"Abortion is murder!"...how to destroy it in 3-4 quick questions

Typical bully deluxe. ...and name calling....

 

Do not know about that for sure, but you have once again proven to be nothing but a gigantic bag of lies. Nowhere in those posts did I say "women HAVE to have kids because of biology". You failed at proving your point, as usual.

I have not denied the idea of Contructivism would be foolish for someone in my field of academia to do so. In the post above I actually did mention that biology AND culture interacts. So, yeah. AGain you are failing in proving anything but confirming you are a demagog. You are clearly a Radical Euqality Feminism-Extremist and that is just fine to me. Each her own.

However, keep in mind that Cancer can never be defeated with some Gender Theory. Why? Because not everything is a Social COnstruction, because biology is real. You are still free to disagree I do not give a flyng horse.

You have to the habit of being absolutely cluesless. So it is a draw I guess?

 

Yes. I am strong believer in the principle of "Treat the other in the way they treat you". If you bully and name call me, I will bully and name-call you. There is absolutely no question about who started this. Hint: The answer is you, but do not tell anyone.

 

Okay, when, in YOUR opinion, is a fetus to be considered a human life and an abortion to be "murder"?

 

Neither. I think mandatory sterilization would be more appropriate, and would stop the serial aborter from committing further offense.

 

Please read and understand your own consent, self-defence laws and the equal protection clause, the facts of the matter are simple, none of those things make any consideration for the age or location of the person, they apply to all regardless.

You can post as many emotionally laden responses as you like it doesn't change the reality.

 

Naturally, you see nothing misogynistic in that? Not mandatory sterilization for men...just for women?

 

And deflections with legal mumbo jumbo does not change the reality that you are killing a distinct, individual human being.

 

What should be the punishment for "killing a distinct, individual human being"?

(remember, no "deflections"...answer the question)

 

Where the hell did I say that? Quite some imagination you have there. For what it's worth, I'd also advocate for mandatory castration for rapists. Is that misogynistic? " What about female rapists?" you'll likely say next, naturally!

 

Depends on what?

How about the legal reasoning, would that suit?

So explain why soldiers are not prosecuted?

I am neither .. BTW so much for the adult debate, didn't take long for you to devolve to the standard pro-life mantra.
refute what I have said if you can.

My intent was not to search for hypocrisy, my intent was to gauge you position on those things in the hope that the discussion would move forward, with me giving evidence as to why abortion can be seen as self-defence under current law.

Murder is a very specific crime.. if you had said homicide then I would not disagree with you.

BTW. I am male as well, and my response had nothing to do with any form of sexist contention, add to that-that I had no idea of your gender.

Fair enough, you didn't list that one though .. thanks for clearing it up.

Well no you didn't - Any other excuse is just a result of immoral and destructive behavior that could easily be stopped by adopting some proper behavior, self-respect and cautiousness - You do realise that married women have abortions don't you? 15% of abortions are performed on married women - that is 180,000 per year, hence my question to you.

Really, it is easily proven - Fifty-one percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant, most commonly condoms (27%) or a hormonal method (17%) - http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#7 (under the WHO HAS ABORTIONS? title)

 

Personal observations are not evidence.

The facts do no support your assertion of abortions increasing, the reality is that they have been decreasing since 1981 (29.3 / 1,000) and are now at their lowest rate since 1973 (16.3 / 1,000) (2014 rate - 16.9 / 1,000)

 

So you'd sterilize the male partners of the "serial aborters" as well?

 

That is just another example of the stereotypical position of women that pro-lifers and right-wingers promote.

so no intelligent response .. not really surprised.

Of course nothing will change your mind, that is not my intention, my intention is purely to debate. The Swedish sex education program is far better than the USA one, and contains far more than you are suggesting - http://www.jstor.org/stable/2135318?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Again ,you need to supply evidence for your assertions, please do so.

 

not a single deflection has been given .. How can anyone argue a point when they don't even understand what they are arguing against, to do so only shows the closed minded nature of that person.

I have never disputed that abortion kills a distinct, individual human being .. so does killing in self-defence.

Do you consider your 2nd Amendment as "legal mumbo jumbo" because that is what gives ALL people the right to defend themselves against non-consented injuries.
Do you consider the legal definition of consent as "legal mumbo jumbo", because that is what gives a person the right to say "no"
Do you consider the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to be "legal mumbo jumbo" because that is what stops the state from giving preferential rights to select groups above those it gives to others.

It is plain to see you lack the necessary knowledge of your own laws to engage in an intelligent discussion.

 

Funny things is, I am none fo those.

I know nothing about the American sex-ed, but since I had all my schooling in Sweden I know perfectly well what Swedish sex-ed is(was) like. At least "in my days"(early 2000's) it was nothing more than what I said.

I am just sharing my personal view of reality. In my view, everything I mentioned is 1200% correct. And I thought it was pretty obvious that I was just sharing my perception of reality and not referring to "facts".

You mean do not agree with any of the things I mentioned?

Just like Feminists argue there is a structure called "Patriarchy" or Internet-Naxis complaining about the Jew boogey-man, I argue there is a structure of the things I mentioned.

 

If she decides she doesn't want it after she's given birth to it, there's no point in killing it because it is no longer living off her body (in the strictest sense) and has begun to have traits which people find valuable in other human beings. It would be a waste to kill it at this point when there are so many families willing to adopt.

So people should only have sex if they want kids?

 

No, but people should definitely be more careful and get some self-respect, start to take responsibility for their actions imo.

In Utopia people would only have sex with someone whom they could consider having children with. This is a much better option than sleeping around with strangers imo.

I believe man is nothing but an animal. Hence, the intended reason for sex is indeed not pleasure, but reproduction. Our sex drive is indeed very strong, yet this too is- from an evolutionary point of view- not at all about pleasure and gratification but about reproduction.

Still it is of course OK to engage in sexual intercourse solely for the purpose of gratification and pleasure, but then it is very important to make sure you do not create life by using contraceptives and not be sloppy about this "because there is a thing called abortion anyways, so who cares?"

Many times do we see people having sex that results in the creation of life where one of the parties want to keep the child and the other does not. Sometimes the male forces the female to have an abortion and at other times the female has one without even telling the male she was pregnant or simply using the abortion as her "day after pill" or as the condom/pills that should have been used in the first place.

 

You want all murderers sterilized ? Or just all executed to stop them from committing further offense ?

You do believe in "cruel and unusual" punishment for women .

You aren't misogynistic or sexist ?....


Do you want the hands cut off thieves....?

 

""""""And I thought it was pretty obvious that I was just sharing my perception of reality and not referring to "facts". """"


Oh, it is VERY obvious you don't let facts interfere in your view of "reality".

 

Again. Look who is talking...Miss I Do Not Think There Is Such Thing Called Biology.

Anyways, you are an Extremist, and I usually avoid talking with Extremists of all kinds.

 

(Heterosexual) sex doesn't come with an inherent responsibility (and indeed, nor does anything else; from where would this responsibility be derived?). It's something people do because it feels good, and I see no reason to limit people's pleasure on the grounds of some ill-defined and reactionary notion of responsibility.

Yeeaahhh...in Utopia. I.e. "no-place." In the real world, not everyone adheres to your moral standards.

And who decides that this is in fact "a better option"?

Sure, but why must we look at it from an evolutionary point of view? Sex is fun and humans are in no danger of dying out, at least not through a lack of reproduction. So the general motivation people have for sex will change, and is changing.

Contraceptives aren't foolproof, and sometimes, thanks to the puritans in our governments, people don't know how to use them or they're not freely available. But anyway. This is your opinion, not a law by which everyone "should" live. If you don't like abortions and you only want to have sex for reproductive reasons (and I guarantee, one day you will see a hot girl and forget all about the latter), then by all means live your own life according to those moral standards. Just don't tell me I'm being immoral if I wind up pregnant and get an abortion, because with all due respect, it's none of your business.

That's because the bourgeois family is outdated and a nuisance. More collective child-rearing (I hate that term, but there are no alternatives) would solve this problem in a flash.

 

Sheesh, I was just agreeing with you!

You: """""""""And I thought it was pretty obvious that I was just sharing my perception of reality and not referring to "facts". """"

And I agreed and you don't even like it when I agree!!


No, you don't avoid talking to me and you are not through with me as you claimed about 20 posts ago

 

Now I am though. Sick of this topic and won't look into it for a while. See you around in the other threads.

Peace.