Lisa abortion rage

:0)

You realize that unless her relatives raped her, the conventional definition of incest implies no such thing and it was all voluntary on her part right?

So a 14 year old is a s**t because she’s being raped by her breadwinning father?

The conventional definition makes no implications of voluntary or otherwise. But legally speaking, both rape and incest are a heinous crimes. And it would be equally criminal to force a woman who does not want to raise a product of such a crime, to carry it to term or raise it if she chooses not to do so.

As much as I’d like to say something mean, my comment would then get deleted.
Why would you specify “rape or incest” if you’re talking about incestuous rape?

Because not all rape is incestuous but all incest is rape.

Once again why wouldn’t rape account for both? And keep in mind planned parenthood has something of a history of supporting eugenics and a fair amount eugenicists support inbreeding in a controlled environment.

Your question was asked and answered.

But you answer was invalid just saying rape would cover incest as well. Rape by definition implies unlawful sex and therefore incest is rape. So why say “rape or incest” rather than just “rape”? My point is that it’s rather repetitive.

The same reason that not all abuse is rape but rape is abuse.

The distinction is necessary in order to apply the severity of the act.

Any man or a woman who engages in a sexual activity and produces a child....

Is it rape? Is it sex? The distinction between these two things is certainly MORE important than the distinction between rape and incest, yes?

But how do you prove it was rape or sex?

Sometimes it is obvious; sometimes it is not. Should the exception only be given to rape victims with a set amount of tells or markers that indicate that it was sex or rape? Do we analyze the actions of that person in order to prove it was rape? Do we penalize the rapist in every scenario... the woman gets her abortion; the man goes to jail... just so she can have an abortion? Already, I 've spoken to people around here who think there should be NO EXCEPTION to abortion.

Yet, incest is merely the evidence that rape HAS occurred.

The distinction should remain because there are individuals who think there is no distinction between rape and sex.

It's not too different than the need to separate murder from voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter.

The distinctions of these classifications allow a defense of one individuals actions.

Namely the choice to abort the product of a crime.

RVW isn't about circumstantial preg. Its about choice termination.

Yes because a 14 year old country girl chooses " to.... ??? you make no sense.

Bc it's murder. Why is racism towards others important to you?

Me too. I'm a women.

I dont like guns so I wont get one, but the constitution gives you the right, you may not like abortions, buts it not your right to interfere in others choices. It is others constitutional right to choose for themselves. bud the f out.

The constitution protects people from murder. America now realizes that rvw was wrong, and they're taking it away. It's something you're going to have to live with. The majority has spoken. That's democracy.

By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, voters oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll conducted immediately after POLITICO published a draft opinion from the Supreme Court that would eviscerate the 1973 precedent guaranteeing federal abortion rights.

Half of voters (50 percent) say Roe v. Wade should not be overturned — more than the 28 percent who say it should be overturned. More than 2-in-10 voters, 22 percent, are undecided, according to the poll.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/04/poll-roe-v-wade-00029889

majority huh? wow. You should do some more homework then.

https://theconversation.com/5-justices-all-confirmed-by-senators-representing-a-minority-of-voters-appear-willing-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-182582

why do you hate the bible?

It's leaving

Goodbye abortion 😃

The meme isn’t about RVW. It’s an ignorant generalization on the circumstances of pregnancy. The response is valid.

Oh sure use the situations that are the extreme rarity instead of the 99.999% cause, that's like saying "well drunk driving should be allowed because what if he needs to drive to get himself to the hospital because he thinks he's having a heart attack"

Since I’ve frequently discussed the issue of calculating percentages and in the interest of introducing intellectual honesty into the debate concerning the percentages, it would be in your best interest to not make numbers. It is more accurate to say that 1-3% of abortions are due to the mother’s health.

As this pro-abortion article discussing the term “medical necessity” as a thoroughly “problematic” term reaffirms.

https://www.hli.org/resources/what-percentage-of-abortions-are-medically-necessary/

Naturally, as 1-3% was also the percentage of the annual fatality rate or covid and was frequently disregarded as less than a percentage due to frequent miscalculation or just willful ignorance; many of the people who dismissed Covid as a serious issue despite at least acknowledging the correction still maintained that Covid was not a serious issue with such a “low” fatality rate, it is at least consistent that the very same group of people would now dismiss this similar percentage as a necessary evil in the fight for the rights of the unborn

Explain to me why voluntary incest is a reason to kill a child. You libs always say “WHAT ABOUT INCEST!!!”, but the main risk of incest is the increased chance of inheritance of genetic disorders because of a less diverse gene pool. Think of FCI registered dogs their COI is much higher than what would typically be considered safe in any other species including wild dogs. Why? Well, think about it. When breeding dogs you aim for health and therefore you try to cull or sterilize non ideal offspring thus leading to less genetic defects in that particular bloodline. Now that’s not to say inbreeding doesn’t increase the chance of genetic mutations. It takes up to 20 consecutive brother sister matings to reach 100% inbred. Now a brother sister mating will typically give the children a COI of 20-25% meaning they would have about a 1/5-1/4 chance of alleles. Now not all genetic mutations are bad for an example there’s Myostatin Related Hypertrophy which doubles muscle mass and halves body fat without any significant health defects. Now intersex is another allele and you libs love your intersex, so I think you guys should enjoy inbreeding.

That is one strange comment... in defense of incest.

"When breeding dogs you aim for health and therefore you try to cull or sterilize non ideal offspring thus leading to less genetic defects in that particular bloodline."

When breeding dogs, they aim for sellable pups. Health is an issue that matters until that point as far as most dealers are concerned.
Purebreds tend to be very inbred and thus susceptible to a variety of genetic disorders which tend to express themselves later in life (many breed specific. Animal Planet has a series, Dogs 101 which focused on 3 breeds per episode, and such defects as they pertained to a particular line were among the things that were highlighted) leading to many being 'put down.'
Bad example.

With humans, genetic defects begin to show with first cousins by the 3rd crossing.

I’m not defending incest. If you took me saying that you shouldn’t kill people ‘cause they were inbred to mean that I’m defining incest. There’s something wrong with you. Now think about how the Belgian Malinois tends to have lower Coefficients of Inbreeding than the Rough Collie, but nonetheless Malinois tend to go to the vet more than Rough Collies. COI doesn’t entirely determine health if you monitor the dogs genetics correctly you could theoretically cull off undesirable traits from the bloodline. Now once again I’m not defending incest, I’m saying that incest isn’t a valid excuse to kill a child. You said it yourself “With humans, genetic defects begin to show with first cousins by the 3rd crossing.” going by that you’d think there’d be no valid reason for abortion if for the past several generations there’s no signs of line breeding or cross breeding, but then that one child was the singular case of inbreeding in the past 10+ generations.

"There’s something wrong with you."

For finding incest to be a tad ickyish a lot?
Then there IS something wrong with me. And I'm totally cool with that.
Eh, us big city folks and the cultural mores we find strangely putrid.

PS: Since when do puppy mills monitor dogs they've sold throughout their lives? They administer refunds at 10yrs for hip dysplasia?
There's 2 other disorders that have happened to a couple of dogs I've known, but I won't say them because I'm about to puke and it hurts sitting just thinking about them. Good gosh, 8 is pretty much the avg max for an English Bulldog.

Obviously I’m not talking about puppy mills, but rather sporting dog breeders. Clearly there’s cases like the English Bulldog that are hideous results of over breeding and purely breeding for conformation rather than work or sport. Another example is the American Showline GSD and I honestly dislike the American Showline GSD. I prefer Czech, DDR, and West German show line GSDs. Now once again I find incest to be disgusting as well, but I think on a purely scientific standpoint if done correctly using inbreeding you can better maintain desirable traits in a bloodline. For an example Einstein’s parents were first cousins. Now you could also argue that Einstein was just as crazy as he was brilliant. I just think because we find inbreeding to be morally wrong we’ve grown to believe that there are no advantages to it.

You mean like the ones who've turned English Bulldogs (and Persian Cats) into flat faced monstrosities with tear duct problems, contorted obstructed nasal passages and breathing issues? Not to mention the host of problems the barely-able to waddle across the steps' Bulldogs' bone problems?

Breeding types has been about form over function since breeds became bred for the sake of themselves as show pieces instead of as for a purpose. The original English Bulldogs looked more like a Pit Bull a century or so ago than what they they look like now. Human 'empathy' extending to them has never been much of a factor regardless of the aim.

"I just think because we find inbreeding to be morally wrong we’ve grown to believe that there are no advantages to it."

Is this where you lob your personal fascinations into my lap again because projection is such an effective tool at covering itself?

“Anyone who buys one buys it as a vanity piece, and has gotten an animal in effect bred to have a shortened life with much suffering, PERIOD.”

But there’s plenty of Belgian Shepherds, Dutch Shepherds, Heelers, and similar breeds that live to be 16 years old. The longest lived dog on record was an Australian Cattle Dog named “Bluey” she lived to be 29 years of age. It’s entirely illogical to say that all purebreds are less healthy than all mutts, when the average Australian Cattle Dog lives around 13.40 years of age whereas the average mutt lives 13.2 years of age. In the end it all depends on if the dog is bred for conformation/appearance or workability and health. Dogs like Malinois, Heelers, Kelpies, Dutch Shepherds, and Coonhounds that are typically bred more for workability than show will inevitably have stabler temperaments and better genetics. Same with mutts they’ll typically be healthier than show dogs, but nonetheless if you mixed a Cane Corso with a Neapolitan Mastiff there’s a high chance they’ll have more or less the same health risks as a purebred because they have similar health risks either way. Now once again with purebred dogs you know what health problems they’re prone to and thus can prepare to have regular screenings for those health problems, but with your typical super mutt although the chance of them having health complications are minimal there’s still that small chance. Now I hope you’ve realized the absurdity that you’re arguing that because hybrid dogs have a lower chance of getting genetic disorders you’re saying that mixed breeds are superior, but that same absolute logic doesn’t go towards the minimal amount of pregnancies that are actually in legitimate need for abortion. The argument that easy access abortion is a need for extremely uncommon circumstances, is the same as saying purebred dogs are needed because if a mutt has older parents either way they’re at a larger risk of genetic mutation. Just ‘cause theoretically an older sire or dam would put the dog at a higher risk of genetic mutations even if they’re out crossed doesn’t negate the risks of inbreeding. So just ‘cause theoretically there’s a very very small chance that an abortion is in fact needed to save the mother’s life, should not mean that it’s justified to have easy access to it.

Please tell me this is all copypaste and you haven't been typing all this stuff given that it should be clear I'm not reading past the 1st line?

Incest not good still, mkay?

“Breeding types has been about form over function since breeds became bred for the sake of themselves as show pieces instead of as for a purpose. The original English Bulldogs looked more like a Pit Bull a century or so ago than what they they look like now. Human 'empathy' extending to them has never been much of a factor regardless of the aim.”

Well, yes, but now that we have genetic testing, X-rays, detailed pedigrees, more information on puppy temperamental traits we can go off more than the basic appearance of the dog. Think of Ivan Balabanov. He originally used KNPV mongrels, but moved over to FCI because there was better consistency in temperament than KNPV. I think the BRN registered dogs can be great, but I also think FCI registered dogs can be good as well. After all is said and done it matters on the breeder. Now I think that super mutts can be pretty swell as well, though typically harder to find one with whatever traits you’re particularly looking for.

You have got to be kidding me.

What part of "purebred" did you not get, and how would I know about one single breeder, in Russia, no less?

‘Cause he’s one of the greatest protection sport trainers/breeders in the world. I think of KNPV dogs as purebred, but not pure blooded. Personally, I’ve had mutts that had terrible health problems, but also my Malinois has great genetics. On the contrary some of my dad’s Collies had serious health problems. Now I’ve had mutts without any genetic issues, but I’ve also once again had purebred dogs without many genetic issues as well. Personally I believe it matters on what you’re looking for. I think having a purebred is helpful in the sense that you know the dog has a higher risk of hip dysplasia, cataracts, Vonwilbrand’s, etc. Whereas with a super mutt you don’t know what Heath defects to have the dog be tested for, but nonetheless the dog would have a lower chance of having genetic issues in the first place. Secondly if you’re aiming for a fly ball dog you might want a Whippet, if you’re aiming for agility get a Border Collie, aiming for IGP get a Malinois, obedience get a Golden Retriever etc. But if you really just want a dog to have a dog it may be a better idea to get a mutt from your local shelter for $75-200 rather than paying $3,500 for an Italian Cane Corso when all you wanted was something to play fetch with.

He's a Russian. The only 'great' Russian ever (for Russians, anyways) was Catherine the Great, and she wasn't even Russian.

Purebreds are, by definition, purified.
Distillation has been achieved via inbreeding.
Inbreeding has left them with a whole list of genetic defects.
Anyone who buys one buys it as a vanity piece, and has gotten an animal in effect bred to have a shortened life with much suffering, PERIOD.

This begins to bore me a lot?

And yet his comment was in effect defending inbreeding, or at least aimed at minimizing all that is wrong with it.

All of that said the main question is. Do you believe women should have access to abortion outside of rape or incest?

Libs should reframe their "abortion" talking points and instead say, "Does the general public want me to spread my genes and create more of people like me?!"

15 year olds, crackheads, people that just dont want them, all make great parents and leads to great kids.... what business is it of anyones except those directly involved?

To save actual souls and living breathing people.... yep.