Comments by "Z P" (@zachman5150) on "Is Abortion Murder? | Middle Ground" video.
-
192
-
96
-
82
-
64
-
64
-
58
-
53
-
49
-
38
-
38
-
36
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Birdiee93x Well, being that r@pe and incest only account for 1% of cases, some perspective is required to address the talking point.
On that issue, I would point out that terminating that pregnancy doesn't undo the trauma caused by an attacker.
I would also point out that terminating the life of an innocent child doesn't put aside a woman's trauma; It adds to it, an additional victim and the additional potential trauma of the ab0rti0n, experienced by women in significant numbers.
Also, the value of the innocent resulting child in the womb, isn't diminished because one or both of their parents were bad.
I'm under no delusion that there is a potential for a meeting of the minds, when it comes to philosophical issues about morality, such as issues like these-- which separate those who value life as something bigger than just an opportunity for self-gratification-- from those, who just don't.
Women are not forced to have unprotected sex, so if you want to chase pleasure, you have to bear responsibility for the possible outcomes. No innocent life should face termination because of the lack of responsibility among adults.
The 'Pro'-choice you're in favor of maintaining-- is the ability to terminate the child in the womb, in the name of convenience and it's shameful.
The morals and ethics of those who would declare the unborn to be disposable-- in the name of convenience, are questionable-- at Best, and are those of narcissists and sociopaths.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@elisen838 I'll try to break it down for you... Life is valuable, not disposable, and advocating in favor of terminating children is devoid of virtue, honor, and morality.
Well, being that r@pe and incest only account for 1% of cases, some perspective is required to address the talking point.
On that issue, I would point out that terminating that pregnancy doesn't undo the trauma caused by an attacker.
I would also point out that terminating the life of an innocent child doesn't put aside a woman's trauma; It adds to it, an additional victim and the additional potential trauma of the ab0rti0n, experienced by women in significant numbers.
Also, the value of the innocent resulting child in the womb, isn't diminished because one or both of their parents were bad.
I'm under no delusion that there is a potential for a meeting of the minds, when it comes to philosophical issues about morality, such as issues like these-- which separate those who value life as something bigger than just an opportunity for self-gratification-- from those, who just don't.
Women are not forced to have unprotected sex, so if you want to chase pleasure, you have to bear responsibility for the possible outcomes. No innocent life should face termination because of the lack of responsibility among adults.
The 'Pro'-choice you're in favor of maintaining-- is the ability to terminate the child in the womb, in the name of convenience and it's shameful.
The morals and ethics of those who would declare the unborn to be disposable-- in the name of convenience, are questionable-- at Best, and are those of narcissists and sociopaths.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mariec7352 The 'because you said so' standard has been issued exactly ZERO credibility.
When asked by HK 4lyfe if you believe all life is valuable -- you said, "All human life? Definitely not. Lol. Have you seen the world lately? I think it's only valuable if we make it just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of than we do to simply enforce more births, which we do not."
No worries. I don't expect you to admit to the truth, as you've lied about things I've said many many times, and the comments are all there to validate what I'm saying.
I mean it isn't as if you haven't proven that you argue and agitate at every opportunity for sport, while disingenuously engaging in what I'd compare to a phone scammer's ethics, with a politician's evasiveness, failing to ever directly answer a question honestly.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just pointing out the incoherent things you've said-- and you are desperate to avoid it-- The truth is not subject to your admission, nor your denial.
You writing that not all lives are valuable, qualifying-- "just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of" (in other words) unless they are sufficiently charitable to a level of your satisfaction, is patently absurd and the amount of ego behind that is unreal. Your narcissism is off-the-hook.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, being that r@pe and incest only account for 1% of cases, some perspective is required to address the talking point.
On that issue, I would point out that terminating that pregnancy doesn't undo the trauma caused by an attacker. I would also point out that terminating the life of an innocent child doesn't put aside a woman's trauma; It adds to it, an additional victim and the additional potential trauma of the ab0rti0n, experienced by women in significant numbers.
Also, the value of the innocent resulting child in the womb, isn't diminished because one or both of their parents were bad.
I'm under no delusion that there is a potential for a meeting of the minds, when it comes to philosophical issues about morality, such as issues like these-- which separate those who value life as something bigger than just an opportunity for self-gratification-- from those, who just don't.
Women are not forced to have unprotected sex, so if you want to chase pleasure, you have to bear responsibility for the possible outcomes. No innocent life should face termination because of the lack of responsibility among adults.
2
-
2
-
2
-
The child which is in the womb, is there because the mother facilitated herself becoming pregnant, when choosing to risk an unwanted pregnancy, by engaging in the one and only act which causes her totally avoidable, self-inflicted dilemma.
How smart is that? I can name that tune in no notes (Not at all smart)
Women are not forced to have unprotected sex, so if you want to chase pleasure and take that stance, that men should have no opinion or say--, Then YOU have to bear responsibility for the possible outcomes, and should probably QUIT trying to blame men for your self-inflicted dilemmas and own it.
No innocent life should face termination because of the lack of responsibility among adults.
The 'Pro'-choice you're in favor of maintaining-- is the ability to terminate the child in the womb, in the name of convenience and it's shameful.
The morals and ethics of those who would declare the unborn to be disposable-- in the name of convenience, are questionable-- at Best, and are those of narcissists and sociopaths.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jay-jaya-02 Not all cultures are Equal, Compatible, nor Desirable... that's why sovereign nations have borders.
You sure are doing a lot of mental gymnastics to ignore the fact that the child which is in the womb, is there because the mother facilitated herself becoming pregnant, when choosing to risk an unwanted pregnancy, by engaging in the one and only act which causes her totally avoidable, self-inflicted dilemma.
It is a living, developing human-- unlike a bacteria, so you're still failing to justify terminating the life of the innocent.
Innocent baby's shouldn't be terminated because adults can't act responsibly.
So, again-- I'll ask you, How do you propose to save people from the consequences of their own actions, or have them choose to make intelligent choices, and elevate their character to more than one of a mere base animal, fixated on it's own self-gratification regardless of consequences?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mariec7352 If a mother's life is in imminent peril and nothing is done, she and the fetus/baby perish-- as it cannot survive at the 20 week +/- marker, outside of the mother-- for the VAST majority-- when those decisions typically required to be made, and so seems to be in a not dissimilar category as suffering a miscarriage, as it goes to the fate of the unborn's termination. How is it not?
Why do you appear to have a problem with women being able to save their lives?
Looks like it Sucks to be you.
Once again, you didn't comprehend a single response given.
If you don't care about a woman's culpability in preventing her own unwanted pregnancy, why and how does, as you've done continually-- pointing to a man's contribution matter? It's not like she could get pregnant, if she didn't facilitate and enable her own risk factors and ensuing dilemma.
What do you think she needs to figure out, that millions of other women seem to have figured out-- related to avoiding their unwanted pregnancy's?
Why does personal accountability and responsibility appear to trigger a response from you that looks like desperation, as you try to reassign blame and avoid a woman's personal accountability at any cost, in her role of facilitating her unwanted pregnancy?
You've failed to explain your thoughts adequately.
How do you continually fail to account for those facts and factor them into your analysis and conclusions?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@vorpal22 Stop your whining. You required quite a bit of prodding, to begin to have a meaningful dialogue. I mean it isn't as if the comments are invisible. They're all still there.
BTW, yes, biologically it takes 2, however; Women ARE to blame for their unwanted pregnancy, that they facilitate, since they 're the only ones who can guarantee the possibility or prevent it (Obviously not discussing an assault, since they're not facilitating it by granting access).
The problem you have with your virtue signaling is the total absence of any actual 'Virtue' in any of your diatribe or unhinged whinging.
Women are the gatekeepers of their own status, and are in charge of choosing to risk pregnancy when they're granting men access, and when they do-- they have no one but themselves to blame.
Deal with it.
You've refuted nothing whatsoever. The topic is after all, women's unwanted pregnancy, not men's unwanted pregnancy-- since men don't risk getting themselves pregnant, women clearly have a different set of priorities and risks to contend with than men do regarding the consequences of their actions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mariec7352 When asked by HK 4lyfe if you believe all life is valuable -- you said, "All human life? Definitely not. Lol. Have you seen the world lately? I think it's only valuable if we make it just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of than we do to simply enforce more births, which we do not."
No worries. I don't expect you to admit to the truth, as you've lied about things I've said many many times, and the comments are all there to validate what I'm saying.
I mean it isn't as if you haven't proven that you argue and agitate at every opportunity for sport, while disingenuously engaging in what I'd compare to a phone scammer's ethics, with a politician's evasiveness, failing to ever directly answer a question honestly.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just pointing out the incoherent things you've said-- and you are desperate to avoid it-- The truth is not subject to your admission, nor your denial.
You writing that not all lives are valuable, qualifying-- "just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of" (in other words) unless they are sufficiently charitable to a level of your satisfaction, is patently absurd and the amount of ego behind that is unreal. Your narcissism is off-the-hook.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mariec3733 I did. Your comprehension deficit is all you. I told you, "All women already have body autonomy. They can choose to risk compromising it with a pregnancy for the duration of their gestation period, if they choose-- or not to risk it, if they're not prepared to have a family--
They can also certainly choose not to risk their body autonomy with a pregnancy, as well. At no point prior to conception (barring a rape, for obvious reasons) is a woman unable to choose not to risk her body becoming pregnant.
A criminal attacker takes a woman's choice away, but I asked-- and you never answered, regarding the treatment protocol for rape, including a morning after pill to prevent the pregnancy. My question to you is, and you have never bothered to answer: Is the child's life less valuable if one or both of their parents is bad? I don't think so
Choice is for prior to conception, because after-- come known consequences."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
People opposing the termination of children, in the name of convenience are weird to you? THAT is weird to me.
The child which is in the womb is there because the mother facilitated herself becoming pregnant, when choosing to risk an unwanted pregnancy, by engaging in the one and only act which causes her avoidable dilemma.
It is a living, developing human-- unlike a bacteria, so you fail to justify terminating the life of the innocent.
How do you propose to save people from the consequences of their own actions, or have them choose to make intelligent choices, and elevate their character to more than one driven like a mere base animal, fixated on it's own self-gratification regardless of consequences?
Innocent baby's shouldn't be terminated because adults can't act responsibly.
You don’t want a baby, use a condom or take the pill, Or keep your legs together.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@isabellejarman6475 Well, there are 3 medical procedures for removing an ectopic pregnancy.
The relevant nuance that appears to elude you is, No matter what is done, there is no chance of survival for the embryo, but without treatment, the mother’s life is at great risk; currently, there is no alternative procedure that can save the embryo, even if nothing is done.”
Salpingectomy, Salpingostomy, and Methotrexate. None are called "ab0rtion", I hope that helps clarify it for you.
By the way, a fetus is a different developmental stage than an embryo. Just to be clear
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@freedommatters7677 I was merely riffing with the metaphor.
1. The mother was alive, prior to the pregnancy, and her actions caused the pregnancy ie. she put the child in there.
2. A pregnant woman does indeed, house her developing child during gestation, obviously.
3. The woman who chose to risk pregnancy, and achieved it-- created another life using her own organs to do so
4. A fetus being in a woman's body, is there because her actions and consent to risk it, facilitated the entire scenario and started the process.
5. When a woman goes into labor, it's not a matter of her choosing when the time comes-- it comes in it's own time (barring induced labor-- obviously)
6. Not when you agreed to baby sit for a newborn
7. Not when they're a baby
8. There is no case, where a woman facilitated the pregnancy with her own actions, where they aren't inviting a risk.
8b. If the mother's life is in peril is the exception to the rule
All abortions have one goal-- to terminate the life of an innocent
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mariec7352 Did I quote you? Answer: No... You obviously assign life value at some point, as you're desperate to argue about women having a choice to terminate their unborn in the womb, in the name of the value of their lives.
You've also argued about the potential negative quality of life to be for the unborn, as an attempt to justify a woman' arbitrary decision to terminate the life of her offspring in the womb.
So why such a desperate dodge?
Don't value innocent life "Either"? Either??? So, an admission that you don't value innocent life?
There's a notable difference between advocating 'For' something vs not opposing it.
If a mother's life is in imminent peril and nothing is done, she and the fetus/baby perish-- as it cannot survive at the 20 week +/- marker, outside of the mother-- for the VAST majority-- when those decisions typically required to be made, and so seems to be in a not dissimilar category as suffering a miscarriage, as it goes to the fate of the unborn's termination. How is it not?
Why do you appear to have a problem with women being able to save their lives?
Looks like it Sucks to be you.
Once again, you didn't comprehend a single response given.
If you don't care about a woman's culpability in preventing her own unwanted pregnancy, why and how does, as you've done continually-- pointing to a man's contribution matter? It's not like she could get pregnant, if she didn't facilitate and enable her own risk factors and ensuing dilemma.
What do you think she needs to figure out, that millions of other women seem to have figured out-- related to avoiding their unwanted pregnancy's?
Why does personal accountability and responsibility appear to trigger a response from you that looks like desperation, as you try to reassign blame and avoid a woman's personal accountability at any cost, in her role of facilitating her unwanted pregnancy?
You've failed to explain your thoughts adequately.
How do you continually fail to account for those facts and factor them into your analysis and conclusions?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mariec7352 Your strawman argument doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Their choice would've been to not be assaulted. Duh-- Obviously they're not choosing to risk pregnancy. How does that elude you? I was discussing the choices to risk unwanted pregnancy, and assault victims are by default not included as their choice was taken from them. So-- knock it off, with your intentionally obtuse strawman arguments.
You, shifting focus away from the majority of cases, to the 1%-- as though they're interchangeable is disingenuous at best-- and wavering back and forth in an effort to avoid the truth isn't winning you any points; It is diminishing the potential for you to establish what is currently a non-existent credibility rating even further.
The resulting new human life that results from conception, isn't disposable because they were the result of an attack, or because of a poor choice by a woman risking an unwanted pregnancy, or by the failure of preventative birth control, because life is valuable. That's my pov.
You've already admitted that you don't think life is valuable, and won't-- until your level of acceptable lifestyle and comfort are 1st established. I don't believe that your version of Utopia is even remotely possible.
I know it's difficult for you, but try to discern the difference between avoiding an unwanted pregnancy and avoiding sex. They're not mutually exclusive of one another.
Use your imagination (Giving you the benefit of the doubt here)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mariec3733 Ya, my question is, "How is it anyone else, beside the woman herself's responsibility, to avoid facilitating her own unwanted pregnancy???"
Your reply: Irrelevant chatter, not answering anything. Shocker /S
You have no answer
The Answer: It is Not anyone but a woman's responsibility to herself, to maintain her preferred status (pregnant, or Not). Obviously
I'm under no delusion that there is a potential for a meeting of the minds, when it comes to philosophical issues about morality, such as issues like these which separate those who value life as something bigger than just an opportunity for self-gratification-- from those like you, who just don't.
Besides, you said you were done wasting my time.
You tend to deflect and start talking about assaults resulting in conception, and it bears repeating, since you don't seem to get it, "Your strawman argument doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Their choice would've been to not be assaulted. Duh-- Obviously they're not choosing to risk pregnancy. How does that elude you? I was discussing the choices to risk unwanted pregnancy, and assault victims are by default not included as their choice was taken from them. So-- knock it off, with your intentionally obtuse strawman arguments.
You, shifting focus away from the majority of cases, to the 1%-- as though they're interchangeable is disingenuous at best-- and wavering back and forth in an effort to avoid the truth isn't winning you any points; It is diminishing the potential for you to establish what is currently a non-existent credibility rating even further.
The resulting new human life that results from conception, isn't disposable because they were the result of an attack, or because of a poor choice by a woman risking an unwanted pregnancy, or by the failure of preventative birth control, because life is valuable. That's my pov.
You've already admitted that you don't think life is valuable, and won't-- until your level of acceptable lifestyle and comfort are 1st established. I don't believe that your version of Utopia is even remotely possible.
I know it's difficult for you, but try to discern the difference between avoiding an unwanted pregnancy and avoiding sex. They're not mutually exclusive of one another.
Use your imagination (Giving you the benefit of the doubt here)"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheLegendOfRandy You said, "You know what other pregnancies are non-viable? Every single pregnancy prior to 24 weeks of gestation."
Think deeper thoughts. A single digit IQ isn't something you ought to be trying to tout as admirable, or as some sort of achievement.
If that were correct, the human race would have faded away thousands of years ago. Clearly you're Wrong, as those pregnancy's which are only 24 weeks into the gestation cycle tend to continue to develop, until the end of the gestation cycle and are birthed into the world.
BTW, Nov 11, 2021On November 10, Guinness World Records announced that an Alabama baby had become the "world's most premature baby" to survive.Curtis Means was born at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital on July 5, 2020, at just 21 weeks and one day gestation, the university said. He weighed just 420 grams (14.8 ounces) at birth, according to Guinness World Records
Sigh...
2
-
2
-
@mariec7352 The 1st sentence of your comment where you said, "What are you even talking about, by the way...? "-- was the 1st indicator that you didn't understand.
Your clearly scrambled comprehension, evidenced by the rest of your statements where you fail to discern the difference between avoiding an unwanted pregnancy, and avoiding sex is another indicator.
You assert I deny facts, and refute nothing-- Again. You still need to do much better
The fact is, terminating the innocent is not justifiable, and you still have no argument to the contrary
I don't care about your opinions, or your irrational attempts at justifying the unjustifiable.
No one is forcing people to risk unwanted pregnancy. Other than a rape scenario, which is 1% of cases-- Women are the ones who need to exercise control over their body's to prevent their own unwanted pregnancies, in the other 99% of cases.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, being that r@pe and incest only account for 1% of cases, some perspective is required to address the talking point.
On that issue, I would point out that terminating that pregnancy doesn't undo the trauma caused by an attacker. I would also point out that terminating the life of an innocent child doesn't put aside a woman's trauma; It adds to it, an additional victim and the additional potential trauma of the ab0rti0n, experienced by women in significant numbers.
Also, the value of the innocent resulting child in the womb, isn't diminished because one or both of their parents were bad.
I'm under no delusion that there is a potential for a meeting of the minds, when it comes to philosophical issues about morality, such as issues like these-- which separate those who value life as something bigger than just an opportunity for self-gratification-- from those, who just don't.
Women are not forced to have unprotected sex, so if you want to chase pleasure, you have to bear responsibility for the possible outcomes. No innocent life should face termination because of the lack of responsibility among adults.
The 'Pro'-choice you're in favor of maintaining-- is the ability to terminate the child in the womb, in the name of convenience and it's shameful.
The morals and ethics of those who would declare the unborn to be disposable-- in the name of convenience, are questionable-- at Best, and are those of narcissists and sociopaths.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariec7352 I don't expect you to admit to the truth, as you've lied about things I've said many many times, and the comments are all there to validate what I'm saying.
I mean it isn't as if you haven't proven that you argue and agitate at every opportunity for sport, while disingenuously engaging in what I'd compare to a phone scammer's ethics, with a politician's evasiveness, failing to ever directly answer a question honestly.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just pointing out the incoherent things you've said-- and you are desperate to avoid it-- The truth is not subject to your admission, nor your denial.
You writing that not all lives are valuable, qualifying-- "just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of" (in other words) unless they are sufficiently charitable to a level of your satisfaction, is patently absurd and the amount of ego behind that is unreal. Your narcissism is off-the-hook.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariec7352 When asked by HK 4lyfe if you believe all life is valuable -- you said, "All human life? Definitely not. Lol. Have you seen the world lately? I think it's only valuable if we make it just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of than we do to simply enforce more births, which we do not."
No worries. I don't expect you to admit to the truth, as you've lied about things you've said, and about things you've alleged I've said many many times, and the comments are all there to validate what I'm saying.
I mean it isn't as if you haven't proven that you argue and agitate at every opportunity for sport, while disingenuously engaging in what I'd compare to a phone scammer's ethics, with a politician's evasiveness, failing to ever directly answer a question honestly.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just pointing out the incoherent things you've said-- and you are desperate to avoid it-- The truth is not subject to your admission, nor your denial.
You writing that not all lives are valuable, qualifying-- "just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of" (in other words) unless they are sufficiently charitable to a level of your satisfaction, is patently absurd and the amount of ego behind that is unreal. Your narcissism is off-the-hook.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariec3733 Oh, the stalker troll again 🙄
1. Re-Read the 1st sentence of the OP
2. Evidence?
I don't expect you to admit to the truth, as you've lied about things I've said many many times, and the comments are all there to validate what I'm saying.
I mean it isn't as if you haven't proven that you argue and agitate at every opportunity for sport, while disingenuously engaging in what I'd compare to a phone scammer's ethics, with a politician's evasiveness, failing to ever directly answer a question honestly.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just pointing out the incoherent things you've said-- and you are desperate to avoid it-- The truth is not subject to your admission, nor your denial.
You writing that not all lives are valuable, qualifying-- "just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of" (in other words) unless they are sufficiently charitable to a level of your satisfaction, is patently absurd and the amount of ego behind that is unreal. Your narcissism is off-the-hook.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariec7352 It still applies, even if you don't get it. When asked by HK 4lyfe if you believe all life is valuable -- you said, "All human life? Definitely not. Lol. Have you seen the world lately? I think it's only valuable if we make it just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of than we do to simply enforce more births, which we do not."
No worries. I don't expect you to admit to the truth, as you've lied about things I've said many many times, and the comments are all there to validate what I'm saying.
I mean it isn't as if you haven't proven that you argue and agitate at every opportunity for sport, while disingenuously engaging in what I'd compare to a phone scammer's ethics, with a politician's evasiveness, failing to ever directly answer a question honestly.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just pointing out the incoherent things you've said-- and you are desperate to avoid it-- The truth is not subject to your admission, nor your denial.
You writing that not all lives are valuable, qualifying-- "just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of" (in other words) unless they are sufficiently charitable to a level of your satisfaction, is patently absurd and the amount of ego behind that is unreal. Your narcissism is off-the-hook, and it's why you're dismissed as less than useless.
1
-
1
-
@mariec7352 Your reply= Irrelevant chatter, and addresses nothing but your own bigotry. Shocker /S
You have no answer
The Answer: It is Not anyone but a woman's responsibility to herself, to maintain her preferred status (pregnant, or Not). Obviously
Like I said, "I'm under no delusion that there is a potential for a meeting of the minds, when it comes to philosophical issues about morality, such as issues like these which separate those who value life as something bigger than just an opportunity for self-gratification-- from those like you, who just don't."
Besides, you said you were done wasting my time.
You tend to deflect and start talking about assaults resulting in conception, and it bears repeating, since you don't seem to get it, "Your strawman argument doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Their choice would've been to not be assaulted. Duh-- Obviously they're not choosing to risk pregnancy. How does that elude you? I was discussing the choices to risk unwanted pregnancy, and assault victims are by default not included as their choice was taken from them. So-- knock it off, with your intentionally obtuse strawman arguments.
You, shifting focus away from the majority of cases, to the 1%-- as though they're interchangeable is disingenuous at best-- and wavering back and forth in an effort to avoid the truth isn't winning you any points; It is diminishing the potential for you to establish what is currently a non-existent credibility rating even further.
The resulting new human life that results from conception, isn't disposable because they were the result of an attack, or because of a poor choice by a woman risking an unwanted pregnancy, or by the failure of preventative birth control, because life is valuable. That's my pov.
You've already admitted that you don't think life is valuable, and won't-- until your level of acceptable lifestyle and comfort are 1st established. I don't believe that your version of Utopia is even remotely possible.
I know it's difficult for you, but try to discern the difference between avoiding an unwanted pregnancy and avoiding sex. They're not mutually exclusive of one another.
Use your imagination (Giving you the benefit of the doubt here)"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariec3733 That's not an answer.
Your reply= Irrelevant chatter, not answering anything. Shocker /S
You have no answer
The Answer: It is Not anyone but a woman's responsibility to herself, to maintain her preferred status (pregnant, or Not). Obviously
Like I said, "I'm under no delusion that there is a potential for a meeting of the minds, when it comes to philosophical issues about morality, such as issues like these which separate those who value life as something bigger than just an opportunity for self-gratification-- from those like you, who just don't."
Besides, you said you were done wasting my time.
You tend to deflect and start talking about assaults resulting in conception, and it bears repeating, since you don't seem to get it, "Your strawman argument doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Their choice would've been to not be assaulted. Duh-- Obviously they're not choosing to risk pregnancy. How does that elude you? I was discussing the choices to risk unwanted pregnancy, and assault victims are by default not included as their choice was taken from them. So-- knock it off, with your intentionally obtuse strawman arguments.
You, shifting focus away from the majority of cases, to the 1%-- as though they're interchangeable is disingenuous at best-- and wavering back and forth in an effort to avoid the truth isn't winning you any points; It is diminishing the potential for you to establish what is currently a non-existent credibility rating even further.
The resulting new human life that results from conception, isn't disposable because they were the result of an attack, or because of a poor choice by a woman risking an unwanted pregnancy, or by the failure of preventative birth control, because life is valuable. That's my pov.
You've already admitted that you don't think life is valuable, and won't-- until your level of acceptable lifestyle and comfort are 1st established. I don't believe that your version of Utopia is even remotely possible.
I know it's difficult for you, but try to discern the difference between avoiding an unwanted pregnancy and avoiding sex. They're not mutually exclusive of one another.
Use your imagination (Giving you the benefit of the doubt here)"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariec3733 I don't expect you to admit to the truth, as you've lied about things I've said many many times, and the comments are all there to validate what I'm saying.
I mean it isn't as if you haven't proven that you argue and agitate at every opportunity for sport, while disingenuously engaging in what I'd compare to a phone scammer's ethics, with a politician's evasiveness, failing to ever directly answer a question honestly.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just pointing out the incoherent things you've said-- and you are desperate to avoid it-- The truth is not subject to your admission, nor your denial.
You writing that not all lives are valuable, qualifying-- "just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of" (in other words) unless they are sufficiently charitable to a level of your satisfaction, is patently absurd and the amount of ego behind that is unreal. Your narcissism is off-the-hook.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheLegendOfRandy It's as though you fail to realize that my comments are actually visible.
You're exhibiting a major glitch in your comprehension capacity-- Again.
Your failed car analogy simply doesn't withstand scrutiny. I'm saying it doesn't matter if you did or not. You wreck your own car, you have no one else to blame-- similarly, the same applies to women getting pregnant, when they facilitate their avoidable dilemmas
Your capacity for misdirected, and fatally flawed analysis, leading you to intellectually bankrupt conclusions is amazing, and well documented throughout the comment section-- of you getting owned again and again, failing to justify the termination of the innocent in the womb.
Like I said, I'm not under the impression that there's a place for a meeting of the minds between those who value life, and those like you who do not, and categorize it as disposable, in the name of convenience.
The morals and ethics of those who would declare the innocent to be disposable in the name of convenience, are those of narcissists and sociopaths.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mollyvirgo4357 Autonomy definition, independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions: the autonomy of the individual. A newborn baby, an infant, toddler, or someone in a coma, a minor child, an elderly adult suffering from Alzheimer's, someone with a severe developmental disability, do not possess independence or the freedom to carry out their own will, as such, lest they present a danger to themselves and/or others
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@becky14 Well, being that r@pe and incest only account for 1% of cases, some perspective is required to address the talking point.
On that issue, I would point out that terminating that pregnancy doesn't undo the trauma caused by an attacker.
I would also point out that terminating the life of an innocent child doesn't put aside a woman's trauma; It adds to it, an additional victim and the additional potential trauma of the ab0rti0n, experienced by women in significant numbers.
Also, the value of the innocent resulting child in the womb, isn't diminished because one or both of their parents were bad.
I'm under no delusion that there is a potential for a meeting of the minds, when it comes to philosophical issues about morality, such as issues like these-- which separate those who value life as something bigger than just an opportunity for self-gratification-- from those, who just don't.
Women are not forced to have unprotected sex in the other 99% of cases, so if you want to chase pleasure, you have to bear responsibility for the possible outcomes. No innocent life should face termination because of the lack of responsibility among adults.
The 'Pro'-choice you're in favor of maintaining-- is the ability to terminate the child in the womb, in the name of convenience and it's shameful.
The morals and ethics of those who would declare the unborn to be disposable-- in the name of convenience, are questionable-- at Best, and are those of narcissists and sociopaths.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariec3733 Yes, that's exactly what you said. When asked by HK 4lyfe if you believe all life is valuable -- you said, "All human life? Definitely not. Lol. Have you seen the world lately? I think it's only valuable if we make it just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of than we do to simply enforce more births, which we do not."
No worries. I don't expect you to admit to the truth, as you've lied about things I've said many many times, and the comments are all there to validate what I'm saying.
I mean it isn't as if you haven't proven that you argue and agitate at every opportunity for sport, while disingenuously engaging in what I'd compare to a phone scammer's ethics, with a politician's evasiveness, failing to ever directly answer a question honestly.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just pointing out the incoherent things you've said-- and you are desperate to avoid it-- The truth is not subject to your admission, nor your denial.
You writing that not all lives are valuable, qualifying-- "just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of" (in other words) unless they are sufficiently charitable to a level of your satisfaction, is patently absurd and the amount of ego behind that is unreal. Your narcissism is off-the-hook.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariec3733 When asked by HK 4lyfe if you believe all life is valuable -- you said, "All human life? Definitely not. Lol. Have you seen the world lately?"
You said, "I think it's only valuable 'IF' we make it just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of than we do to simply enforce more births, which we do not"
You want fully grown and fully capable adults to first be, "Taken care of" (?), to be "Supported"(?), to be provided care for (?), to be made happy (?), and "to be taken care of" (?)-- before life is considered valuable?
How self-entitled are you? wow... And who are these people who are supposed to be the adults in your perpetual state of adolescence, providing for you? Grow Up
No worries. I don't expect you to admit to the truth, as you've lied about things you've said, and have made false allegations about things I've said-- many, many times, and the comments are all there to validate what I'm saying, So..... You're exposed as an antagonist, activist troll-- who has failed to make an argument with any integrity.
I mean it isn't as if you haven't proven that you argue and agitate at every opportunity for sport, while disingenuously engaging in what I'd compare to a phone scammer's ethics, with a politician's evasiveness, failing to ever directly answer a question honestly.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just pointing out the incoherent things you've said-- and you are desperate to avoid it-- The truth is not subject to your admission, nor your denial.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jessvalley6813 And you're incorrect. The total number of pregnancy related deaths was in 2020, there were almost 24 deaths per 100,000 births, or 861 deaths total — numbers that reflect mothers dying during pregnancy.
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.
Data for United States in 2020. Number of births: 3,613,647. Like I said, it's not only rare, it's EXTREMELY rare, meaning it's not common AT ALL.
You come across like a sociopath, driving an agenda
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariec7352 I don't expect you to admit to the truth, as you've lied about things I've said many many times, and the comments are all there to validate what I'm saying.
I mean it isn't as if you haven't proven that you argue and agitate at every opportunity for sport, while disingenuously engaging in what I'd compare to a phone scammer's ethics, with a politician's evasiveness, failing to ever directly answer a question honestly.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just pointing out the incoherent things you've said-- and you are desperate to avoid it-- The truth is not subject to your admission, nor your denial.
You writing that not all lives are valuable, qualifying-- "just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of" (in other words) unless they are sufficiently charitable to a level of your satisfaction, is patently absurd and the amount of ego behind that is unreal. Your narcissism is off-the-hook.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariec3733 When asked by HK 4lyfe if you believe all life is valuable -- you said, "All human life? Definitely not. Lol. Have you seen the world lately? I think it's only valuable if we make it just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of than we do to simply enforce more births, which we do not."
No worries. I don't expect you to admit to the truth, as you've lied about things you've said and about things you've alleged I've said many many times, and the comments are all there to validate what I'm saying.
I mean it isn't as if you haven't proven that you argue and agitate at every opportunity for sport, while disingenuously engaging in what I'd compare to a phone scammer's ethics, with a politician's evasiveness, failing to ever directly answer a question honestly.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just pointing out the incoherent things you've said-- and you are desperate to avoid it-- The truth is not subject to your admission, nor your denial.
You writing that not all lives are valuable, qualifying-- "just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of" (in other words) unless they are sufficiently charitable to a level of your satisfaction, is patently absurd and the amount of ego behind that is unreal. Your narcissism is off-the-hook.
1
-
1
-
@gabriellevitale4670 You sure are doing a lot of mental gymnastics to ignore the fact that the child which is in the womb is there because the mother facilitated herself becoming pregnant, when choosing to risk an unwanted pregnancy, by engaging in the one and only act which causes her avoidable dilemma. It is a living, developing human-- unlike a bacteria, so you fail to justify terminating the life of the innocent.
The 'Pro'-choice you're in favor of maintaining-- is the ability to terminate the child in the womb, in the name of convenience and it's shameful.
The morals and ethics of those who would declare the unborn to be disposable-- in the name of convenience, are questionable-- at Best, and are those of narcissists and sociopaths.
Women know that they are the ones who get pregnant, and can choose to risk it or not.
The smart ones tend to wait until they're ready to have and raise their own-- to conceive. What do you think they know that the others, who have difficulty with their preventative birth control, don't?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheLegendOfRandy Your analogy is flawed. You didn't, in the analogy-- "choose to get t-boned". You chose to "risk driving", KNOWING that there is a risk of an accident while driving.
That's why you have to have insurance, which first of all covers others-- in the event that the accident is YOUR fault, then you have additionally added coverage to insure yourself against irresponsible drivers, who are uninsured.
When it comes to driving. You have insurance, because you know there's risk and you already accept it, by default-- evidenced by you having insurance, and again, when you choose to drive. You KNOW there's a chance you'll get in a wreck. Does that mean you're not entitled to medical treatment in the event of a collision, of course not. Your argument is lame.
When it comes to knowing that you don't want to risk pregnancy, It's TOTALLY up to YOU whether you risk it or not. It's also up to you on how big of a risk it is, based on your precautions or lack thereof-- as the case may be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariec7352 If a mother's life is in imminent peril and nothing is done, she and the fetus/baby perish-- as it cannot survive at the 20 week +/- marker, outside of the mother-- for the VAST majority-- when those decisions typically required to be made, and so seems to be in a not dissimilar category as suffering a miscarriage, as it goes to the fate of the unborn's termination. How is it not?
Why do you appear to have a problem with women being able to save their lives?
Looks like it Sucks to be you.
Once again, you didn't comprehend a single response given.
If you don't care about a woman's culpability in preventing her own unwanted pregnancy, why and how does, as you've done continually-- pointing to a man's contribution matter? It's not like she could get pregnant, if she didn't facilitate and enable her own risk factors and ensuing dilemma.
What do you think she needs to figure out, that millions of other women seem to have figured out-- related to avoiding their unwanted pregnancy's?
Why does personal accountability and responsibility appear to trigger a response from you that looks like desperation, as you try to reassign blame and avoid a woman's personal accountability at any cost, in her role of facilitating her unwanted pregnancy?
You've failed to explain your thoughts adequately.
How do you continually fail to account for those facts and factor them into your analysis and conclusions?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariec3733 I don't expect you to admit to the truth, as you've lied about things I've said many many times, and the comments are all there to validate what I'm saying.
I mean it isn't as if you haven't proven that you argue and agitate at every opportunity for sport, while disingenuously engaging in what I'd compare to a phone scammer's ethics, with a politician's evasiveness, failing to ever directly answer a question honestly.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just pointing out the incoherent things you've said-- and you are desperate to avoid it-- The truth is not subject to your admission, nor your denial.
You writing that not all lives are valuable, qualifying-- "just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of" (in other words) unless they are sufficiently charitable to a level of your satisfaction, is patently absurd and the amount of ego behind that is unreal. Your narcissism is off-the-hook.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheLegendOfRandy Ya, that doesn't justify terminating the innocent.
Don't want to risk a pregnancy? Alright, then don't.
If women offer themselves up to men for sex, they are the catalyst for their own avoidable dilemma.
The intellectual gymnastics that you're going through to avoid recognizing the responsibly that women have for their own actions is stunning.
Women know what causes pregnancy, and have no one to blame for their unwanted pregnancy but themselves, when they facilitate the one and only act which causes their avoidable dilemma
I expect that people who aren't prepared to risk pregnancy and deal with the consequences avoid them, and for someone with some integrity to inform them that the world doesn't owe them a life, free from adversity.
Women know that they are the ones who get pregnant, and can "choose" to risk it or not.
The smart ones tend to wait until they're ready to have and raise their own-- to conceive.
What do you think they know that the others, who have difficulty with their preventative birth control, don't?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariec3733 Don't pretend that you aren't aware that I didn't mean getting themselves pregnant-- "by themselves", or that I was addressing cases of rape. Sheesh...🙄
They are the ones risking getting their body's pregnant, when they choose to engage in the one and only act which actually causes the totally avoidable unwanted pregnancy in the 1st place.
You said, not all lives are valuable since they're not making life "just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of".
Therefore, you believe that not all women's lives are valuable.
That indicates that you believe not all women would or should then necessarily be entitled to bodily autonomy considerations, since they're not making their own baby's lives (You know-- the ones they facilitated when they chose to risk pregnancy, by choosing to risk engaging in the one and only act which actually causes their unwanted pregnancies and dilemmas) "just as valuable to be supported, cared for, happy and taken care of"???
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariec7352 If a mother's life is in imminent peril and nothing is done, she and the fetus/baby perish-- as it cannot survive at the 20 week +/- marker, outside of the mother-- for the VAST majority-- when those decisions typically required to be made, and so seems to be in a not dissimilar category as suffering a miscarriage, as it goes to the fate of the unborn's termination. How is it not?
Why do you appear to have a problem with women being able to save their lives?
Looks like it Sucks to be you.
Once again, you didn't comprehend a single response given.
If you don't care about a woman's culpability in preventing her own unwanted pregnancy, why and how does, as you've done continually-- pointing to a man's contribution matter? It's not like she could get pregnant, if she didn't facilitate and enable her own risk factors and ensuing dilemma.
What do you think she needs to figure out, that millions of other women seem to have figured out-- related to avoiding their unwanted pregnancy's?
Why does personal accountability and responsibility appear to trigger a response from you that looks like desperation, as you try to reassign blame and avoid a woman's personal accountability at any cost, in her role of facilitating her unwanted pregnancy?
You've failed to explain your thoughts adequately.
How do you continually fail to account for those facts and factor them into your analysis and conclusions?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheLegendOfRandy No, that's not correct.
Don't want to get into a car accidents, So-- drive very carefully, and don't drive uninsured, because there are other motorists who are morons out there.
If you know you're a terrible driver with a horrible driving record-- you're the hazard to yourself and others
Look, the odds are-- if you go looking for trouble, you'll find it.
Naturally, if you don't want to get into a bar fight, not going to bars is the guaranteed solution to work. That doesn't mean you cannot go to a bar, but it means you know and assume the risk yourself, if you do-- does it not?
1
-
1