Very rare for an innocent man to be executed. Abortion executes 100% innocent lives!

ZeusAres42

AlofRI said:

Lots of arguments. I've been through this. We aborted with good reason. I would do it again.

I still say, until a fetus takes its first BREATH OF LIFE it is an "existence". A parasite connected to a body that is feeding it and breathing for it. If, for some "reason" that body wishes to reject it, it's that body's CHOICE. It is NOT murder because it not yet has a LIFE.
Something some on here need, desperately to GET!

@AlofRI

Now, while I have my own issues with the OP on this debate I also have an issue with this argument which is the analogy. A parasite is hardly anything like a fetus. Just because they may share only one thing in common such as getting nourishment doesn't mean they are of much resemblance. In fact, they don't even get nourishment in the same way as one another. Furthermore, in most cases the fetus is thereby consent; the parasite isn't via one's own deliberation. And please note I didn't say "all" here; I said, "most."

An analogy can only become stronger the more the two things are like each other. Quite comically I've even heard some people refer to a baby being born when a woman is in labor as still a parasite.

Parasite

Definition noun, plural: parasites An organism that obtains nourishment and shelter on another organism
Supplement Parasitism is s form of symbiosis in which one organism (called parasite) benefits at the expense of another organism usually of different species (called host). This host-parasite association may eventuate to the injury of the host. Parasites can cause harm or disease to their host. They are generally much smaller than their hosts. Examples of parasites are tapeworms, flukes, lice, ticks, etc. Parasites may be classified into different categories. For instance, parasites may be macroparasites or microparasites based on their size. Macroparasites are those that are bigger in size and visible to an unaided eye. Microparasites are those that are small and can be detected through microscopy. Parasites may also be obligate or facultative depending on their interaction with their hosts. Obligate parasites are those that require a host to complete their life cycle. Facultative parasites are those that do not depend on a host to complete its life cycle. Certain parasites require only one host and they are referred to as direct parasites. Those that require both an intermediate host and a definitive host are called indirect parasites. Parasites that live outside the host are called ectoparasites whereas those that live inside the host are called endoparasites.
Word origin: Latin parasitus from Greek parasitos (person who eats at the table of another). https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Parasite

Fetus

Definition noun, plural: fetuses The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth
Supplement Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development. In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn.
Word origin: Latin fetus (offspring, brood)
https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Fetus

FYI, unless you've seen any of my other posts on abortion you might get a little confused as to what position I actually am. However, just reiterate; I am neither pro-choice or pro-life; I'm pro-equilibrium.

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne. I havent done a formal debate on that site specifically, nor many in general.  But like to debate topics on a regular basis.  My username is darthballs, ill let you set it up.  Notify me here when youve done so.

The debate has been set up. Before you accept, make sure I haven't misrepresented your position in any way and that the debate settings are as you prefer.

We_are_accountable

@MichaelElpers

Good reply to a rabidly pro abortion person. Sadly it will fall on deaf ears. I have wasted much time with him on this issue, and he could not care less the brutality of aborting even viable babies.

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42 ;

I, I'm so sorry as it is so very rude to laugh at something serious.  "I'm pro-equilibrium."  Is this like say something that is not prejudiced between women?

SkepticalOne

We_are_accountable said:

@MichaelElpers

Good reply to a rabidly pro abortion person. Sadly it will fall on deaf ears. I have wasted much time with him on this issue, and he could not care less the brutality of aborting even viable babies.

If you think I am "rabidly pro abortion", you clearly have assumed much more than I've said. I can't say I'm surprised given your us-or-them thinking. Nonetheless (since our conversation seems to be over) I wish you the best.

AlofRI

We_are_accountable said:

@AlofRI

It is truly depraved to compare a viable baby to a parasite. It's SICK and goes to show how extreme some people become when a nation changes their laws to justify excecuting innocent life for pure convenience.

You know very well that WE did not "execute" an innocent life for pure convenience … though I can see how the statement pushes your narrowmindedness to those who agree with you. As you know, we did it to save my wife's life for her two existing daughters (and me!). YOU are SICK to think that we should have sacrificed their mother for a "viable" life that, at the time didn't "actually" exist! 

I, and the "nation" do not justify "execution of innocent life for convenience". The only people that spread the horse pucky are the actual SICK ones, (or maybe someone who thinks they can shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it)!

You don't need to be reminded that my wife died 2 years later, but was around for her daughters for that much longer! They were 7&9 when she passed.
 You have your version of depravity, and now you have mine.

MichaelElpers

@AlofRI. If the abortion is performed to save the life of the mother the pro life position has no problem with that.  Everything else would be considered convenience. 

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@AlofRI. If the abortion is performed to save the life of the mother the pro life position has no problem with that.  Everything else would be considered convenience. 

Would it be convenience if the fetus dies before birth or is unviable? Is it convenience to abort pregnancies due to rape or incest? Is it convenience to use birth control which prevents implantation and might be viewed as an abortificient? Inquiring minds want to know!

ZeusAres42

John_C_87 said:

@ZeusAres42 ;

I, I'm so sorry as it is so very rude to laugh at something serious.  "I'm pro-equilibrium."  Is this like say something that is not prejudiced between women?

@John_C_87 what we must envision is that the perpendicular notion of parallel symmetry via each party is what actually constitutes a quantum field space in which is impartial to each party.

ZeusAres42

@John_C_87 I think most people will realize that I was speaking in shorthand. My position is that it's dependent on the circumstances. In some cases abortion is necessary; other times it's not. Sometimes, there are valid reasons for abortion; other times there are not. It's that simple.

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@AlofRI. If the abortion is performed to save the life of the mother the pro life position has no problem with that.  Everything else would be considered convenience. 

Why though? Why, in your opinion, is the life of the mother more important than the life of the unborn child, if you treat the latter as a human? Is it okay, in general, for humans to kill other humans in order to save themselves?

This and "pro-sexual violence abortion" are the stances that I have always found to be contradictory to the whole narrative. If the fetus' life is valuable, then what do the conditions of the conception and potential birth matter?

John_C_87

ZeusAres42 said:

John_C_87 said:

@ZeusAres42 ;

I, I'm so sorry as it is so very rude to laugh at something serious.  "I'm pro-equilibrium."  Is this like say something that is not prejudiced between women?

@John_C_87 what we must envision is that the perpendicular notion of parallel symmetry via each party is what actually constitutes a quantum field space in which is impartial to each party.

@John_C_87 I think most people will realize that I was speaking in shorthand. My position is that it's dependent on the circumstances. In some cases abortion is necessary; other times it's not. Sometimes, there are valid reasons for abortion; other times there are not. It's that simple. 

I have to disagree, not because I want to disagree it is a direct relationship to a ruling of Roe vs Wade. There is no need to violate a woman's privacy until after abortion is proven to have taken place. Female-specific-amputation is not an abortion it is the step that occurs before poof is governed to control abortion as prejudiced, the result of prejudice is a loss of privacy by women. Female-specific amputation is the creator of equilibrium between all-woman as their prejudice moves public between them. We are not here to satisfy political parties we are united by this purpose to create all women as equal in a relationship to one principle pregnancy and the many ways women terminate that principle.

John_C_87

MayCaesar said:

MichaelElpers said:

@AlofRI. If the abortion is performed to save the life of the mother the pro life position has no problem with that.  Everything else would be considered convenience. 

Why though? Why, in your opinion, is the life of the mother more important than the life of the unborn child, if you treat the latter as a human? Is it okay, in general, for humans to kill other humans in order to save themselves?

This and "pro-sexual violence abortion" are the stances that I have always found to be contradictory to the whole narrative. If the fetus' life is valuable, then what do the conditions of the conception and potential birth matter?

I beg your pardon for my intrusion but there is an error in the truth when saying a woman terminates an unborn child. The fact is a woman has only extended the unborn childs life.  

ZeusAres42

John_C_87 said:

ZeusAres42 said:

John_C_87 said:

@ZeusAres42 ;

I, I'm so sorry as it is so very rude to laugh at something serious.  "I'm pro-equilibrium."  Is this like say something that is not prejudiced between women?

@John_C_87 what we must envision is that the perpendicular notion of parallel symmetry via each party is what actually constitutes a quantum field space in which is impartial to each party.

@John_C_87 I think most people will realize that I was speaking in shorthand. My position is that it's dependent on the circumstances. In some cases abortion is necessary; other times it's not. Sometimes, there are valid reasons for abortion; other times there are not. It's that simple. 

I have to disagree, not because I want to disagree it is a direct relationship to a ruling of Roe vs Wade. There is no need to violate a woman's privacy until after abortion is proven to have taken place. Female-specific-amputation is not an abortion it is the step that occurs before poof is governed to control abortion as prejudiced, the result of prejudice is a loss of privacy by women. Female-specific amputation is the creator of equilibrium between all-woman as their prejudice moves public between them. We are not here to satisfy political parties we are united by this purpose to create all women as equal in a relationship to one principle pregnancy and the many ways women terminate that principle.

You really understood what I wrote there? Because I had no idea what I wrote. I just thought you might be feeling a bit lonely and perhaps needed some company. I thought we could both share the burden where no one has a clue what we're babbling on about.

John_C_87

You really understood what I wrote there? Because I had no idea what I wrote. I just thought you might be feeling a bit lonely and perhaps needed some company. I thought we could both share the burden where no one has a clue what we're babbling on about. Contradiction. Intentional or not poetic contradiction.   
@ZeusAres42

AlofRI

MichaelElpers said:

@AlofRI. If the abortion is performed to save the life of the mother the pro life position has no problem with that.  Everything else would be considered convenience. 

The only reason the "pro-life" community has no problem with that is to get enough pro-choice people to vote against Roe v Wade. That done it would be a small jump to crush any pro-choice ideas. A large enough portion of the pro-life movement HAS a problem with that!
There are other reasons for "choice". One is a woman who has an abusive husband that has produced several children that he doesn't support well and doesn't give a damn about spending money on contraception. It is easy-er and less mentally taxing on a woman to terminate a pregnancy than to carry a fetus for 9 months and then have to part with it. THAT can cause serious mental distress. Taking food and education chances away from those you have already is / can, be a form of child abuse. An "accidental pregnancy" for one who is already having difficulty  going for a medical (or other) degree could be called a "convenience abortion", but, we could be losing a very productive career person. I know, I know … we COULD be with the fetus, also, BUT, we already have a known quantity in the woman. It's just as possible that the fetus, after gaining "life", would take up the time of several of those within the medical community. Besides, the adoption system has become a money making racket in many cases, and MANY of these adopted children, especially the black market ones, sell these unfortunate kids to human trafficking persons that have the money. I'd rather be aborted, actually.

Look, I DO NOT "like" abortion. I DO think a person (or persons), should be able to make the CHOICE that is necessary  or best for their  existing lives. It's a crap shoot . It shouldn't be that you HAVE to come up with snake eyes, whether you like it or not!

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne. If the fetus is not viable meaning it will die (not due to lack of development) then they are not kiing the baby due to convience, nothing is being harmed.

And yes i dont agree with birthcontrol that prevents implantion.

MichaelElpers

@AlofRI If you have an abusive husband that doesnt support the kids you have, tell me exactly why you think its a good idea to have more...get a divorce or refuse to have relations unless contraception is used.

And no the group who think abortion is wrong even to save the mother is not large. It is a very very minute few.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar I wouldnt say necessarily that the mothers life is more valuable, but in that instance there is really no winning.  In that instance the mother and her loved ones can decide their choice of action.

Its kind of like how come in disasters are the lives of women and children prioritized over men... not really a great reason, but culture and emotion might give them priority.

John_C_87

@We_are_accountable ;

Simply said you or I had not been part of that particular military tribunal let alone all of the tribunals that take place to know if 100% is any closer than .0001%

ZeusAres42

@John_C_87 Failure to elucidate is a logical fallacy you know? AKA obscurum per obscurius

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar I wouldnt say necessarily that the mothers life is more valuable, but in that instance there is really no winning.  In that instance the mother and her loved ones can decide their choice of action.

Its kind of like how come in disasters are the lives of women and children prioritized over men... not really a great reason, but culture and emotion might give them priority.

I do not think arguments based on culture and emotion should define public policy, however. There should be a rational, logical reason behind choosing the mother's life over that of the fetus.

My reason is simple: bodily autonomy. The fetus is inside the mother and not vice-versa, hence the fetus' alleged rights do not override her right to do whatever she wants with it.

In case someone disagrees with this principle, but still believes that the mother's life is more valuable than that of the fetus, they should have a good and self-consistent argument explaining why that is the case. Only then can we even start discussing whether there exist any legal implications of this.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar. Im not necessarily placing the life of the mother over the fetus.  Again no winning
Neither ones right to life overrides the other, and in that case im allowing the mother to decide.

Also inherently I think that would be dangerous to the human species, if women were afraid to get pregnant because of them being stuck in a life threatening situation.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

Your last argument makes sense to me.
But with regards to the previous one, if we agree that neither life overrides the other, then I do not see why the woman should have the right to decide whether to kill the fetus or not. My life does not override yours and your life does not override mine; does it mean that, for example, if someone puts a gun to your had and tells you to kill me to save yourself, you killing me will be justified? I mean, it probably will be from your point of view, because, from your perspective, your life is more valuable than the life of a stranger like me - but I would beg to differ based on my perspective, and the society might differ as well.
Not saying that you are necessarily wrong here; just giving some food for thought.

In line with your last argument, would you not agree that abortion in principle then should be legalised, in order to make people's sexual relations healthier? Women are going to be much less likely to take part in a sexual intercourse, if they knew that, in case of accidental pregnancy, their lives are going to change significantly in the direction they do not want - and that, in turn, has various psychological and even physiological consequences.
You could argue that, as per evolution, sex exists in order to reproduce in the first place, so this proposal is irrelevant... But there is clearly more to it in the modern world than that. Sex has long ago stopped being seen as solely reproduction mechanism, and it is an inherent part of our culture and most of our lives.

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42 ;


 Obscurius Obscurium per ordo...

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar. Im not necessarily sure id be justified, by law though i dont think i would be charged with anything.

There are ways to prevent one getting pregnant.  The most secure way is for a vasectomy with a test afterward to make sure no sperm remain. So as far as relations go, 1. There are ways around getting pregnant that allow one to have plentiful relations.
2. I dont think "healthy relations" outweighs the life of the fetus.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

What determines what outweighs what though? Why should the life of a creature with no sentience not be outweighed by healthy relations between sentient humans?

It is true that there is a lot of ways to minimise the chances of getting pregnant, but it is a lot of work, and the chances are not completely nullified no matter what you do. Plus not all people are going to be careful enough to do that. In this context, having this hum at the back of their heads telling them that this sexual act may destroy their life as they know it is going to create a lot of unnecessary stress and strain in relationships - things that can easily be avoided by just getting the government out of the matter.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar ;

In case someone disagrees with this principle, but still believes that the mother's life is more valuable than that of the fetus, they should have a good and self-consistent argument explaining why that is the case. Only then can we even start discussing whether there exist any legal implications of this.

To late legal implication was made in 1973. The result was a failure where all women hold a united state creating all women as equal. Waiting for this to occur by the action of a woman herself is no longer an option. If it can be done, it will be done. Without prejudice.

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne. If the fetus is not viable meaning it will die (not due to lack of development) then they are not kiing the baby due to convience, nothing is being harmed.

And yes i dont agree with birthcontrol that prevents implantion.

So you think it is merely a matter of convenience for a woman not to extend the use of her body to the seed of a rapist or the product of an incestuous coupling? I'm going to adamantly disagree here. The same goes for birth control which might also prevent implantation. 

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne Maybe not for an instance of rape would it completely convience based, but that is a very rare circumstance.

I still dont think the fetus deserves to die, but it annoys me when people constantly bring up rape when that is less 1% of abortions.

If i asked whether they would be ok eliminating abortion except for those instances they say no, so whats the point.  Its trying to justify the general with ext6raneous circumstances.

Its like when you say there are 2 sexes and people say...NO theres intersex to justify classifying an infinite amount.

We_are_accountable

@MichaelElpers

Thank you for stating the truth of the matter.

These Pro abortion supporters ALWAYS bring up extreme case abortions, but refuse to even pass the GOP 20 week abortion compromise that DID ALLOW EXTREME CASE EXCEPTIONS!

These people are an absolute waste of time to debate because they refuse to admit their support for all abortions no matter if for convenience or not..

John_C_87

@SkepticalOne ;

No longer is female-specific amputation related to sexual assaults of any kind. The termination of an immigration process is not based on a clear trespass made first. Never should have been an argument as the criminal invasion of privacy is the legal issue, by the preservation of the United States Constitution, by these Americans of the people, for the people.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Destroying ones life is a little harsh.

"Its hard to do, and not all people are going to be careful enough to do that"
Thanks for agreeing most of these people are just irresponsible...the same people who want big government and socialism because they want government to make there decisions and lives easier.

Thats the thing about freedom, you have the freedom to make your life great or suck.  Its under your responsibility, and avoiding pregnancy with contraceptives or vasectomies is not "a lot of work". An abortion might be more work than those things.

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne Maybe not for an instance of rape would it completely concience based, but that is a very rare circumstance.

I still dont think the fetus deserves to die, but it annoys me when people constantly bring up rape when that is less 1% of abortions.

If i asked whether they would be ok eliminating abortion except for those instances they say no, so whats the point.  Its trying to justify the general with ext6raneous circumstances.

Its like when you say there are 2 sexes and people say...NO theres intersex to justify classifying an infinite amount.

I'm not trying to justify abortion merely by pointing to extreme case - it's just that you didn't address it out of a number of other circumstances which are questionably related to convenience. 

I think I've been fairly clear what I deem acceptable and for what reasons. Allowing abortion only in the case of rape or incest is too limiting in my view.

...and there are individuals which can't be classed as strictly male or female...so 'people' would be right to say there's an intersex.I don't know why that would be controversial...

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

Well, we destroy billions lives every second we are alive. I have never understood why people give some extra importance to a fetus, when it is essentially a vegetative creature, like potato plant.

But I am talking about exactly the opposite: taking the government out of the equation. A lot of people are irresponsible when it comes to sexual life; let them deal with the consequences of their choices by whatever means they have at their disposal. Depriving them of those means artificially so their responsibility becomes bigger is just as wrong as freeing them from that responsibility at the taxpayers' expense.

Some of the protection typically used during sex is just gross. Condoms... eww. I cannot imagine ever putting those things on. Would ruin the mood instantly, as well as the experience.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar. In general i would agree with you, but what the choice is matters.  If someone doesnt have a job or is down on there luck they cant just steal from others to help thrmselves out, its not a choice we allow them to have.

Unlike all the other creatures we kill, those are not developing humans and do not have potential to ever be one.

So instead of a condom, people risk creating life with an intent to kill it if it occurs.  And abortions...gross ew.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne. What are the other curcumstances not related to convience.  Life of the mother was already brought up and rape was the only other you could come up with ( a very small percentage which is why i didnt).

I never said intersex isnt a thing, but its an exception to the rule.  It doesnt justify infinite genders, we have a word for that and its called personality. We dont say humans have 6 fingers even though there are some that are born with 6.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

True, but the only choices one generally cannot make is ones harming other individuals. A fetus is hardly an individual in any meaningful sense.

I fail to see what potential to be something has to do with anything though; I have never understood this argument. A potential to be something does not mean that the creature is going to become that something. I have a potential to become a billionaire one day, yet that hardly entitles me to withdrawing a billion dollars from a bank.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar. Its more than just a potential, its an already developing human being whose specific traits have already been defined.
A sperm and egg is a potential human being, a fetus already is one.

Its potential to develope into a human with consciousness  and into an adult (development ending in the 20s) is significantly higher than your chance of becoming a billionaire.  More than that, it is part of a natural process  everyone must complete and only doesnt occur if something goes wrong. 

John_C_87

MayCaesar said:

@MichaelElpers

True, but the only choices one generally cannot make is ones harming other individuals. A fetus is hardly an individual in any meaningful sense.

I fail to see what potential to be something has to do with anything though; I have never understood this argument. A potential to be something does not mean that the creature is going to become that something. I have a potential to become a billionaire one day, yet that hardly entitles me to withdrawing a billion dollars from a bank.

Bad analogy MayCaesar as you are not allowed to print and federally register a receipt in the Title of Federal Reserve Note.

All women are allowed to ovulate a living egg, extend the life of that human living egg, and be present as witnesses in military tribular to preserve the Constitutional united state on behalf of privacy.

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne. What are the other curcumstances not related to convience.  Life of the mother was already brought up and rape was the only other you could come up with ( a very small percentage which is why i didnt).

I never said there intersex isnt a thing, but its an exception to the rule.  It doesnt justify infinite genders, we have a word for that and its called personality. We dont say humans have 6 fingers even though there are some that are born with 6.

I don't think convenience is necessarily inadequate justification especially before a fetus has the capacity for consciousness. I get that some people would like for personhood to be extended to fertilized eggs (which might possibly argue against convenience), but I also understand that this would create an irresolvable conflict of rights between woman and unborn. It's an absurd suggestion in a world where we hold rights to be irrevocable.

Wait.. you said sexes before, but now you're saying genders. Gender and sex are not synonymous as I understand it. Sex is related to genitalia while gender is a personal identity. I take people's word for either because it makes no difference to me. I have a niece that is gender dysphoric who would like to transition. My difficulty understanding is of little importance to her well-being and happiness. I support her decision no matter what.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

Perhaps, but until the child is born, it is not born. That it has a potential to be born in case no special interference occurs seems quite irrelevant to me. Nor do I see the chances of that relevant in any way, or that it is natural.

What if the society knew that I would become a billionaire somehow? For example, people would predict that with my stock trading strategy I would hit a billion by 2025, unless some interference occurs, with a very high certainty. Would that entitle me to withdrawing a billion right now?
Obviously not. What has not happened yet cannot be assumed to have happened, and just because it has a chance to happen in the future or even is likely to happen in the future, it is still conditional until it actually does happen.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne. Whether it is alerson or not it would still be convience.  It just would be justified.

Gender and sex always meant the same thing, it was changed to meet a narrative.  Exactly she would like to transition from one to the other...so 2.  Thered be no reason to "transition" if you can just select what you want.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar. Well that would be up to a bank, and if they knew youd become a billionaire theyd be dumb not to loan that to you.

Also you seem to be bouncing around what makes someone a person, sometimes you mention conciousness other times you mention birth, the latter being a much dumber metric.

If someone was unconscious/ there heart stopped beating for a moment, can we say at that moment they are not a person and assume they may not recover.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

I really talk about sentience, not consciousness, which are different things. Sentience to me implies some level of self-awareness, which does not occur until the child is born. One could argue that the child after birth remains non-sentient for a while as well, but that is a different topic. Until the child is born, it cannot be reasonably classified as an individual, and the laws as we know them apply to individuals, not to living beings in principle. We do not have laws prohibiting wolves from attacking other animals, for example, because wolves are not a part of the legal system - nor should fetuses be, in my opinion.

Loaning a billion to me and giving it to me as if it is already mine are different things. Banks loan money in order to get a positive return from their investment. A bank will never give someone some amount of money in advance with no strings attached, unless we are talking about some sort of a promotion which the bank hopes to earn money from in less direct ways.

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne. Whether it is alerson or not it would still be convience.  It just would be justified.

Gender and sex always meant the same thing, it was changed to meet a narrative.  Exactly she would like to transition from one to the other...so 2.  Thered be no reason to "transition" if you can just select what you want.

In that case, convenience is not the problem it seemed you were suggesting. I assumed you considered convenience to be an inadequate justification even early in the pregnancy.

Words change meaning to match new information. It makes no sense to have a argument about this as far as I am concerned.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne. Convience is a problem, as i believe human life and personnhood begin at conception and therefore convenience is no justification.

John_C_87

Two lives enter, one life comes out. Two lives enter, one life comes out. Two lives enter the Unteris, one life comes out. one plus one is two. Most are born of sin and the facts written before you are not a quote from the Bible. Abortion was ruled by the Supreme Court in 1973 as an invasion of privacy. All women have failed to create woman as equals, they the united state of a female are created equal by the new word Presadera, as all women have not been created equal before their creator legislated law without prejudice before now.

A woman has little if any control over her body in these matters and the prejudice between women is inexcusable.

Hypr

@We_are_accountable execution as it is now should not be carried out. It costs the tax payer 3 million dollars per execution of one person. I think we need to go back to quick painless and cheap

We_are_accountable

@Hypr

I agree that any person who is proven 100% guilty, the execution should be very quick. It's those where there are questions of guit, that I do not believe should get the death penalty.