[Discussion] Do You Support Abortion Solely Based On The Race Of The Baby?

[Dreckerplayer]

]She had choices and still has choices; celibacy, birth control, adoption, or parenthood. She made the choice to get pregnant and get pregnant by someone she would provide her with a mixed race baby, so now she's going to interfere with a humans right to life because she can't be held accountable for her actions?

**** that.

Okay, one, you're not a woman.That's not your choice or decision to decide for someone what to do with their pregnancy. You've got to have better understanding.

If she feels like she doesn't want to raise her child, give it up for adoption. There are hundreds of couples that would be happy to take her baby. Either that, or she could woman up and be accountable for her choices.

Two, you're solution "give it up for adoption"...is actually shallow and contradictory.Is that a genuine concern for a child, give birth and throw it in a foster home?I'm not agreeing that abortion is right, but do you know that not all children are guaranteed safe functional homes?Do you know the reality of some foster homes?Everything isn't all kumbaya in a foster home, as you might think.You've got to have better understanding of these situations. I feel like your stance is just rule/principle-based, not reality-based.

Adoption is not the solution to every single thing.Such a common stereotype. Solution is, stay out of it...cause you could end up making a big mistake...stay out, you don't know what to do.

It's narcissistic to say "abortions fine", as it's self-righteous and unrealistic to say "it's wrong". Stay...out. You support "abortion" you're simply saying you're a selfish person...you can "Accept" that there's abortion, but to support it?What a narcissist...

 

[Multiply]

So an unborn child isn't alive?

Depends on the stage of pregnancy. I know the argument you're going for and it's not going to work.

 

[Draekon]

I support abortion but not racism, so no.

 

[Brady]

OP is at it again. The last time I played along for fun but this time I'm not playing along. Abortion is wrong. Messing around just to kill an innocent baby is wrong. If you don't want a child, use birth control. Unless the situation is fatal for the mother, I see no reason to just kill an innocent child for ridiculously trivial reasons. This is why you don't let women control society's, they muck up everything and even gather the nerve to kill their own babies.

Anyways, stop trying to racialize everything. You love being a victim don't you?

 

[demon of the leaf]

It needs to be a choice between both not because one side wants to have the abortion and i dont care what race the baby is if the mother says she wants the abortion but the father wants the baby then she needs to sign off on all rights to that baby whwn its born abortion out of conveniniance is morally wrong this is a life and under extreme circumstances are when abortions should be considered wether they be through danger to the mothers life or rape and for rape the woman had better have reported it

 

[kimb]

Okay, one, you're not a woman.That's not your choice or decision to decide for someone what to do with their pregnancy. You've got to have better understanding.

Me not being a woman is irrelevant. Telling people they cannot speak over X topic because of their facticity is an ad hominem. Secondly, I'm defending the defenseless unborn babies right to life. Women still have the right to choose, so long as it does not interfer with someone else's well being.

If you have no issues with women ending the lives of unborn babies out of convenience, I don't see why'd you have an issue with the thread question @ hand, assuming you're against it.

Depends on the stage of pregnancy. I know the argument you're going for and it's not going to work.

Would you then agree that abortions that exist beyond the 12-16 week period are a termination of human life? The unborn baby has developed circulatory, nervous, and respiratory systems independent of the mother.

 

[Multiply]

Me not being a woman is irrelevant. Telling people they cannot speak over X topic because of their facticity is an ad hominem. Secondly, I'm defending the defenseless unborn babies right to life. Women still have the right to choose, so long as it does not interfer with someone else's well being.

If you have no issues with women ending the lives of unborn babies out of convenience, I don't see why'd you have an issue with the thread question @ hand, assuming you're against it.


Would you then agree that abortions that exist beyond the 12-16 week period are a termination of human life? The unborn baby has developed circulatory, nervous, and respiratory systems independent of the mother.

I told you. I answered this question in my previous post.

Does the baby use those 'developed' systems or has it simply developed them? There's a huge difference.

 

[kimb]

I told you. I answered this question in my previous post.

Does the baby use those 'developed' systems or has it simply developed them? There's a huge difference.

In most cases, yes. A babies heart begins to beat around 6 to 8 weeks, their nervous system allows them to feel, their veins do circulate blood, etc. Their lungs don't really function in terms of breathing air since they're filled with fluid, but they do inhale and exhale.

 

[Multiply]

In most cases, yes. A babies heart begins to beat around 6 to 8 weeks, their nervous system allows them to feel, their veins do circulate blood, etc. Their lungs don't really function in terms of breathing air since they're filled with fluid, but they do inhale and exhale.

So if we took the baby out at 6-8 weeks would it be trill? Not even a chance. A heartbeat isn't some mystical shit. A heartbeat means blood is flowing. If we're saying something is alive because it has a heartbeat, then every practice manikin in my clinic that has a heartbeat is living. They deserve the exact same rights as everyone.

 

[kimb]

So if we took the baby out at 6-8 weeks would it be trill? Not even a chance. A heartbeat isn't some mystical shit. A heartbeat means blood is flowing. If we're saying something is alive because it has a heartbeat, then every practice manikin in my clinic that has a heartbeat is living. They deserve the exact same rights as everyone.

Did you actually just equate the beating heart of a living organic fetus to the artificial pulse produced by a manufactured manikin? The beating of an organic heart is a universal indication of life, outside of artificial means of mechanized heart beats (pumps/valves). The heartbeat is in fact "mystical shit", and you know you're being disingenuous when you try to equate an organic heart beat to an artificial one.

 

[Multiply]

Did you actually just equate the beating heart of a living organic fetus to the artificial pulse produced by a manufactured manikin? The beating of an organic heart is a universal indication of life, outside of artificial means of mechanized heart beats (pumps/valves). The heartbeat is in fact "mystical shit", and you know you're being disingenuous when you try to equate an organic heart beat to an artificial one.

What is so different between them other than what makes them beat? You implied that a heartbeat means something is living, then back tracked when I said manikins have heartbeats. So what you're saying is because a manikin's heartbeat is produced by a pneumatic or electrical system, it's not the same as ours(Ours is more pneumatic but that's another discussion entirely)?

How is it a fact that it is some mystical shit? Just because a fetus has a heartbeat in the womb does not make it living. You can make a heart from a dead man beat like it's nothing. You can take the heart of of the body and make it beat. That's nothing. Whoever told you that heartbeat = life lied to your face.

(I did notice you dodged my first question as if you were Floyd)

 

[kimb]

What is so different between them other than what makes them beat? You implied that a heartbeat means something is living, then back tracked when I said manikins have heartbeats. So what you're saying is because a manikin's heartbeat is produced by a pneumatic or electrical system, it's not the same as ours(Ours is more pneumatic but that's another discussion entirely)

How is it a fact that it is some mystical shit? Just because a fetus has a heartbeat in the womb does not make it living. You can make a heart from a dead man beat like it's nothing. You can take the heart of of the body and make it beat. That's nothing. Whoever told you that heartbeat = life lied to your face.

(I did notice you dodged my first question as if you were Floyd)

We're clearly speaking colloquially here, meaning when we express ideas through words, we're expressing the most commonly known and basic concepts of those words. Lets say we were talking about cats --"Boom"; instantly when you read the word cat, you mentally visualize a four legged 1 tall domesticated cat. You don't have to stop me midsentence to clarify what you mean by "cat", because it's a common concept, and within the context of our theoretical conversation we're clearly not talking about lions, or panthers, or hypothetical feline canine hybrids, or fictional chimera cats.

Ex. You said, "it's not the same as ours", in reference to hearts. Now, I could do what you just did by replying as if when you said "ours", you were referring to literally every living organism that has ever existed and say you're wrong because not all living things have the same pneumonic heart system, or say that "single called organism don't even have hearts, who ever told you that we shared a pneumatic heart system lied to you". See how disingenuous that is?


So, for you to be debating the topic of abortions, which in itself is a restricted context, and to respond to a comment attempting to define beginning of life at a heart beat with, "manikins have heart beats", you have to have a great lack of social awareness of colloquial speech and context, or you have to be disingenuous.

You know what someone means when they say heartbeat in the context of abortions, and living organisms. You're appeal to the extreme of manually forcing the heart of a dead man to beat is fallacious and stupid at best. I suggest you get back on track and try to explain to me how a "heartbeat" in the colloquial sense is not the sole indication of life. Mind you, I've mention several systems; being and nervous, blood.

 

[kimb]

And before you try to turn this into a game of seminatics by acting like you have no clue what people mean by "heart beat" in common language;

You must be registered for see links

 

[Multiply]

We're clearly speaking colloquially here, meaning when we express ideas through words, we're expressing the most commonly known and basic concepts of those words. Lets say we were talking about cats --"Boom"; instantly when you read the word cat, you mentally visualize a four legged 1 tall domesticated cat. You don't have to stop me midsentence to clarify what you mean by "cat", because it's a common concept, and within the context of our theoretical conversation we're clearly not talking about lions, or panthers, or hypothetical feline canine hybrids, or fictional chimera cats.

Is this really your defense right now?

Ex. You said, "it's not the same as ours", in reference to hearts. Now, I could do what you just did by replying as if when you said "ours", you were referring to literally every living organism that has ever existed and say you're wrong because not all living things have the same pneumonic heart system, or say that "single called organism don't even have hearts, who ever told you that we shared a pneumatic heart system lied to you". See how disingenuous that is?

You could say both of those things, but they would be out of context. My manikin analogy is not out of context because I compared it to 'our' heart systems and your idea that a heartbeat means life. So sure, you can bring up all of that other shit but I'd honestly just ignore it.

So, for you to be debating the topic of abortions, which in itself is a restricted context, and to respond to a comment attempting to define beginning of life at a heart beat with, "manikins have heart beats", you have to have a great lack of social awareness of colloquial speech and context, or you have to be disingenuous.

Or, you just didn't understand it. If a heartbeat is found in things not living then even a fetus with a heartbeat can be proven to not be living. Your moral mind can't handle that. However, this all falls deaf on you because a heartbeat is some mystical shit.

You know what someone means when they say heartbeat in the context of abortions, and living organisms. You're appeal to the extreme of manually forcing the heart of a dead man to beat is fallacious and stupid at best.

I know exactly what it means. What you want me to believe is that it's some mystical shit and just because you have a heartbeat that means you are alive! Oh man!

A heartbeat is proof that blood is flowing. Nothing more and nothing less. Now I can go into more detail as to why the heart makes that sound, but that's not what you want to hear. So when I say a dead man can have a heart beat obviously you will not agree with that because it doesn't fit your narrative at all.

I also love that last line. Like dog, do you even know why we do CPR? A manual heartbeat perhaps? Maybe not because you are dead but because you are living without a heartbeat and the only way to save your 'life' is to make your... blood... flow... Sounds familiar.

So if you can be alive without a heartbeat(For a few minutes at least) how can a... You don't hear me.

I suggest you get back on track and try to explain to me how a "heartbeat" in the colloquial sense is not the sole indication of life. Mind you, I've mention several systems; being and nervous, blood.

I already did with the analogy to a manikin. You don't accept it because it goes against your ideas. Not my fault. Take it or leave it. As far as your last line I'm not really sure what you're trying to say there. If you are talking about the other two systems you mentioned, what do I have to address about them? Are you saying because it has those systems it is living? Stop it.

[video=youtube;HUxS21-cf80]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUxS21-cf80[/video]

 

[lImmortal Regis]

Whatever the race, you are killing life and everyone deserves to have a life.

 

[kimb]

Is this really your defense right now?


You could say both of those things, but they would be out of context. My manikin analogy is not out of context because I compared it to 'our' heart systems and your idea that a heartbeat means life. So sure, you can bring up all of that other shit but I'd honestly just ignore it.




Or, you just didn't understand it. If a heartbeat is found in things not living then even a fetus with a heartbeat can be proven to not be living. Your moral mind can't handle that. However, this all falls deaf on you because a heartbeat is some mystical shit.



I know exactly what it means. What you want me to believe is that it's some mystical shit and just because you have a heartbeat that means you are alive! Oh man!

A heartbeat is proof that blood is flowing. Nothing more and nothing less. Now I can go into more detail as to why the heart makes that sound, but that's not what you want to hear. So when I say a dead man can have a heart beat obviously you will not agree with that because it doesn't fit your narrative at all.

I also love that last line. Like dog, do you even know why we do CPR? A manual heartbeat perhaps? Maybe not because you are dead but because you are living without a heartbeat and the only way to save your 'life' is to make your... blood... flow... Sounds familiar.

So if you can be alive without a heartbeat(For a few minutes at least) how can a... You don't hear me.



I already did with the analogy to a manikin. You don't accept it because it goes against your ideas. Not my fault. Take it or leave it. As far as your last line I'm not really sure what you're trying to say there. If you are talking about the other two systems you mentioned, what do I have to address about them? Are you saying because it has those systems it is living? Stop it.

[video=youtube;HUxS21-cf80]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUxS21-cf80[/video]

The heartbeat was in context of the topic of abortion, which as no nothing to do with manikins. Your analogy is invalid.


"ARE YOU SAYING BECAUSE IT HAS THOSE SYSTEMS IT IS LIVING" Did you forget the question that you asked? You asked if they could use the systems independently, which they can. You're moving the goalpost so much you forgot where you were aiming.

 

[Multiply]

The heartbeat was in context of the topic of abortion, which as no nothing to do with manikins. Your analogy is invalid.

Okay.

"ARE YOU SAYING BECAUSE IT HAS THOSE SYSTEMS IT IS LIVING" Did you forget the question that you asked? You asked if they could use the systems independently, which they can. You're moving the goalpost so much you forgot where you were aiming.

I did not understand what the hell you were talking about so I made a guess on what you might be talking about. Clarify:

Mind you, I've mention several systems; being and nervous, blood.

 

[BusinessManTeno]

I don't agree with abortion at all
and if I can I will try and talk them out of it
and I wont lie I might look at you a bit different if you get it
But its your body, I wont hold a weapon to your head

Though in the case you said.. Meh
I def don't agree with it. And sadly that happens a lot
a lot of white women love the animalistic feature of a black man.. AKA King Kong Gun... if you get me
then play victim. smh

 

[Brady]

I don't agree with abortion at all
and if I can I will try and talk them out of it
and I wont lie I might look at you a bit different if you get it
But its your body, I wont hold a weapon to your head

Though in the case you said.. Meh
I def don't agree with it. And sadly that happens a lot
a lot of white women love the animalistic feature of a black man.. AKA King Kong Gun... if you get me
then play victim. smh

No. It's not "their" body.

The moment a baby starts growing inside of you, there are two people sharing a body.

 

[kimb]

I did not understand what the hell you were talking about so I made a guess on what you might be talking about. Clarify:

You must be registered for see images

You gave a question, I gave an answer. Are you now going to move away from a baby developing organs and various organic systems as being a qualifier for life? Maybe having independent functioning organs and system isn't a qualifier for. Then I'd have to ask you, why did you ask the question in the first place, unless you're trying to move the goalpost?

I assume we both agree that the passing through of the vagina doesn't instantly grant a baby life, so life occurs within the womb. Before we try to define when life occurs inside the womb, you first have to agree that once life is determined to be present, outside of extremely rare situations (ex. rape, incest, fetal abnormality, health risk, and anything in between) that that life has a right to be protected?

If you disagree, provide reasons why.