ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Boem wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Boem, saying that a fertilized egg is an independent human life from conception is like saying your finger is an independent human life. Does your finger have a developed brain to think its own independent thoughts with? No. Can it survive independently of you? No. And although I find it distasteful, I respect a person's right to chop off their own finger, should they choose to. I adamantly reject that an embryo is an independent human life with its own "ghost" from conception.

Could the developing life achieve this distinction months before birth? Quite possibly. For all I know it's at the 6 week mark — I'm not exactly a medical expert. But a few dozen cells the size of a pea? Gimme a break.

What ghost? I'm talking about the dna that formulate your entire being. That is what makes you you, not some "primal essence" or some "soul".

The dna that makes you you was present from conception and that's what science already established.
That's why they fertilize an egg and then implant it in case of in vitro fertilization and why they say "congratulations, your pregnant, your going to have a baby".

They know exactly when they succeeded and what they succeeded in.

I'm not making some fantastical or biblical soul argument here, i'm just following what science established.

The comparison with the finger also seems a rather cheap shot for two reasons.

1) a finger isn't a part in human development that replicates and self orients the entire dna expression within its code. An embryo on the other hand, is exactly that, a phase of every human where it's cells start to divide based on it's dna code expression.

2) given that we can in this day and age revert any part of a human back to stam cells it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they could revert a part of a finger back to stam cells to then let it re-orient it to another part of the dna expression.(not done on humans as far as i know, but already done on animals, research clean meat if your interested)

Does the finger have the entire blue-print of a ScrotieMcB inside it? Yes it does. Does it inherently have the capability to realize that blue-print? Nope.

Tagging the term independent on "an independent human life" as if a child of the age of two is somehow indepent also feels like a cheap trick. Doesn't seem to detract a two year old from it's claim of being human so no clue why it's relevant for an embryo.

I found your choice of words fascinating in the last part and i can understand the concerns projected. But i also feel the reasoning based on fear which always puts me on edge.
Specifically when it's about something as fundamental as "human life is sacred yes/no".

Peace,

-Boem-

No, just because the material is all present doesn't make it a human being. Congratulating someone because they got pregnant and that you'll get a baby is akin to buying and hiring people to make a house. You know you'll get a house because they are gonna be building it. Same concept with making a baby.

The building process is what's important. Not the gathering of the material.


@Scrotie

What you describe as type 2 isn't as white and black as you describe it.

There's often heavy pressure involved by the families. Some families would literally disavow their daughter if she aborted. So even if the woman really wants to get an abortion, she has quite the pressure to not do so. Especially true if it's a young woman that would get kicked out and have to become homeless.

Sometimes it's pressure from the male counter-part. Some girls are trapped in a toxic relationship and can't (safely) choose for themselves.

Finally, there is the cases in which something unanticipated happens and having a baby would become awful for some reasons. (health concern, revenue loss, natural disaster, death of the father, etc)


It's important to be able to differentiate these situations. A woman that just procrastinate or is unable to choose and ends up waiting too long (of her own volition), yeah, not much sympathy there.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Pro "choice" people justify the termination of human infants in the womb by dehumanizing them, characterizing them as "blobs of tissue." Yet every viable human fetus is genetically a member of the human species. To destroy them while they are helpless to survive on their own is akin to pulling the plug on a patient in a coma whose prognosis is that they WILL recover within nine months. Both can be expected to become functional members of the population, if only no one decides that their recovery/gestation is too much of an inconvenience to those responsible for them.

That's not a fair analogy, because it falsely presumes that, if but born, infants become functional members of the population. Let me fix it for you:

"Our prognosis is as follows: since it's already been three weeks, we anticipate around 8 and a half months of coma, possibly less. After that, the patient should awake, but they will have complete amnesia — their mind will be completely blank. They won't know how to feed themselves, drink from a cup, talk, walk, crawl, or use the bathroom. An estimated three years of intense rehabilitation therapy will be required to retrain these basic skills. Even then, a great many more advanced life skills, important pieces of general knowledge, and pearls of wisdom will be missing. We estimate a full recovery would take about 16-20 years."

When put in the proper context, pulling the plug becomes noticeably more tempting.

"

faerwin wrote:

@Scrotie

What you describe as type 2 isn't as white and black as you describe it.

There's often heavy pressure involved by the families. Some families would literally disavow their daughter if she aborted. So even if the woman really wants to get an abortion, she has quite the pressure to not do so. Especially true if it's a young woman that would get kicked out and have to become homeless.

Sometimes it's pressure from the male counter-part. Some girls are trapped in a toxic relationship and can't (safely) choose for themselves.

Finally, there is the cases in which something unanticipated happens and having a baby would become awful for some reasons. (health concern, revenue loss, natural disaster, death of the father, etc)

It's important to be able to differentiate these situations. A woman that just procrastinate or is unable to choose and ends up waiting too long (of her own volition), yeah, not much sympathy there.

Yeah, I don't differentiate much. Like I said earlier, I might have a day or two of patience.

First off, as I said earlier, I believe in the rule of thumb that Type 1s should have access to government-funded programs as if they were rape victims. That would include assistance to pay for an abortion (I'd prefer interest-free loans over a pure subsidy, to avoid abuse) and services to escape from abusive relationships. Both the parent-child and "husband"-"wife" relationships you describe seem toxic to me. There should be social workers who know how to direct people from those situations to abortion resources.

Second, I don't think those unanticipated events are good reasons to abort. As I explained earlier, holding onto the abortion card as a negotiating chip is abhorrent to me, even as an insurance policy. Either you're deciding to abort or you're not; if not, live with it. Parents of born children don't get to give up just because they lost their job, a hurricane came through, or a parent dies. Unless they put the kid up for adoption, which is something a pregnant woman can arrange.

I am unapologetically hard on parents, and when we're talking about anyone outside of the Type 1 window, that's what we're talking about: parents, or at least parents-in-training. Women who have decided not only to fuck, but to decline abortion as soon as they found out they were pregnant. I can't make any parent pull their head out of their ass, but it would behoove them to grow up and figure out how to deal with crises, because they're responsible now. If you've got to dump the asshole or move out of your parents' house or bust ass getting a new job, that's what you do. Either that, or as soon as you found out you were pregnant, you should have gotten a fucking abortion.

It’s one thing to be against someone making a certain decision and another to be against them having the option to make that decision in the first place.

As much as I'd like to see social workers that help planned parenthood and all, the truth is, that stuff take times.

Time from discovery of pregnancy to finding a social worker.
Time for the social worker to meet and discuss with you.
Time for you to make talk with the concerned person(s).
Time to make an enlightened decision.

It can takes a few weeks.

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

It’s one thing to be against someone making a certain decision and another to be against them having the option to make that decision in the first place.

It's one thing to be for giving someone the option to make a decision, and another to be for giving them nine months to make up their mind.

If you read the pro-lifers here you'd already know they consider sex to be a choice. You convinced no one. Even I concede that sex is a choice; I just think that, after finding out she's pregnant, she should get an extra "are you sure? y/n"

"

Qiu_Qiu wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

How about the choice to not let the man cum inside? Seems a 100% safe route to me. I don't get the whole let's use fringe cases to justify this practice, when people can make simple individual choices to not get pregnant.

Loads of kids get made with that 100% safe route.
The only 100% safe route is abstinence, but that's not a realistic contraceptive method to expect from people.
The first thing you need to avoid abortions is to give people a good sex ed. That is to say, they should be explained contraception (also, consent) properly: how to use it and its efficiency.
For example, most people think that condoms are very efficient, but they are only 82% effective in typical use, which is why they may typically get an unwanted pregnancy.
The first step of choice is to understand that choice.

I'm not sure what your getting at with your "loads of kids get made with that 100% safe route".
Give me some fringe article about a women getting pregnant after swallowing or having the guy cum on her belly.

And why exactly isn't is realistic to expect people to not have sex if they don't intend to have a child? You think penetration is the only way to sexually endulge yourself? I don't get the reasoning, like we are all forced and compelled to fuck around, i understand sexual drive but i also understand it's entirely possible to control that.

I agree with your sex ed part though and i am perfectly aware about the failure rates of contraception.
Look to me it's all choices and the contraception choice is bassicaly a toss-up willing to risk the posibility of pregnancy.
And anybody informed about it knows this to be true, no contraception method is ever 100% safe.
It's pretty great compared to not having it, but it should still be a conscious choice to engage in sex if the potential for a child is there.

If your pregnant, you already made a multitude of choices leading up to that for which you are responsible.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

The ignorance astounds.

The idea of withdrawal being a reasonable contraception method let alone 100% effective is especially ignorant.

"

Boem wrote:

The republicans fate in the state was at an all time low with Obama and even then they didn't lower themselves to the standards the democrats have currently.

You have an amazing memory.