• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Maggie’s Motivational Pic Thread v2.0 - - New Rules - See Post #1

1549475877525.png
 

Attachments

  • 1549475635315.png
    1549475635315.png
    156.8 KB · Views: 65
Yes, it does. Thank you. I'm probably not asking the right questions though. The idea of abortion at 8.9 months really bothers me. What I am trying to wrap my head around is whether there is a point at which it is generally accepted that a fetus can survive outside the womb before birth. The idea of aborting a baby at 8.9 months bothers me much more than a woman taking a "morning after pill". I'm just not sure if science, or the courts have decided when life is sustainable (even with assistance) outside the womb.

It would seem that if a life could be sustainable outside the womb (even with assistance) allowing adoption rather than abortion might be the way to go.

I realize these are very personal matters. Another consideration I am wondering about is the rights of both the child, and the child's father. If the child could survive outside the womb at 8.9 months, I would think that the father might be granted some rights and asked if he wants custody of the baby rather than just killing it.

If someone's actions cause the accidental death of an in utero child, some states can levy charges of manslaughter. If that is true, why wouldn't that same logic be applied to aborting a fetus of the same age?

This is all inconsistent logic to my way of thinking. I think that logic should be applied consistently. However, if manslaughter charges can be pressed for the inadvertent death of a fetus, why wouldn't the deliberate death of a fetus bring the same charges?

Obviously, I have far more questions than answers. I'm not trying to challenge anyone's point of view because mine isn't totally fixed. I realize that being in favor of the death penalty should mean that I am pro choice/ pro-abortion, but I can't accept late term abortions where the fetus could live outside the womb. If the woman doesn't want the baby, I am sure there would are plenty of people who would gladly adopt the child once the hospital is ready to release it from care.
Let me see if I can answer your concerns/follow-up questions.

If a person (baby) is born prematurely at 6 months why don't we just let it die? The answer is obvious. That person, for whatever reason came out of the womb earlier than expected. In most cases the parents will want to see that premature person given the best medical care possible because they recognized the little thing to be a person.

With that in mind, now try to justify killing the same person at six months of development. The only difference is the location - inside versus outside the womb.

Let's carry this a little further. Is it right for someone or a group of people to apply an arbitrary standard on the taking of a life? Should that standard be applied at one, two, three, four, five or six months? At 8.9 months? At conception?

How does that group of people defend that arbitrary standard? Notice that I said "arbitrary." A standard must be derived from factual information and concrete evidence. If a standard is derived by arbitrary means then that standard can be changed over time.

1 + 1 has always equaled 2 for as long as the universe has existed. Mathematics hasn't changed. Science doesn't change. Now there are some scientific facts we may not know. When that information becomes available, we have more to go on to adjust the standards.

For thousands of years, we didn't know what the back side of the moon looks like. With the advent of space craft, we have an accurate picture of what it now looks like.

Even though it has always been understood that an embryo is, indeed, a human being, we have more scientific information available to back up that premise.

The pro-death crowd, by advocating a post-birth abortion like New York, have made the pro-lifer's point. The only difference in the abortion advocate's mind is the size, location and level of development of the person they want to abort (kill).

Even some folks in favor of abortion have recoiled at the thought of killing a new born baby. Those same folks now have to ask themselves the question; if it's wrong to kill a new born baby then why is it okay to kill the same baby just because it is living in the mother's womb?
 
I am being daft because I don't agree with your opinion? You are using the "thou shall not kill" as part of your premise to define when a fetus is alive and I am pretty sure you have no idea of when that actually occurs.

You have done the liberal move here and this emotional and even threw out an insult. I was not arguing the merits, or lack there of, of abortion. I pointed out where your definition of prohibition is absolutely wrong.

No you're being daft because you're comparing apples and oranges just to play devil's advocate. Anyone who has taken a college level developmental biology class or read a text book unequivocally knows when a fetus is alive, as has been illustrated above.
 
No you're being daft because you're comparing apples and oranges just to play devil's advocate. Anyone who has taken a college level developmental biology class or read a text book unequivocally knows when a fetus is alive, as has been illustrated above.

An apple to an orange? Where would that be? I was talking about the definition of prohibition, which you used incorrectly. Either stay on topic or drop it. You made it about abortion, not me. I do not give one shit about your position on abortion or your ability to read a basic college text book. As far as "devils advocate" is concerned I will repeat myself again, and please pay attention this time, I am not going to get into a debate about the merits, or lack thereof, concerning abortion. Based on that there is no devils advocate.
 
Bitcoin holder dies with password to account holding $190m

Canadian crypto exchange QuadrigaCX says it cannot repay most of $190 million in client holdings after its 30-year-old founder Gerald Cotten, the only person who knew the passwords to its “cold storage,” unexpectedly died in India in December 2018, Coindesk reported on Friday.

In a sworn affidavit with the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, widow Jennifer Robertson said that QuadrigaCX owes its customers some $190 million in both cryptocurrency and fiat money. QuadrigaCX has filed for creditor protection because it says it cannot access the funds stored in “cold storage,” just the comparatively smaller amount in a “hot wallet” used for transfers.
 
An apple to an orange? Where would that be? I was talking about the definition of prohibition, which you used incorrectly.

I did? I don’t think so.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/prohibition

We were talking about a law prohibiting the murder of a human being (there’s your apple, also #4 in the above link) and you chime in comparing it to the prohibition of owning an object (the orange) in a vain attempt to liken the two and point out some nonexistent hypocrisy.

I have more interesting things to waste my time on now.
 
I did? I don’t think so.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/prohibition

We were talking about a law prohibiting the murder of a human being (there’s your apple, also #4 in the above link) and you chime in comparing it to the prohibition of owning an object (the orange) in a vain attempt to liken the two and point out some nonexistent hypocrisy.

I have more interesting things to waste my time on now.

You have zero reading comprehension. I agree at this point it is best to move on.
 


The elimination round at South Coast Raceway’s ‘Wild Bunch Wars’ event between Dean Cleary in the Pontiac and Jason Duncan in the Ford Capri. Jason’s throttle got stuck wide open on the burnout, sending him across the track, careering into the back of a stationary Dean Cleary, then into a 180-degree spin where he proceeded back towards the start line with the throttle still wide open.
 


The elimination round at South Coast Raceway’s ‘Wild Bunch Wars’ event between Dean Cleary in the Pontiac and Jason Duncan in the Ford Capri. Jason’s throttle got stuck wide open on the burnout, sending him across the track, careering into the back of a stationary Dean Cleary, then into a 180-degree spin where he proceeded back towards the start line with the throttle still wide open.

Guess he forgot about turning the key off or shifting it to neutral. Run aways are scary shit, but keep your head on like everything and then it’s just a inconvenience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blue Sky Country