Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Bad Pro-Choice arguments.

Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 3:55:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here are some common Pro-choice arguments I hear lay people make all the time on the internet and in public.

"My body, my choice."

The human fetus is not your body. It has its own body. If the human fetus was in fact a part of the woman's body like like this argument claims, then it would follow that when a woman is pregnant she has two heads, four arms, four legs, and a penis if the fetus is male.

Moreover, this view would lead to moral conclusions that are unacceptable. Suppose there is woman that becomes pregnant and decides that she doesn't want to let the fetus be born. After years pass, the fetus develops consciousness and wants to get out of the woman's body. However, the woman claims that it's her body, and therefore she has the right to keep the human organism inside her no matter what.

It would also mean that it would be okay if a woman took drugs during her pregnancy. Because remember this. My body, my choice.

"The fetus isn't a human being."

This demonstrably false. The fetus is a human being because it has two human parents, human DNA, human blood and it will develop into an adult if allowed to continue to develop. To quote the embryology textbook Human Embryology & Teratology:

"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed...."[1]

"We need abortion because of overpopulation."

This argument already assumes that the fetus lacks moral status, since this same argument would not be accepted if applied to adult human beings. Virtually nobody would claim we would be justified in destroying adult humans in order to reduce population.

There are other arguments as well, but these three are the most common I hear.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 4:12:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 3:55:32 PM, Dookieman wrote:
Here are some common Pro-choice arguments I hear lay people make all the time on the internet and in public.

"My body, my choice."

The human fetus is not your body. It has its own body. If the human fetus was in fact a part of the woman's body like like this argument claims, then it would follow that when a woman is pregnant she has two heads, four arms, four legs, and a penis if the fetus is male.
lol

Moreover, this view would lead to moral conclusions that are unacceptable. Suppose there is woman that becomes pregnant and decides that she doesn't want to let the fetus be born. After years pass, the fetus develops consciousness and wants to get out of the woman's body. However, the woman claims that it's her body, and therefore she has the right to keep the human organism inside her no matter what.
The people who run this line of argument probably don't think it's unconditionally true.

It would also mean that it would be okay if a woman took drugs during her pregnancy. Because remember this. My body, my choice.
That's a good point.

"The fetus isn't a human being."

This demonstrably false. The fetus is a human being because it has two human parents, human DNA, human blood and it will develop into an adult if allowed to continue to develop. To quote the embryology textbook Human Embryology &
For some reason it's a lot easier for humans to deny something is human, than it is to deny the unconditional truth of the wrongness of killing humans.

Teratology:

"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed...."[1]

"We need abortion because of overpopulation."

This argument already assumes that the fetus lacks moral status, since this same argument would not be accepted if applied to adult human beings.
I guess one could say their moral status is outweighed. But it remains quite silly.

Virtually nobody would claim we would be justified in destroying adult humans in order to reduce population.
If anything we should make Soylent Green.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Geogeer
Posts: 4,276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 4:27:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 3:55:32 PM, Dookieman wrote:
Here are some common Pro-choice arguments I hear lay people make all the time on the internet and in public.

"My body, my choice."

The human fetus is not your body. It has its own body. If the human fetus was in fact a part of the woman's body like like this argument claims, then it would follow that when a woman is pregnant she has two heads, four arms, four legs, and a penis if the fetus is male.

Moreover, this view would lead to moral conclusions that are unacceptable. Suppose there is woman that becomes pregnant and decides that she doesn't want to let the fetus be born. After years pass, the fetus develops consciousness and wants to get out of the woman's body. However, the woman claims that it's her body, and therefore she has the right to keep the human organism inside her no matter what.

It would also mean that it would be okay if a woman took drugs during her pregnancy. Because remember this. My body, my choice.

"The fetus isn't a human being."

This demonstrably false. The fetus is a human being because it has two human parents, human DNA, human blood and it will develop into an adult if allowed to continue to develop. To quote the embryology textbook Human Embryology & Teratology:

"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed...."[1]

"We need abortion because of overpopulation."

This argument already assumes that the fetus lacks moral status, since this same argument would not be accepted if applied to adult human beings. Virtually nobody would claim we would be justified in destroying adult humans in order to reduce population.

There are other arguments as well, but these three are the most common I hear.

I'm personally against abortion, but I'm not going to deny someone else having an abortion. This is an argument by cowardice.

You wouldn't argue:
I wouldn't own a slave, but I'm not going to deny someone else owning a slave.
I wouldn't rape this woman, but I'm not going to tell someone else they cannot rape her.
I'm not going to embezzle funds, but I'm not going to tell someone else not to.

Many fertilized eggs die before birth anyways.
So because a lot of centenarians die every year we have the right to murder them at will? Just because some people die doesn't mean that you get to kill the ones who don't.

So masturbation is mass murder?
This is always the stupidest argument. At least learn grade 10 biology for Pete's sake!

There are also the people that argue that life doesn't have a beginning because sperm are alive which came from their parents all the way back to the primordial soup. The argument is not about life (we all believe in biogenesis), but about "a" life.

I personally find all of the bad, but these ones are the least well thought out.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 3:38:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
My own argument for Pro-Choice goes as follows:

What makes a person a person?
What makes you, well, you?

Is it your genetic code that makes you a person, that makes you you?
If so, then are identical twins also you? How about when your genes change (which happens over your life), do you cease to be you and begin to be someone else?
No, so what makes you you, what makes you a person (person=/=human) cannot be your genes.

Is it the atoms that make up your body?
If so, then are you a new you, and new person every decade (as every atom in your body is slowly replaced, happens about every decade or so)?
No, so what makes you you, what makes you a person cannot be your specific atoms.

I would contend, then, that what makes you you, what makes you a person, can only be your ability of consciousness, your own memories/experiences, and the memories others have of the former two.
But, in order to have those you need a functioning cerebral cortex. A cerebral cortex does not start functioning until around the 3rd trimester.

That is the foundation of my Pro-Choice stance. I have other, more common reasons, but this should suffice.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 7:21:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"My body, my choice."

Your description is... well, lacking.

A woman has the control over her own body (body autonomy). Anything that invades your body, jeopardize it, or is unwelcome you have the right to stop its use of your body.

I doubt you really want to talk about this right in a serious way, or even are willing to read anything posted about it, but what is in your mind about the right is sophomoric.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 2:08:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 3:38:40 PM, SNP1 wrote:
My own argument for Pro-Choice goes as follows:

What makes a person a person?
What makes you, well, you?

Is it your genetic code that makes you a person, that makes you you?
If so, then are identical twins also you? How about when your genes change (which happens over your life), do you cease to be you and begin to be someone else?
No, so what makes you you, what makes you a person (person=/=human) cannot be your genes.

Is it the atoms that make up your body?
If so, then are you a new you, and new person every decade (as every atom in your body is slowly replaced, happens about every decade or so)?
No, so what makes you you, what makes you a person cannot be your specific atoms.

I would contend, then, that what makes you you, what makes you a person, can only be your ability of consciousness, your own memories/experiences, and the memories others have of the former two.
But, in order to have those you need a functioning cerebral cortex. A cerebral cortex does not start functioning until around the 3rd trimester.

I would suggest arguing that rights is based on consciousness, not that your personal identity is based on it. Arguing that your personal identity is based on it is far from being any better than the former two you've listed. Arguing from rights rather than identity closes off some serious objections to a Lockeian identity theory.
That is the foundation of my Pro-Choice stance. I have other, more common reasons, but this should suffice.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 4:18:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 3:38:40 PM, SNP1 wrote:
My own argument for Pro-Choice goes as follows:

What makes a person a person?
What makes you, well, you?

Is it your genetic code that makes you a person, that makes you you?

no. My genetic code is a unique resource upon this planet. But it is a vehicle by which my personhood is manifested.

If so, then are identical twins also you? How about when your genes change (which happens over your life), do you cease to be you and begin to be someone else?

No. But the morality against murder is the intentional premeditated ending of human life. Not specifically personhood. For there is reasonable speculation that hinder the personhood from forming when killing the genetic body.

No, so what makes you you, what makes you a person (person=/=human) cannot be your genes.

Is it the atoms that make up your body?
If so, then are you a new you, and new person every decade (as every atom in your body is slowly replaced, happens about every decade or so)?

Cite your sources. As far as I am aware the nerve endings in the brain do not replenish themselves like lungs and bone. A nerve ending that grows in the brain remains so until it shrivels and dies. Any new growth is a unique connection.

No, so what makes you you, what makes you a person cannot be your specific atoms.

I would contend, then, that what makes you you, what makes you a person, can only be your ability of consciousness, your own memories/experiences, and the memories others have of the former two.

How does this view protect a new born and not a fetus in the 3rd trimester?

But, in order to have those you need a functioning cerebral cortex. A cerebral cortex does not start functioning until around the 3rd trimester.

That is the foundation of my Pro-Choice stance. I have other, more common reasons, but this should suffice.

Subjective delineation. Looking for some growth achievement to support your view.

By another alternative subjective measure I ask what separates one person from another? What does every human alive have? what separates every alive human from dead ones? CLEARLY the answer is a heartbeat. this forms before 6 weeks, but at 6 weeks it is circulating blood. And the bible says life is in the blood. Hence just as reasonably as your delineation and in accordance with scripture 6 weeks is the latest for an abortion.

I can come up with 100 such subjective goalposts.

How about we live in reality. Accept that mother nature has deemed we reproduce through asexual reproduction and it is the actions of the parents that cause life. They carry the responsibility to safe guard it as does society in general.

Craziest thing is all we have to do is look at other countries that have legalized abortions for a long time. And what do we find?

Denmark is running a campaign to promote Danes should go on holiday to other countries have sex and get pregnant. Because The danish lineage is dying out.

Russia is in the same boat and has begun making it illegal to proclaim abortion as a safe process for women. They also begun restricting it to 12 weeks.

In Greece, 80,000 abortions take place. almost same as birth rates. But more troublesome is half are performed on underage girls. Abortions deceptive appeal as safe and removing of consequences has many women and young girls practicing unsafe sex.

Abortion has made it easier for women to be kept in sex trafficking. A pimp doesn't have to get rid of kids or lose revenue for 9 months.
http://afterabortion.org...

It has made incest and rape harder to discover. Underage girls in many states are allowed to seek an abortion with NO parental consent, and in a few 1 parent must consent.
http://liveactionnews.org...

It doesn't take a genius to know that if a society legalize the killing of fetuses in the womb, it's logical end is death. Even if a small percentage of the population in each generation elect to abort fetuses the result adds up.

If a society refuses to recognize and protect human life from start to finish, then human life will be marginalized at different stages.

When a police chief in Afghanistan was confronted about have a boy tied to a pole for the purpose of repeated rape and sodomy and the mother beaten when she tried to intervene, his comment was "it's just a boy".

SNP1, in Afghan their subjective delineation for when legal protection is applicable is puberty. Why limit yourself to the a fully developed cerebral cortex (whole brain)?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 4:23:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 7:21:26 PM, TBR wrote:
"My body, my choice."

Your description is... well, lacking.

A woman has the control over her own body (body autonomy). Anything that invades your body, jeopardize it, or is unwelcome you have the right to stop its use of your body.

I doubt you really want to talk about this right in a serious way, or even are willing to read anything posted about it, but what is in your mind about the right is sophomoric.

If that were the case why is voluntary sterilization so regulated. Over 30, 3 kids, no child under 1 year old?

What's sophomoric is this idea that human propagation begins with the invasion of a tumor. That we all begin as parasitic tumors upon a woman's body.

If it is our body why can we not sell our organs?

No this idea that a woman can participate in an action knowing the potential risk can be afforded every opportunity to kill an innocent life.

Society makes laws. And the logical conclusion to legalized abortion is social death and degrading of human life at all stages. Clearly advanced societies have a reasonable expectation to protect the fetus and to discourage abortions. Promoting responsible sex instead.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 3:15:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 4:23:44 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/30/2015 7:21:26 PM, TBR wrote:
"My body, my choice."

Your description is... well, lacking.

A woman has the control over her own body (body autonomy). Anything that invades your body, jeopardize it, or is unwelcome you have the right to stop its use of your body.

I doubt you really want to talk about this right in a serious way, or even are willing to read anything posted about it, but what is in your mind about the right is sophomoric.

If that were the case why is voluntary sterilization so regulated. Over 30, 3 kids, no child under 1 year old?

What's sophomoric is this idea that human propagation begins with the invasion of a tumor. That we all begin as parasitic tumors upon a woman's body.

If it is our body why can we not sell our organs?

No this idea that a woman can participate in an action knowing the potential risk can be afforded every opportunity to kill an innocent life.

Society makes laws. And the logical conclusion to legalized abortion is social death and degrading of human life at all stages. Clearly advanced societies have a reasonable expectation to protect the fetus and to discourage abortions. Promoting responsible sex instead.

Indeed, however it seems to be more about controlling the responsible sex that women have, rather than promoting responsible sex in general. Unloading the gun is much more fruitful than putting on a bullet proof vest, if you catch my drift.

As much as I am loathe to talk about it, abortion, or its regulation, is really just control specifically of women. Post birth, society at large doesn't seem to care about the child.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 3:25:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Distilled down:

9 different women having children by the same father, 9 different women want 9 different abortions.

And yet the "commonality" in the problem is overlooked.

Why? If the "my body, my choice" doesn't fly, welcome to the wonderful world of involuntary castration. After all, involuntary childbirth is a thing, so...
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 4:41:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 3:15:29 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/1/2015 4:23:44 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/30/2015 7:21:26 PM, TBR wrote:
"My body, my choice."

Your description is... well, lacking.

A woman has the control over her own body (body autonomy). Anything that invades your body, jeopardize it, or is unwelcome you have the right to stop its use of your body.

I doubt you really want to talk about this right in a serious way, or even are willing to read anything posted about it, but what is in your mind about the right is sophomoric.

If that were the case why is voluntary sterilization so regulated. Over 30, 3 kids, no child under 1 year old?

What's sophomoric is this idea that human propagation begins with the invasion of a tumor. That we all begin as parasitic tumors upon a woman's body.

If it is our body why can we not sell our organs?

No this idea that a woman can participate in an action knowing the potential risk can be afforded every opportunity to kill an innocent life.

Society makes laws. And the logical conclusion to legalized abortion is social death and degrading of human life at all stages. Clearly advanced societies have a reasonable expectation to protect the fetus and to discourage abortions. Promoting responsible sex instead.

Indeed, however it seems to be more about controlling the responsible sex that women have, rather than promoting responsible sex in general. Unloading the gun is much more fruitful than putting on a bullet proof vest, if you catch my drift.

As much as I am loathe to talk about it, abortion, or its regulation, is really just control specifically of women. Post birth, society at large doesn't seem to care about the child.

'My body my choice' isn't even a well established right. As I said there are restrictions on what you can do to your own body. One can'tlegally sell thier organs (big medicine corp can) you can't voluntarily amputate or castrate yourself. Can't voluntarily sterilize yourself.

But aside from it's weak legal enforcement all of our rights are curtailed when the resulting action does harm to human life or property. Abortion would be no different. Electing the right to life to trump other rights.

But you haven't addressed the logical and factual result from legal abortions. Namely the steady decline in a countries population and culture.

Or my'points about applying legal protection until certain developmental stages are reached is subject. In other countries leading to the marginilization of children.

If we don't put life first Death is the inevitable end.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 5:25:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"My body, my choice."

Your description is... well, lacking.

A woman has the control over her own body (body autonomy). Anything that invades your body, jeopardize it, or is unwelcome you have the right to stop its use of your body.

I doubt you really want to talk about this right in a serious way, or even are willing to read anything posted about it, but what is in your mind about the right is sophomoric.

If that were the case why is voluntary sterilization so regulated. Over 30, 3 kids, no child under 1 year old?

What's sophomoric is this idea that human propagation begins with the invasion of a tumor. That we all begin as parasitic tumors upon a woman's body.

If it is our body why can we not sell our organs?

No this idea that a woman can participate in an action knowing the potential risk can be afforded every opportunity to kill an innocent life.

Society makes laws. And the logical conclusion to legalized abortion is social death and degrading of human life at all stages. Clearly advanced societies have a reasonable expectation to protect the fetus and to discourage abortions. Promoting responsible sex instead.

Indeed, however it seems to be more about controlling the responsible sex that women have, rather than promoting responsible sex in general. Unloading the gun is much more fruitful than putting on a bullet proof vest, if you catch my drift.

As much as I am loathe to talk about it, abortion, or its regulation, is really just control specifically of women. Post birth, society at large doesn't seem to care about the child.

'My body my choice' isn't even a well established right. As I said there are restrictions on what you can do to your own body. One can'tlegally sell thier organs (big medicine corp can) you can't voluntarily amputate or castrate yourself. Can't voluntarily sterilize yourself.

You can legally sell your blood, and other fluids. I think you can also donate them, too. "sell" on the other hand, makes an inherent value for something which would commoditize it, making a possible black market, which I believe might already exist in some countries. To be fair, you -can- voluntarily do those things (sterilize/amputate), however I am not confident you would want to do it yourself for the entirety of the procedure. It gets messy, and I would prefer a surgeon.

But aside from it's weak legal enforcement all of our rights are curtailed when the resulting action does harm to human life or property. Abortion would be no different. Electing the right to life to trump other rights.

So, according to you, the right to life is trumped when the rights of another to live are in jeopardy. This means you, logically, advocate for mandatory donations of organ tissue, blood, bone marrow, etc. The right to some one's life, after all, trumps the rights of another.


But you haven't addressed the logical and factual result from legal abortions. Namely the steady decline in a countries population and culture.

I wasn't aware the decline in population was a problem. Culture, on the other hand, please help me out on how the 2 are connected. (abortion and the decline in culture).


Or my'points about applying legal protection until certain developmental stages are reached is subject. In other countries leading to the marginilization of children.

If we don't put life first Death is the inevitable end.

Death is inevitable anyways. Not saying that as a critique of your position, just calling a spade a garden tool.

I opined in a separate thread exactly what bodily autonomy means through odd example.

If a woman gets pregnant and has abortions, we restrict her right to abortions and force her to reproduce by legislation. I have a better idea: if the pattern is unsafe sex, and bodily autonomy/the protection of life is the goal: sterilize (mandatory) the father. The reason why there is a host of "unsafe sex" is because only one gender has literal skin in the game: not males. The problem of unwanted pregnancy is that its divorced from a gender, but that gender still gets to make rules. If males were forced to undergo some physical consequences to their irresponsible sex, how many unwanted pregnancies would result?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 10:35:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 7:21:26 PM, TBR wrote:
"My body, my choice."

Your description is... well, lacking.

A woman has the control over her own body (body autonomy).

Anything that invades your body, jeopardize it, or is unwelcome you have the right to stop its use of your body.

Yes...this seems like a pro-life argument actually. The fetus has a body, so by conceding that it does, you are assuming that it, too, has these rights. Under your standard, abortion would be immoral because it itself is the "something" that is invading or jeopardizing the human fetus's body.

I doubt you really want to talk about this right in a serious way, or even are willing to read anything posted about it, but what is in your mind about the right is sophomoric.

..you didn't address his point about the body of a fetus =\= body of the mother.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 11:36:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 10:35:39 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 9/30/2015 7:21:26 PM, TBR wrote:
"My body, my choice."

Your description is... well, lacking.

A woman has the control over her own body (body autonomy).

Anything that invades your body, jeopardize it, or is unwelcome you have the right to stop its use of your body.

Yes...this seems like a pro-life argument actually. The fetus has a body, so by conceding that it does, you are assuming that it, too, has these rights. Under your standard, abortion would be immoral because it itself is the "something" that is invading or jeopardizing the human fetus's body.

IF you want to try, however, in accepting it you must recognize that the woman has the right too. You are prioritizing the invading fetus over the woman.


I doubt you really want to talk about this right in a serious way, or even are willing to read anything posted about it, but what is in your mind about the right is sophomoric.

..you didn't address his point about the body of a fetus =\= body of the mother.

The body of the fetus is a separate body. I have no issue with this. The fetus is dependent on the mother, and she ultimately has control over what bodies are allowed to use her as a host.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 11:45:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 11:36:32 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/2/2015 10:35:39 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 9/30/2015 7:21:26 PM, TBR wrote:
"My body, my choice."

Your description is... well, lacking.

A woman has the control over her own body (body autonomy).

Anything that invades your body, jeopardize it, or is unwelcome you have the right to stop its use of your body.

Yes...this seems like a pro-life argument actually. The fetus has a body, so by conceding that it does, you are assuming that it, too, has these rights. Under your standard, abortion would be immoral because it itself is the "something" that is invading or jeopardizing the human fetus's body.

IF you want to try, however, in accepting it you must recognize that the woman has the right too. You are prioritizing the invading fetus over the woman.

The "right" you speak of is the right to stop anything that invades one's body. So if the mother and the baby both have these rights...abortion is morally impermissible.

I doubt you really want to talk about this right in a serious way, or even are willing to read anything posted about it, but what is in your mind about the right is sophomoric.

..you didn't address his point about the body of a fetus =\= body of the mother.

The body of the fetus is a separate body. I have no issue with this. The fetus is dependent on the mother, and she ultimately has control over what bodies are allowed to use her as a host.

It's dependent, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. At a certain point fetuses can survive outside the womb, and they can survive if the mother if the mother dies (but only for a short amount of time).
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 11:48:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 11:45:17 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 10/2/2015 11:36:32 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/2/2015 10:35:39 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 9/30/2015 7:21:26 PM, TBR wrote:
"My body, my choice."

Your description is... well, lacking.

A woman has the control over her own body (body autonomy).

Anything that invades your body, jeopardize it, or is unwelcome you have the right to stop its use of your body.

Yes...this seems like a pro-life argument actually. The fetus has a body, so by conceding that it does, you are assuming that it, too, has these rights. Under your standard, abortion would be immoral because it itself is the "something" that is invading or jeopardizing the human fetus's body.

IF you want to try, however, in accepting it you must recognize that the woman has the right too. You are prioritizing the invading fetus over the woman.

The "right" you speak of is the right to stop anything that invades one's body. So if the mother and the baby both have these rights...abortion is morally impermissible.

Accepting the right means you are prioritizing the right of the fetus (user of the host) over the woman (the host), right?


I doubt you really want to talk about this right in a serious way, or even are willing to read anything posted about it, but what is in your mind about the right is sophomoric.

..you didn't address his point about the body of a fetus =\= body of the mother.

The body of the fetus is a separate body. I have no issue with this. The fetus is dependent on the mother, and she ultimately has control over what bodies are allowed to use her as a host.

It's dependent, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. At a certain point fetuses can survive outside the womb, and they can survive if the mother if the mother dies (but only for a short amount of time).

At about 6 MONTH a fetus has a slim chance of living without the host. Let's not get crazy here.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 11:52:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 5:25:42 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
"My body, my choice."

Your description is... well, lacking.

A woman has the control over her own body (body autonomy). Anything that invades your body, jeopardize it, or is unwelcome you have the right to stop its use of your body.

I doubt you really want to talk about this right in a serious way, or even are willing to read anything posted about it, but what is in your mind about the right is sophomoric.

If that were the case why is voluntary sterilization so regulated. Over 30, 3 kids, no child under 1 year old?

What's sophomoric is this idea that human propagation begins with the invasion of a tumor. That we all begin as parasitic tumors upon a woman's body.

If it is our body why can we not sell our organs?

No this idea that a woman can participate in an action knowing the potential risk can be afforded every opportunity to kill an innocent life.

Society makes laws. And the logical conclusion to legalized abortion is social death and degrading of human life at all stages. Clearly advanced societies have a reasonable expectation to protect the fetus and to discourage abortions. Promoting responsible sex instead.

Indeed, however it seems to be more about controlling the responsible sex that women have, rather than promoting responsible sex in general. Unloading the gun is much more fruitful than putting on a bullet proof vest, if you catch my drift.

As much as I am loathe to talk about it, abortion, or its regulation, is really just control specifically of women. Post birth, society at large doesn't seem to care about the child.

'My body my choice' isn't even a well established right. As I said there are restrictions on what you can do to your own body. One can'tlegally sell thier organs (big medicine corp can) you can't voluntarily amputate or castrate yourself. Can't voluntarily sterilize yourself.

You can legally sell your blood, and other fluids. I think you can also donate them, too. "sell" on the other hand, makes an inherent value for something which would commoditize it, making a possible black market, which I believe might already exist in some countries. To be fair, you -can- voluntarily do those things (sterilize/amputate), however I am not confident you would want to do it yourself for the entirety of the procedure. It gets messy, and I would prefer a surgeon.

But aside from it's weak legal enforcement all of our rights are curtailed when the resulting action does harm to human life or property. Abortion would be no different. Electing the right to life to trump other rights.

So, according to you, the right to life is trumped when the rights of another to live are in jeopardy. This means you, logically, advocate for mandatory donations of organ tissue, blood, bone marrow, etc. The right to some one's life, after all, trumps the rights of another.

It's better to throw away a dead body than it is to throw our garbage.



But you haven't addressed the logical and factual result from legal abortions. Namely the steady decline in a countries population and culture.

I wasn't aware the decline in population was a problem. Culture, on the other hand, please help me out on how the 2 are connected. (abortion and the decline in culture).



If you had read my post I gave you enough info to search what impact legalized abortion has had on Russia and Denmark and the trends there are prevalent in every place that has elected to legalize abortion. Decline in population, loss of culture, easy sex trafficking of women, easier to cover up familial incest.

Or my'points about applying legal protection until certain developmental stages are reached is subject. In other countries leading to the marginilization of children.

If we don't put life first Death is the inevitable end.

Death is inevitable anyways. Not saying that as a critique of your position, just calling a spade a garden too

I was speaking about societies. Though death is inevitable it can be deterred with smart decisions. A society has an innate incentive and goal to continue it's existence while protecting the rights of it's citizen's. And no matter what right we have when it causes harm and death to another life our right is restricted.

So logically, socially, and morally legal abortion is a bane and death cult.

It was pushed by Big pharmaceutical in an attempt to harvest stem cells. Because a woman's womb is the only place humans can be grown.

Abortion was started by racist in attempt to weed society of undesirables. Abortions detriment on the black population is well covered up.


I opined in a separate thread exactly what bodily autonomy means through odd example.

If a woman gets pregnant and has abortions, we restrict her right to abortions and force her to reproduce by legislation. I have a better idea: if the pattern is unsafe sex, and bodily autonomy/the protection of life is the goal: sterilize (mandatory) the father. The reason why there is a host of "unsafe sex" is because only one gender has literal skin in the game: not males. The problem of unwanted pregnancy is that its divorced from a gender, but that gender still gets to make rules. If males were forced to undergo some physical consequences to their irresponsible sex, how many unwanted pregnancies would result?

Argument based in fantasy, and if sex still felt good THERE WOULD STILL BE unwanted pregnancies EVEN IF MEN COULD carry babies. This idea is immature sexist and stupid. If men had to carry babies half the time there still would be men and women performing unsafe sex and getting pregnant. Because sex feels good and is too often the goal of many people. The thought that men don't have a say in how society should be ran because they don't suffer consequences is sexist. And ignores the fact that men have committed suicide over having no voice in child bearing.

Women tend have more control in who they have sex with then men.

Accept how nature works. Society wants to promote and defend human life then it should ban abortion. It was 2 people who chose to perform actions that resulted in the UN-concenting acquisition of a human life. The one who has the least say in this whole mess is the fetal human being.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 2:08:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

You can legally sell your blood, and other fluids. I think you can also donate them, too. "sell" on the other hand, makes an inherent value for something which would commoditize it, making a possible black market, which I believe might already exist in some countries. To be fair, you -can- voluntarily do those things (sterilize/amputate), however I am not confident you would want to do it yourself for the entirety of the procedure. It gets messy, and I would prefer a surgeon.

But aside from it's weak legal enforcement all of our rights are curtailed when the resulting action does harm to human life or property. Abortion would be no different. Electing the right to life to trump other rights.

So, according to you, the right to life is trumped when the rights of another to live are in jeopardy. This means you, logically, advocate for mandatory donations of organ tissue, blood, bone marrow, etc. The right to some one's life, after all, trumps the rights of another.

It's better to throw away a dead body than it is to throw our garbage.

I wasn't referring to the dead. I mean some one has leukemia. Mandatory tissue samples are to be taken to save this person's life from any and all potential sources. Their right to life trumps the choices of others. This is your argument in a nut shell.



But you haven't addressed the logical and factual result from legal abortions. Namely the steady decline in a countries population and culture.

I wasn't aware the decline in population was a problem. Culture, on the other hand, please help me out on how the 2 are connected. (abortion and the decline in culture).



If you had read my post I gave you enough info to search what impact legalized abortion has had on Russia and Denmark and the trends there are prevalent in every place that has elected to legalize abortion. Decline in population, loss of culture, easy sex trafficking of women, easier to cover up familial incest.

Decline in population and subsequent culture loss could easily stem from the fact people are not having children they are not yet financially prepared to undertake. This is the dichotomy in which abortion works, politically. The child is force-birthed, then abandon by the system. Should the mother keep it, and take government subsidy, they are then labeled as leeches and irresponsible by the same system that took away potential options. In the mean time, the man is still scott free in this.

Or my'points about applying legal protection until certain developmental stages are reached is subject. In other countries leading to the marginilization of children.

If we don't put life first Death is the inevitable end.

Death is inevitable anyways. Not saying that as a critique of your position, just calling a spade a garden too

I was speaking about societies. Though death is inevitable it can be deterred with smart decisions.

Delayed, not deterred, and what constitutes a "smart decision" seems to depend on what side of the voting aisle you are on.

A society has an innate incentive and goal to continue it's existence while protecting the rights of it's citizen's. And no matter what right we have when it causes harm and death to another life our right is restricted.

So then yes, mandatory tissue and sampling and harvesting is very much a prospect.

So logically, socially, and morally legal abortion is a bane and death cult.

Or its a responsible choice for those who deem themselves unable or unwilling to bear a financial cost of a child, nor do they want to pass that responsibility to the state.

It was pushed by Big pharmaceutical in an attempt to harvest stem cells. Because a woman's womb is the only place humans can be grown.

Abortion was started by racist in attempt to weed society of undesirables. Abortions detriment on the black population is well covered up.

And which end of the spectrum did the multi-baby-having-big-gubmint will cut me a check caricature come from? Ironically, the one that insists on forcing the multi-baby issue.


I opined in a separate thread exactly what bodily autonomy means through odd example.

If a woman gets pregnant and has abortions, we restrict her right to abortions and force her to reproduce by legislation. I have a better idea: if the pattern is unsafe sex, and bodily autonomy/the protection of life is the goal: sterilize (mandatory) the father. The reason why there is a host of "unsafe sex" is because only one gender has literal skin in the game: not males. The problem of unwanted pregnancy is that its divorced from a gender, but that gender still gets to make rules. If males were forced to undergo some physical consequences to their irresponsible sex, how many unwanted pregnancies would result?

Argument based in fantasy, and if sex still felt good THERE WOULD STILL BE unwanted pregnancies EVEN IF MEN COULD carry babies.

No, I assure you, mandatory male vasectomies could be accomplished, especially if you are advocating female mandatory carrying to term. How is such a fantasy but forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child isn't? You don't think that has a bit of sexist bias to it?

Welcome to "consequence". How fantastic does it sound now that its something that could directly effect males?

The thought that men don't have a say in how society should be ran because they don't suffer consequences is sexist.

But legislating only female reproductive capability isn't? Mm, sorry, I don't think you fully have a grasp of "Sexist" in this scenario.

Women tend have more control in who they have sex with then men.

In looking back at your previous 'what sexist is' charge, that is pretty ludicrous. Men have as much control as women do. Is what you are really meaning is that women don't always have to settle when it comes to whom they are looking for regarding sex partners. Men will, however still hold the same degree of choice about the act.

Accept how nature works. Society wants to promote and defend human life then it should ban abortion.

And promote mandatory/involuntary vasectomy. Responsibility swings both ways. If we are going to attest that women MUST carry to term, then we must just as equally assign responsibility to the other party in the irresponsible act.

Or are you still confused as to what 'sexist' is in this scenario?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Devilry
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 2:12:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"My body, my choice."

Response: "OK, guess I shouldn't be forced to pay child support then? You know, in the interest of not imposing upon each other with our bodies."

GG, feminism debunked.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 3:18:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/4/2015 2:08:29 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

You can legally sell your blood, and other fluids. I think you can also donate them, too. "sell" on the other hand, makes an inherent value for something which would commoditize it, making a possible black market, which I believe might already exist in some countries. To be fair, you -can- voluntarily do those things (sterilize/amputate), however I am not confident you would want to do it yourself for the entirety of the procedure. It gets messy, and I would prefer a surgeon.

But aside from it's weak legal enforcement all of our rights are curtailed when the resulting action does harm to human life or property. Abortion would be no different. Electing the right to life to trump other rights.

So, according to you, the right to life is trumped when the rights of another to live are in jeopardy. This means you, logically, advocate for mandatory donations of organ tissue, blood, bone marrow, etc. The right to some one's life, after all, trumps the rights of another.

It's better to throw away a dead body than it is to throw our garbage.

I wasn't referring to the dead. I mean some one has leukemia. Mandatory tissue samples are to be taken to save this person's life from any and all potential sources. Their right to life trumps the choices of others. This is your argument in a nut shell.

No. That's not my argument.

The right to life of ANOTHER trumps a person's rights. This is true for almost all of the other infringements upon our freedoms.




But you haven't addressed the logical and factual result from legal abortions. Namely the steady decline in a countries population and culture.

I wasn't aware the decline in population was a problem. Culture, on the other hand, please help me out on how the 2 are connected. (abortion and the decline in culture).



If you had read my post I gave you enough info to search what impact legalized abortion has had on Russia and Denmark and the trends there are prevalent in every place that has elected to legalize abortion. Decline in population, loss of culture, easy sex trafficking of women, easier to cover up familial incest.

Decline in population and subsequent culture loss could easily stem from the fact people are not having children they are not yet financially prepared to undertake. This is the dichotomy in which abortion works, politically. The child is force-birthed, then abandon by the system. Should the mother keep it, and take government subsidy, they are then labeled as leeches and irresponsible by the same system that took away potential options. In the mean time, the man is still scott free in this.

The man is not scott free. Can we discuss reality. The reality is the woman has the legal choice to kill a life or to keep it. If she choices to keep it then the man is forced by state and national systems to forfeit half his pay. Seems like the man and the fetus are the last ones who are scott free.

Decline is births and eventual decline in culture and population is because people are electing to kill fetus before they can be born. Unwanted pregnancy does not equal inability to care for child, nor does it equate to being on welfare.


Or my'points about applying legal protection until certain developmental stages are reached is subject. In other countries leading to the marginilization of children.

If we don't put life first Death is the inevitable end.

Death is inevitable anyways. Not saying that as a critique of your position, just calling a spade a garden too

I was speaking about societies. Though death is inevitable it can be deterred with smart decisions.

Delayed, not deterred, and what constitutes a "smart decision" seems to depend on what side of the voting aisle you are on.

No I would say a smart decision is too look at the logical conclusion and history. What happens in societies where abortion is legalized? populations dwindle, Minorities are decreased, sex trafficking prostitution are easier, incest is harder to catch.

See those are actually what we call facts. and historical trends. So a smart decisions would be looking at the consequences of legalized abortion and agreeing they are bad and should be avoided by superior societies that place life, liberty, and labor above death and decline.


A society has an innate incentive and goal to continue it's existence while protecting the rights of it's citizen's. And no matter what right we have when it causes harm and death to another life our right is restricted.

So then yes, mandatory tissue and sampling and harvesting is very much a prospect.


So logically, socially, and morally legal abortion is a bane and death cult.

Or its a responsible choice for those who deem themselves unable or unwilling to bear a financial cost of a child, nor do they want to pass that responsibility to the state.

It was pushed by Big pharmaceutical in an attempt to harvest stem cells. Because a woman's womb is the only place humans can be grown.

Abortion was started by racist in attempt to weed society of undesirables. Abortions detriment on the black population is well covered up.

And which end of the spectrum did the multi-baby-having-big-gubmint will cut me a check caricature come from? Ironically, the one that insists on forcing the multi-baby issue.


I opined in a separate thread exactly what bodily autonomy means through odd example.

If a woman gets pregnant and has abortions, we restrict her right to abortions and force her to reproduce by legislation. I have a better idea: if the pattern is unsafe sex, and bodily autonomy/the protection of life is the goal: sterilize (mandatory) the father. The reason why there is a host of "unsafe sex" is because only one gender has literal skin in the game: not males. The problem of unwanted pregnancy is that its divorced from a gender, but that gender still gets to make rules. If males were forced to undergo some physical consequences to their irresponsible sex, how many unwanted pregnancies would result?

Argument based in fantasy, and if sex still felt good THERE WOULD STILL BE unwanted pregnancies EVEN IF MEN COULD carry babies.

No, I assure you, mandatory male vasectomies could be accomplished, especially if you are advocating female mandatory carrying to term. How is such a fantasy but forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child isn't? You don't think that has a bit of sexist bias to it?

Welcome to "consequence". How fantastic does it sound now that its something that could directly effect males?

The thought that men don't have a say in how society should be ran because they don't suffer consequences is sexist.

But legislating only female reproductive capability isn't? Mm, sorry, I don't think you fully have a grasp of "Sexist" in this scenario.


Women tend have more control in who they have sex with then men.

In looking back at your previous 'what sexist is' charge, that is pretty ludicrous. Men have as much control as women do. Is what you are really meaning is that women don't always have to settle when it comes to whom they are looking for regarding sex partners. Men will, however still hold the same degree of choice about the act.

Accept how nature works. Society wants to promote and defend human life then it should ban abortion.

And promote mandatory/involuntary vasectomy. Responsibility swings both ways. If we are going to attest that women MUST carry to term, then we must just as equally assign responsibility to the other party in the irresponsible act.

Or are you still confused as to what 'sexist' is in this scenario?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 3:27:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You ... nd I would prefer a surgeon.

But aside from it's weak legal enforcement all of our rights are curtailed when the resulting action does harm to human life or property. Abortion would be no different. Electing the right to life to trump other rights.

So, according to you, the right to life is trumped when the rights of another to live are in jeopardy. This means you, logically, advocate for mandatory donations of organ tissue, blood, bone marrow, etc. The right to some one's life, after all, trumps the rights of another.

It's better to throw away a dead body than it is to throw our garbage.

I wasn't referring to the dead. I mean some one has leukemia. Mandatory tissue samples are to be taken to save this person's life from any and all potential sources. Their right to life trumps the choices of others. This is your argument in a nut shell.

No. That's not my argument.

The right to life of ANOTHER trumps a person's rights.

I know! The right to life of the person with leukemia trumps another's! Take mandatory samples from the populace: that patients right to life over-rides all others.




But you haven't addressed the logical and factual result from legal abortions. Namely the steady decline in a countries population and culture.

I wasn't aware the decline in population was a problem. Culture, on the other hand, please help me out on how the 2 are connected. (abortion and the decline in culture).



If you had read my post I gave you enough info to search what impact legalized abortion has had on Russia and Denmark and the trends there are prevalent in every place that has elected to legalize abortion. Decline in population, loss of culture, easy sex trafficking of women, easier to cover up familial incest.

Decline in population and subsequent culture loss could easily stem from the fact people are not having children they are not yet financially prepared to undertake. This is the dichotomy in which abortion works, politically. The child is force-birthed, then abandon by the system. Should the mother keep it, and take government subsidy, they are then labeled as leeches and irresponsible by the same system that took away potential options. In the mean time, the man is still scott free in this.

The man is not scott free. Can we discuss reality. The reality is the woman has the legal choice to kill a life or to keep it. If she choices to keep it then the man is forced by state and national systems to forfeit half his pay. Seems like the man and the fetus are the last ones who are scott free.

And if the man has no resources... then what? We don't have debtor's prisons.

Decline is births and eventual decline in culture and population is because people are electing to kill fetus before they can be born. Unwanted pregnancy does not equal inability to care for child, nor does it equate to being on welfare.

And yet current models of statistics bear that out.



I was speaking about societies. Though death is inevitable it can be deterred with smart decisions.

Delayed, not deterred, and what constitutes a "smart decision" seems to depend on what side of the voting aisle you are on.

No I would say a smart decision is too look at the logical conclusion and history. What happens in societies where abortion is legalized? populations dwindle, Minorities are decreased, sex trafficking prostitution are easier, incest is harder to catch.

See those are actually what we call facts. and historical trends. So a smart decisions would be looking at the consequences of legalized abortion and agreeing they are bad and should be avoided by superior societies that place life, liberty, and labor above death and decline.

Cite your sources, please.


A society has an innate incentive and goal to continue it's existence while protecting the rights of it's citizen's. And no matter what right we have when it causes harm and death to another life our right is restricted.

So then yes, mandatory tissue and sampling and harvesting is very much a prospect.


So logically, socially, and morally legal abortion is a bane and death cult.

Or its a responsible choice for those who deem themselves unable or unwilling to bear a financial cost of a child, nor do they want to pass that responsibility to the state.

It was pushed by Big pharmaceutical in an attempt to harvest stem cells. Because a woman's womb is the only place humans can be grown.

Abortion was started by racist in attempt to weed society of undesirables. Abortions detriment on the black population is well covered up.

And which end of the spectrum did the multi-baby-having-big-gubmint will cut me a check caricature come from? Ironically, the one that insists on forcing the multi-baby issue.


I opined in a separate thread exactly what bodily autonomy means through odd example.

If a woman gets pregnant and has abortions, we restrict her right to abortions and force her to reproduce by legislation. I have a better idea: if the pattern is unsafe sex, and bodily autonomy/the protection of life is the goal: sterilize (mandatory) the father. The reason why there is a host of "unsafe sex" is because only one gender has literal skin in the game: not males. The problem of unwanted pregnancy is that its divorced from a gender, but that gender still gets to make rules. If males were forced to undergo some physical consequences to their irresponsible sex, how many unwanted pregnancies would result?

Argument based in fantasy, and if sex still felt good THERE WOULD STILL BE unwanted pregnancies EVEN IF MEN COULD carry babies.

No, I assure you, mandatory male vasectomies could be accomplished, especially if you are advocating female mandatory carrying to term. How is such a fantasy but forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child isn't? You don't think that has a bit of sexist bias to it?

Welcome to "consequence". How fantastic does it sound now that its something that could directly effect males?

The thought that men don't have a say in how society should be ran because they don't suffer consequences is sexist.

But legislating only female reproductive capability isn't? Mm, sorry, I don't think you fully have a grasp of "Sexist" in this scenario.


Women tend have more control in who they have sex with then men.

In looking back at your previous 'what sexist is' charge, that is pretty ludicrous. Men have as much control as women do. Is what you are really meaning is that women don't always have to settle when it comes to whom they are looking for regarding sex partners. Men will, however still hold the same degree of choice about the act.

Accept how nature works. Society wants to promote and defend human life then it should ban abortion.

And promote mandatory/involuntary vasectomy. Responsibility swings both ways. If we are going to attest that women MUST carry to term, then we must just as equally assign responsibility to the other part
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 4:42:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/4/2015 3:27:03 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
You ... nd I would prefer a surgeon.

But aside from it's weak legal enforcement all of our rights are curtailed when the resulting action does harm to human life or property. Abortion would be no different. Electing the right to life to trump other rights.

So, according to you, the right to life is trumped when the rights of another to live are in jeopardy. This means you, logically, advocate for mandatory donations of organ tissue, blood, bone marrow, etc. The right to some one's life, after all, trumps the rights of another.

It's better to throw away a dead body than it is to throw our garbage.

I wasn't referring to the dead. I mean some one has leukemia. Mandatory tissue samples are to be taken to save this person's life from any and all potential sources. Their right to life trumps the choices of others. This is your argument in a nut shell.

No. That's not my argument.

The right to life of ANOTHER trumps a person's rights.

I know! The right to life of the person with leukemia trumps another's! Take mandatory samples from the populace: that patients right to life over-rides all others.

I'm suggesting those culpable don't get to inflict harm and death on others to bypass the consequences of their choices.

Your scenario of mandatory donation of fluids fro a sick person is in the realm of charity.

While the scenario of abortion has to do with a moral responsibility to safe guard life that was put into the position (the womb) by the choices of others (parents).

The population didn't do anything to make a person sick and therefore not responsible for sacrificing to save them.

I should have been more elaborate in my remark but i am trying to keep it simple for you.

THE logical conclusion and historical effects of legal abortion are decline in birth rates and death of culture and country. Easier sex trafficking of women and children, Easier incest.

Planned parent hood was created by a woman with the intent of genetically cleaning the human race. By limiting the births in any way possible of anyone non-white, non-intelligent, and non-secular.