, which isn't a mature adult, which isn't an elderly. Oh wait, those are all just descriptions of the various stages of Human Being's Life Cycle.

an infant is basically a parasite, so the mother should be able to "abort" them as well if she feels like it?

Spermatozoa and ovum "are all just descriptions of the various stages of Human Being's Life Cycle."

Quote:No doubt, confusing. Some people are happy to go to war to help the innocent in other countries, but won't defend the innocent right here in our own backyard.

Dictionary.com defines "patriot" as "a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion. But, you wouldn't know about that, would you?

Quote:*sighs
In order for an Abortion to be possible, a living Spermatoza and living Ovum have already been ruled as present and fertilization has already occurred.  We have created the zygote. If that was not the case, then abortion wouldn't be an option and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If life begins at conception how can life be present before conception?  Because life doesn't begin at conception.  It's an unbroken continuum that keeps repeating in cycles.  So if you're going to assign rights to a single celled zygote because it is human life then you must also assign rights to a single celled human gamete for the same reason, it is human life.  Part of the human life cycle.  However, the ploidy is different.  But, that part of the science doesn't fit in with the so called "right to life" proponents because that would confirm Monty Python was correct all along; indeed every sperm is sacred.

[fredtoast]

(12-15-2016, 05:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you think we should pick and choose which laws should give an unfair say based on biological sex?

For instance if bathroom laws are based on biological sex then everyone gets to use the bathroom, it's just that those that are not transgendered get to use the ones that align with their gender based on sex.

Biology does not make it impossible for one sex to not use the restroom of the other.  You are comparing apples to oranges.


We don't get to pick and choose which laws effect men and women differently.  Instead we make laws that give all people the exact same rights.  If biology makes it possible for one party to benefit more than the other then there is nothing that we can do about that.

[fredtoast]

(12-15-2016, 05:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How is it equal that the man must pay to support the child, but the woman can voluntarily choose not to do so?

It is equal in that the law gives both parties the same right over their own bodies.  

If you have such a problem with a man not having control over his unborn offspring then support the advancement of technology that will allow this to happen.  You are not going to get what you want by making laws that give men the power over woman's body.

Stop being such a crybaby about the law not favoring men and support the technology.

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2016, 05:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Biology does not make it impossible for one sex to not use the restroom of the other.  You are comparing apples to oranges.


We don't get to pick and choose which laws effect men and women differently.  Instead we make laws that give all people the exact same rights.  If biology makes it possible for one party to benefit more than the other then there is nothing that we can do about that.

But biology does determine if I get to use the restroom aligned with my gender.

I'll ask again: What is equal "same right" about the woman only being able to decide not to support the child?

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2016, 05:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is equal in that the law gives both parties the same right over their own bodies.

How would it be equal to give the man the power to make a woman carry his baby but not give the woman the right to do the same to the man?


You don't care about equal.  You just want the man to get the benefit.

Why can't the man say: Have the baby; I'm not supporting it?

[fredtoast]

(12-15-2016, 05:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why can't the man say: Have the baby; I'm not supporting it?

Why can't the woman have the baby and refuse to support it.

Because the law treats men and women the same when it comes to the obligation to support their offspring.