Abortion - My own thoughts - such as they are

[mrswdk]

Ad hominem, thy name is Magnus.

Boring.

[MagnusGreeol]

I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.

In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.

It is possible that this logic also applies pre-birth in some countries as well (if the government provides pre-natal care and so forth). So then it's a question of at which point you need to draw the line in order to properly balance the right to choose with proper use of public funds.pregnancy

- Here are your words YOU typed and submitted, You have NO PROBLEM with a baby being KILLED at any point of pregnancy OR AFTER BIRTH????? Try to manipulate that into sounding reasonable or sane???? The rest of what you said is equally insane but I just can't get past the killing a baby at ANY point of pregnancy (which also means up to 9 months) OR killing a baby AFTER BIRTH which you have no problem with?? It's right there, YOUR WORDS!!??

Why would it be acceptable for a mother to choose to terminate at 4 months but not at 8.5 months?

And then, why would it be acceptable to terminate at 8.5 months of pregnancy, but not 10 seconds after birth?

- Anyone here agree with this????????????????

[MagnusGreeol]

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=215383

- Some of you already read through this, but for those who haven't, go have a read through on mrswdk's outlook/beliefs on Adults having sex with children, viewer discretion is advised!!!
-FEAR FOR YOUR CHILDREN!!

\MGM/♎

\MGM/ F

-Or this??????????????

[mrswdk]

I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.

In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.

It is possible that this logic also applies pre-birth in some countries as well (if the government provides pre-natal care and so forth). So then it's a question of at which point you need to draw the line in order to properly balance the right to choose with proper use of public funds.pregnancy

- Here are your words YOU typed and submitted, You have NO PROBLEM with a baby being KILLED at any point of pregnancy OR AFTER BIRTH????? Try to manipulate that into sounding reasonable or sane???? The rest of what you said is equally insane but I just can't get past the killing a baby at ANY point of pregnancy (which also means up to 9 months) OR killing a baby AFTER BIRTH which you have no problem with?? It's right there, YOUR WORDS!!??

Why would it be acceptable for a mother to choose to terminate at 4 months but not at 8.5 months?

And then, why would it be acceptable to terminate at 8.5 months of pregnancy, but not 10 seconds after birth?

- Anyone here agree with this????????????????

Why don't you?

[MagnusGreeol]

- I'm going to constantly keep refreshing and quoting your above statements so they don't get buried.I would not want my children living next door to you, and if the police in your town knew about all your thoughts you would be monitored. Curious on how many of your CC "Friends" will stick by you after reading all this and your beliefs on it being OK for adults to have sex with children??? Your words are all recorded in black and white in the topic Religion and Homosexuality.

[mrswdk]

- I'm going to constantly keep refreshing and quoting your above statements so they don't get buried.I would not want my children living next door to you, and if the police in your town knew about all your thoughts you would be monitored. Curious on how many of your CC "Friends" will stick by you after reading all this and your beliefs on it being OK for adults to have sex with children??? Your words are all recorded in black and white in the topic Religion and Homosexuality.

This thread is about abortion. Try to keep up.

[MagnusGreeol]

I have no problem with the baby being killed at any point during pregnancy or even after birth. It's just a question of working out at what point after birth it becomes a 'bad thing' for parents to be killing their kids.

In most developed countries that point would probably be almost immediately after birth, because at that point the government has started paying to help raise the child and by killing it you are therefore destroying a government investment in the future workforce which, by bearing the pregnancy through to completion, you have implicitly contracted yourself to support.

It is possible that this logic also applies pre-birth in some countries as well (if the government provides pre-natal care and so forth). So then it's a question of at which point you need to draw the line in order to properly balance the right to choose with proper use of public funds.pregnancy

- Here are your words YOU typed and submitted, You have NO PROBLEM with a baby being KILLED at any point of pregnancy OR AFTER BIRTH????? Try to manipulate that into sounding reasonable or sane???? The rest of what you said is equally insane but I just can't get past the killing a baby at ANY point of pregnancy (which also means up to 9 months) OR killing a baby AFTER BIRTH which you have no problem with?? It's right there, YOUR WORDS!!??

Why would it be acceptable for a mother to choose to terminate at 4 months but not at 8.5 months?

And then, why would it be acceptable to terminate at 8.5 months of pregnancy, but not 10 seconds after birth?

- Anyone here agree with this????????????????

- OK then, we will put aside your thoughts on it being OK for adults to have sex with children, and remain on subject its OK to kill babies at 8-9 months or even after birth.

[mrswdk]

Do you think it is not okay? Why not?

[jimboston]

I'm done replying to your stupidity mrswdk.

I'm limiting my efforts to educate you to 3 posts per thread.

You can choose to accept this and take advantage of the opportunity to better yourself, or not.

Likely you will continue to Troll, and you will continue to change you view points and deny previously stated positions.

That's fine. Goodbye.

You know the real difference between most of us other posters and you here in Don't Panic?

All the positions I state and comments I make here I also hold and discuss in the real world; in conversation with friends, family, and even many acquaintances. You would and do not.

[mrswdk]

All the positions I state and comments I make here I also hold and discuss in the real world; in conversation with friends, family, and even many acquaintances. You would and do not.

Rest assured that on the rare occasions any of my friends decide they want to talk about politics, I am just as open with them as I am on here.

They're not as reactionary/emotionally incontinent as you though, so it's possible for them to discuss stuff like that without going off on nonsensical rants, throwing around a load of ad hominem and then sticking their fingers in their ears.

[Bernie Sanders]

I'm done replying to your stupidity mrswdk.

I'm limiting my efforts to educate you to 3 posts per thread.

You can choose to accept this and take advantage of the opportunity to better yourself, or not.

Likely you will continue to Troll, and you will continue to change you view points and deny previously stated positions.

That's fine. Goodbye.

You know the real difference between most of us other posters and you here in Don't Panic?

All the positions I state and comments I make here I also hold and discuss in the real world; in conversation with friends, family, and even many acquaintances. You would and do not.

Jim, you can't stay away from mrswdk. You just like to beat your head against hard services, over and over again. Perhaps, you are sexually charged with engaging with people who may or may not be a woman. Of course, you may have attractions to both sexes. I'll leave that to those with more expertise than I.

[jimboston]

All the positions I state and comments I make here I also hold and discuss in the real world; in conversation with friends, family, and even many acquaintances. You would and do not.

Rest assured that on the rare occasions any of my friends decide they want to talk about politics, I am just as open with them as I am on here.

They're not as reactionary/emotionally incontinent as you though, so it's possible for them to discuss stuff like that without going off on nonsensical rants, throwing around a load of ad hominem and then sticking their fingers in their ears.

If you and your friends don't enjoy having conversations about weighty subjects I feel for you.
Really deep minds you must hang with.

If you truly hold the views you state I am happy to admit I don't like you... and would certainly direct my attacks on you personally in real life if that were possible.

You are clearly unable or unwilling to understand the logical flaws in your arguments that I consistently point out. I used to think you were just a really smart Troll, but the longer you play this game the more clear it becomes that you just have no ability to process arguments beyond a rhetorical level.

[Bernie Sanders]

I'm done replying to your stupidity mrswdk.
I'm done replying to your stupidity mrswdk.
I'm done replying to your stupidity mrswdk.




Sure Jim, you can't. You are like a moth flying into that flame.

[mrswdk]

All the positions I state and comments I make here I also hold and discuss in the real world; in conversation with friends, family, and even many acquaintances. You would and do not.

Rest assured that on the rare occasions any of my friends decide they want to talk about politics, I am just as open with them as I am on here.

They're not as reactionary/emotionally incontinent as you though, so it's possible for them to discuss stuff like that without going off on nonsensical rants, throwing around a load of ad hominem and then sticking their fingers in their ears.

If you and your friends don't enjoy having conversations about weighty subjects I feel for you.
Really deep minds you must hang with.

I tend not to gravitate towards people who spend their leisure time arguing about the ethics of abortion. Hella boring.

If you truly hold the views you state I am happy to admit I don't like you... and would certainly direct my attacks on you personally in real life if that were possible

I thought you were the guy with the deep mind?

You are clearly unable or unwilling to understand the logical flaws in your arguments that I consistently point out.

I can see the flaws in the views you ascribe to me. It just happens that those are often not my actual views.

The first bit of homework I'm going to give you following this thread is to go away and read up on the concept of the 'social contract'. It would help give you some background to what I'm saying.

[jimboston]

Dear mrsdwk,

Before you try to lecture me on "social contracts", you might want to go back to 3rd Grade General Science. You seemed to have a problem understand the differences between a human and bridge. There are many. Once you get past the elements and properties of matter, you could also touch a little Biology too. It might clear things up for you.

My mind is certainly deeper than that of you and your social network if you are bored by intelligent conversation. That said, just because I am fairly open minded... doesn't mean I'm not willing to smack up a mouthy pedophilia loving hypocrite like yourself.

[jimboston]

I'm done replying to your stupidity mrswdk.
I'm done replying to your stupidity mrswdk.
I'm done replying to your stupidity mrswdk.

Sure Jim, you can't. You are like a moth flying into that flame.

Perhaps.... but mrswdk is unable to burn me. A major difference.

[mrswdk]

Dear mrsdwk,

Before you try to lecture me on "social contracts", you might want to go back to 3rd Grade General Science. You seemed to have a problem understand the differences between a human and bridge. There are many.

From the perspective of state management of a society, human capital is an asset same as any other. A sentient asset, but an asset nonetheless.

That said, just because I am fairly open minded... doesn't mean I'm not willing to smack up a mouthy pedophilia loving hypocrite like yourself.

And then, Jerry, ah ask her if she done cheated on me with ma brother, and she said yes, and ah hit her, but Jerry what she done ain't right!

*crowd claps and cheers*

[jimboston]

Dear mrsdwk,

It's interesting how you continue to ignore basic science... and also contradict yourself.

So if "human capital" is the same as any other for state management... would that also apply to how corporations should manage their "labor assets"?

If human capital "is the same" as any other capital, the gov't would spend next to nothing on healthcare. Anything beyond basic maintenance or preventive care is not "cost effective". They would just "scrap" those sick people, the same way they would "scrap" old vehicles or infrastructure. Much more cost effective to replace with newer models.

Public Labor Unions are the strongest labor unions in this country (USA). They would have virtually no power.

Your believe does not reflect reality; nor does if reflect any potential reality that anyone (normal) would want to live in.

Keep arguing your failed premise.

[mrswdk]

Dear mrsdwk,

It's interesting how you continue to ignore basic science... and also contradict yourself.

So if "human capital" is the same as any other for state management... would that also apply to how corporations should manage their "labor assets"?

It can and it does.

If human capital "is the same" as any other capital, the gov't would spend next to nothing on healthcare. Anything beyond basic maintenance or preventive care is not "cost effective".

I'm not sure you've grasped just how much 'basic maintenance or preventative care' actually cost, nor just how much healthcare is actually necessary to maintain a healthy workforce.

They would just "scrap" those sick people, the same way they would "scrap" old vehicles or infrastructure. Much more cost effective to replace with newer models.

Why would letting people die as soon as they get sick be an efficient way of running a society?

Your believe does not reflect reality; nor does if reflect any potential reality that anyone (normal) would want to live in.

Except that, once again, my beliefs and the beliefs you are projecting onto me appear to differ quite significantly.

[tzor]

Gossnell was an insane lunatic. PERIOD. His "motivation" was insanity.

Gosnell was not an "insane lunatic." He was a soulless, sloppy, and not very good doctor. He was protected by mindless minions who try to keep any proper spotlight on the "industry" because they fear that it would be shut down. (Generally oblivious to the fact that the people who promote the fears that people want to shut everything down probably are the ones who should be shut down!)

You keep citing this "for profit" motive, but seem to have utterly missed the fact that fetal tissue cannot be sold. There is no profit motive. There is an issue created by abortion foes who apparently think its OK to slander if its for a good cause. Sorry that you fell for it.

First of all, I tend to have a non corporate view of profit. I work, for example, for an income. That's my profit. According to the non biased source Tech Insider ... "Planned Parenthood is allowed to sell fetal tissue to researchers for use in scientific studies that could eventually benefit women, and abortion clinics are allowed to receive compensation for the time it takes to collect the tissue, transport it, and store it." Ignoring the question of "corporate profits" (and yes I also blow my top when a non profit charity organization has a CEO that earns a six figure salary or when funds to a "charity" mostly goes to the phone banks that solicit for the charity. The "sale" of the tissue is used to pay workers at the facility, "compensation for the time it takes to collect the tissue."

First and foremost, I haven't really addressed early term abortion.

Strange, because that IS what legal abortion debate is mostly about, though yes, the pictures tend to show full term healthy infants.

Well you know when you assume.

See, that is part of what I mean by dishonesty in the debate (not you specifically, I put that down to misunderstanding). While the overwhelming majority of abortions and virtually all "at will" abortions (after the first trimester a woman must show cause), are during the first trimester, the arguments often center on later term abortions. These issues are not at all the same.

I would like to see as many first trimester abortions reduced as much as possible. But I prefer rational arguments for such things. It's the second and third trimester abortions that I have the most objections to and I simply will not take the assurances of the "industry" who have a major dog in the fight to tell me that they are pure as the new fallen snow.

Later term abortions, those after the first trimester, must have a reason. I still do think they need to be legal. Should there be more restrictions? On that, I am not sure. I feel that is mostly a medical issue and should be. That is, when a later term abortion should be allowed is up to the individual doctor and family.

A reason, or an excuse. Once again we return to Gosnell. These women weren't directed to a proper hospital environment by a concerned OB/GYN. These were people in their late stages of pregnancy who for various reasons never bothered to get their abortions sooner. Yes, Gosnell is an extreme case but there is no evidence to indicate that the "right to abortion" would cause proper doctors to refuse patients simply because their term is late. They get paid to do a service and if no one wants the service it's hard to get paid.

[tzor]

The answer is obvious to everyone else. I'll answer in a way maybe you will understand.

"why any difference between human and non-human resource"?

Gets out the popcorn ... boy is this going to be fun ...

Because humans are f**king different than bridges. We just are.
I'm sorry if you can't except this obvious fact.

Perhaps I was of the wrong impression, but you always struck me as an Austro-libertarian who generally are of the economic philosophy that the cost of a man's labor is no different than the cost of a machine's labor. You need to get to the evil "Christian" (read "Catholic") economic philosophy to indicate the inherent worth of human beings above that of material items.

[tzor]

Public Labor Unions are the strongest labor unions in this country (USA). They would have virtually no power.

Public Labor Unions exist for the sole purpose of the promotion of union executives. In theory they have no power. They do have money, collected from the members. This money is used to pad the coffers of politicians, who exist for the sole purpose of the continued promotion of themselves. They have power, and being given a contribution from these executives, they in turn use that power for those unions.

Combined with the general decline of private sector unions (because unlike the public sector, they can't easily bribe the people who allocate money to their members) you can see why they are now the strongest unions in the USA.

[jimboston]

Dear mrswdk,

You again twist my words, and continue to modify yours on the fly.

I never suggested that Gov't would or should let people die as soon as they get sick.

I said that, based on the world view you are espousing, the Gov't would do a cost-benefit analysis of the Healthcare System and Healthcare costs... and that they would not spend the kind of money they are on advanced healthcare... elder care, search and rescue, expensive/risky surgeries, etc. They would quickly determine that these were not cost-effective investments on their "human assets". Just like they do when deciding to remodel or build a new school.

Again... I'm not saying they should do this.

I'm saying this would be the result if your world-view was accurate... or even if it was a good idea.

OK Troll.

Bye.

[jimboston]

Public Labor Unions are the strongest labor unions in this country (USA). They would have virtually no power.

Public Labor Unions exist for the sole purpose of the promotion of union executives. In theory they have no power. They do have money, collected from the members. This money is used to pad the coffers of politicians, who exist for the sole purpose of the continued promotion of themselves. They have power, and being given a contribution from these executives, they in turn use that power for those unions.

Combined with the general decline of private sector unions (because unlike the public sector, they can't easily bribe the people who allocate money to their members) you can see why they are now the strongest unions in the USA.

Public Labor Unions exist for a variety of reasons. That's not the debate.

My only point is that they wouldn't exist if mrsdwk's arguments made sense.

[Bernie Sanders]

Public Labor Unions are the strongest labor unions in this country (USA). They would have virtually no power.

Public Labor Unions exist for the sole purpose of the promotion of union executives. In theory they have no power. They do have money, collected from the members. This money is used to pad the coffers of politicians, who exist for the sole purpose of the continued promotion of themselves. They have power, and being given a contribution from these executives, they in turn use that power for those unions.

Combined with the general decline of private sector unions (because unlike the public sector, they can't easily bribe the people who allocate money to their members) you can see why they are now the strongest unions in the USA.

Public Labor Unions exist for the sole purpose of the promotion of union executives.

Wrong, unions are for collective bargaining of it's members. Yes, private sector unions have been declining since President Reagan was in office, which is a shame, as the unions were the greatest force in helping the middle class increase their wealth.