• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I need a reason for abortion being legal

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Forum rules disallow me from posting your words of a PM . I wouldn't do such a thing if it was allowed.

So the upper palm blow is a myth. Heres a post from another forum on palm upper thrust That agrees with you
Read it carefully there be a myth here but use common sense john.
You seen a skull and the big empty hole were the nose is . That soft tissue carti. That why the palm is used and not fist. I allowed both my kids to become brown belts . daughter was better than Son . Son has more compassion than daughter . Daughter was a little devil when a teen . A good thing. She was mad when I stopped them at brown belts. She asked what the point was. The point is being able to defend self and to overcome fear of personnal injury. I said she could keep with the programm but not on my dime. That ended that.


The Myth: If you punch the nose hard enough, the material in the nose will break off and stab the front of the brain killing you.

The Truth that caused the Myth: Any severe shock to the head can result in your brain bouncing around inside your skull, which can be lethal.

The problem is that even nurses and doctors who ought to know better buy into this myth claiming that they've seen people who get punched in the nose die. But, they've never taken apart the skull (for obvious reasons) to see whether or not the brain was punctured by a 'bone.' The moral of the story: Don't listen to doctors because they can be dumbasses, too.

Not even if you managed to penetrate the frontal lobe with any skeletal material would it be deadly. Even if you shoved a blade up there the best you could hope for is a screaming, shouting person who would be mostly restored.

There was an English officer who was depressed and shot himself right through the frontal lobe effectively giving himself a lobotomy, he lived on and was never depressed again, his wife found him eating bacon and eggs with an entry and an exit wound in his skull, thank god for the requirement of FMJ's even in our sidearms, eh?

A hammer punch to the chest can be, but normally you want to do a "pounce pound" movement where you let it bounce once and push through on the second, this works on an attacking opponent where you go under to the side.

Push two fingers out of a fist, turn it sideways, hit right above the chestplate and you'll kill your opponent, you are attacking the weakest part of the windpipe and you will break it even if you don't hit all that hard.

Push down the shoulder and grab the front of the side of the neck with your thumb tucked in, hold it and you'll subdue anyone, use the thumb to poke the nerve ending right in front of your grip, it will stop any form of movement and end in surrender.

Between the belly button and the lower pelvic area there is a spot, right in the middle that connects the two sides of the pelvic bone, get down low and use the ball of your hand, hit it as hard as you can and it will hurt, hit it hard enough and you'll break it.

Apart from the eyes and the most obvious, this is where you attack.

Oh and we don't go around breaking necks silently, we use a short broad bladed knife with a punch grip, apart from the noise of catching and resting them down it doesn't really make any sound, the neurocortex is cut off from all nerve endings so not even random impulse gets through.
 
Just going to leave this here:
lRY5Y.gif

I started to read the chart, a little confusing but I worked it out. It was at that point when I realized it was stupid. For example, it says opposing birth control is not consistent with the view that abortion is child murder. That is wrong, as the two items are barely related. That would be akin to saying those who support eyeglasses are not consistent with the view that rape is wrong, for anyone who supports giving rapists better vision to find and capture their prey cannot also be against rape...

Very dumb chart. The logic is fail with it.
 
Completely preposterous. Apparently any infant that has been adopted and doesn't enjoy the care of its mother isn't "viable," according to your claim.

Yes, if you take me literally it is preposterous because my claim does not consider adoption. What I meant is that it is not viable on its own, I think we could agree with that.

What I find intriguing is that once (apparently they do not exist) artificial wombs are developed (if ever), it would change the argument over abortion, since a woman may be able to terminate her pregnancy without terminating the development of the fetus.
 
There you go again with your intellectually dishonest use of vague words intended to muddy the distinction between fetuses and people and to appeal to emotion. "Killing a human." "Unborn child." "Killing an innocent."

Abortion is killing a fetus, not a person. No sin involved. No innocence. Suck out the tissue and flush it down the drain. So easy.

I was thinking of creating a bumper sticker: "Proud non-parent of an aborted fetus." Would that upset you?

Is late term abortion killing an innocent human being?
 
Yes, if you take me literally it is preposterous because my claim does not consider adoption. What I meant is that it is not viable on its own, I think we could agree with that.
You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
 
You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I'm not referring to the infant as viable in the sense of a viable fetus. I was using the definition - capable of existence and development as an independent unit

perhaps its a stretch. I meant, and I suppose by your posts I was not able to properly transmit to you, and possibly others, that an infant cannot live on its own, it needs care. Fetuses need a different form of care than infants, I was simply pondering if abandoning the required care for the fetus is logically the same as abandoning the infant.
 
I'm very pro-abortion, but someone pointed out that almost every problem related to unwanted babies can be solved by putting babies up for adoption.
I can't afford to raise a baby --> adoption
I don't want my baby to be born in the year of the dragon - -> adoption
I was raped --> adoption
I don't want a baby --> adoption
Centipedes in my vagina --> adoption


The only stuff left is convenience. Being pregnant sucks. Is that what this is about? It interferes with school, it interferes with work, it makes it harder to find random men to sleep with, it means buying a whole new set of clothes, etc. Is that what it comes down to?

Your genes. "nuff said.
 
Fetuses need a different form of care than infants, I was simply pondering if abandoning the required care for the fetus is logically the same as abandoning the infant.
And clearly it isn't. A fetus requires the consensual donation of the bodily faculties of precisely one person, while an infant can receive care and feeding from anyone.
 
Should go back to the times of the spartans, each baby after birth should be inspected for any defect. If found they are immediately tossed over the cliff.
 
Abortion is killing a fetus, not a person. No sin involved. No innocence. Suck out the tissue and flush it down the drain. So easy.

There you go, lying again. Show me even one time where I said an unborn human is a person. Please do not post again until you do, since it will mean you never post again, unless you are posting to say you are sorry about lying.

I expect you to say you are wrong about me ever claiming an unborn human is a person.
 
Abortion can never be illegal because you can't legislate someone's body.

A father can't kill his son because his son has the ability to be provided for by someone else. This care can be given by someone else without performing surgery on the father to remove his son from him. Additionally the father's care for his son (providing food/shelter/water) does not impact his freedom to consume legal drugs/alcohol/food items which might otherwise harm a person dependent on his blood chemistry.

It is a woman's body and the fetus wholly depends on that body unless removed by surgery and/or other methods. A woman should never been prevented from consuming legal drugs/food/drink she chooses too and should never have a surgery enforced on her. If we define a fetus as a human with rights, a life which is parasitical in nature to the woman's biochemistry (not financially but physically), then we are imposing an incredible constraint on the freedom of females for 9 months.

Issues of rape/woman's health/etc. all dramatically pale in comparison to the fundamental concept of a person's right over their own body and any lifeforms which are physically dependent on their blood/nutrients/etc. I know people who are pro-life believe abortion doctors are mass-murdering humans, but eventually they will have to realize politicians they are voting for just pander them for votes and that their stance on this issue will never come to fruition because of the far-reaching and dramatic implications of such a ruling.
 
A woman is pregnant and has cancer.

Treatment 1 = 50% cure rate, 100% chance of fetus death
Treatment 2 = 55% cure rate, 0% chance of fetus death

Should a woman be forced to take treatment 2 over 1, 2 is a better chance for both her and the fetus but does she have control over her body? Treatment 1 condemns her fetus to death.


A woman is pregnant.
Abortion/ = 99.9%? no harm, 100% chance of fetus death
Delivery/C-section = 99.9%? no harm, 1%? chance of fetus death


Both scenarios involve choices that have very little impact on her own health but enormous ramifications for the fetus. In both scenarios I believe the woman should be in full control of the surgical and medical procedures imposed on her body.
 
Sure you can, happens all the time. Clothing being required in public is legislating what you can do with your body.

Your attempt at wit is overwhelmed by the laughable comparison. I will let you dwell on the exceptional stupidity of what you have written.
 
Depending on the abortion laws of the state, yes. Sad to say it, we are quite a barbaric society in this way.

I'm not asking if it's legally permissible. I'm asking if you have a moral objection to that standard; if you think it's morally permissible.
 
A woman is pregnant and has cancer.

Treatment 1 = 50% cure rate, 100% chance of fetus death
Treatment 2 = 55% cure rate, 0% chance of fetus death

Should a woman be forced to take treatment 2 over 1, 2 is a better chance for both her and the fetus but does she have control over her body? Treatment 1 condemns her fetus to death.


A woman is pregnant.
Abortion/ = 99.9%? no harm, 100% chance of fetus death
Delivery/C-section = 99.9%? no harm, 1%? chance of fetus death


Both scenarios involve choices that have very little impact on her own health but enormous ramifications for the fetus. In both scenarios I believe the woman should be in full control of the surgical and medical procedures imposed on her body.

When the mother's life is at risk person abortion becomes much less repugnant. No one reasonably argues otherwise.
 
Back
Top