Toronto Escorts

As States Race to Limit Abortions, Alabama Seeks to Outlaw Most of Them

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
But again, A. it’s not a baby, it has the potential to become one. That’s like arguing that a seed is a tree, you can’t murder something that isn’t alive yet.
Just to be clear, the 23 week fetus below in the womb is not alive and it's like a seed to a tree? Are you sure or do my eyes deceive me?

 

icespot

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2005
1,692
84
48
But again, A. it’s not a baby, it has the potential to become one. That’s like arguing that a seed is a tree, you can’t murder something that isn’t alive yet, and B. it’s not your future baby, it’s someone’s you’re never going to meet, so why do you care? Again, if people care about abortion, cool, don’t get one, but fighting to take away other people’s right to do so is stupid and wrong.
Your first line, is exactly what anti abortion supporters have stated, "it becomes a baby"

Unlike trees human's have feelings and thoughts. That's why we hate to see dolphins killed, they are a fish, but we know they feel.

Also only human's descriminate, you have no idea what gifts nature gave that child.

If you look at nature, it has a balance.

Additionally if the majority of women decided that abortion becomes illegal, or support the heartbeat law.

Which I believe it's the way to settle abortion issue.

Have a referendum, where only women vote. Their bodies their choice.
 

Grimnul

Well-known member
May 15, 2018
1,482
27
48
It’s not a person. Period. It doesn’t really matter if it’s alive in the very most literal of senses, it’s not sentient, it couldn’t survive outside the mother at that point, it is not a viable human life at that point, no.

Beyond all that, though, look at where we are. We’re on an escort review board. Presumably the vast majority of us partake in an activity that’s illegal essentially for no reason other than because many people find it distasteful. We all agree here that just because something is personally distasteful to you doesn’t mean it should be illegal. There needs to be a reason for something to be illegal. Having an abortion harms no one (no, it doesn’t harm the fetus, it’s simply stopping the fetus from growing into a person), so there’s no reason for it to be illegal. No one even really debates this, the only reason pro-lifers ever seem to give is that the bible says it’s wrong. So, if there’s no rational reason for it to be illegal, then why should it be?
 

franz888

Member
Mar 4, 2015
127
0
16
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a socialist.
This has been quoted many times but I think it should end right here, if they rounded up all the socialists, life would be great again, there would be no need to go after others.
 

Grimnul

Well-known member
May 15, 2018
1,482
27
48
Your first line, is exactly what anti abortion supporters have stated, "it becomes a baby"

Unlike trees human's have feelings and thoughts. That's why we hate to see dolphins killed, they are a fish, but we know they feel.

Also only human's descriminate, you have no idea what gifts nature gave that child.

If you look at nature, it has a balance.

Additionally if the majority of women decided that abortion becomes illegal, or support the heartbeat law.

Which I believe it's the way to settle abortion issue.

Have a referendum, where only women vote. Their bodies their choice.

Dolphins are not fish, they’re mammals, but that’s not really here or there. A referendum would be unfair unless like 99.99% of women voted that abortion was wrong. An abortion is a very personal thing, and it depends very much on a person’s circumstances. Not to judge here, but if some rich girl bangs some dude at prom, doesn’t use a condom, gets pregnant, and gets an abortion just because she doesn’t want to deal with it, that would be somewhat immoral in my opinion. On the other hand, let’s say you have a couple that’s just scraping by, they couldn’t support a child now, so they’re responsible, she’s on the pill, he uses condoms. Well, maybe one day, she gets a bad batch of pills, maybe there was a recall she wasn’t aware of. They fuck, the condom breaks, she gets pregnant. Unlikely, but it could happen. They can’t support a child now and don’t want a child. In that case, the responsible thing to do would be to get an abortion.

This is what makes things so tricky. Some people are just irresponsible and don’t want to have to be held accountable for their actions, but some people are very responsible and are just the victims of circumstance. Having one set of laws (when it comes to issues like this, at least), that dictate the rules for everyone, regardless of circumstance, is wildly unfair. Just because 60% of people don’t like abortion doesn’t mean they should be able to impose their will on the remaining 40%, unless there’s a very good (ie. not nebulous, subjective moral reservations) reason.
 

icespot

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2005
1,692
84
48
This has been quoted many times but I think it should end right here, if they rounded up all the socialists, life would be great again, there would be no need to go after others.
Except that you are clueless, where the quote comes from. Perhaps if you knew, you see why it's such an important quote.

Yes, I know now you will check, but you should have before....
 

icespot

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2005
1,692
84
48
It’s not a person. Period. It doesn’t really matter if it’s alive in the very most literal of senses, it’s not sentient, it couldn’t survive outside the mother at that point, it is not a viable human life at that point, no.

Beyond all that, though, look at where we are. We’re on an escort review board. Presumably the vast majority of us partake in an activity that’s illegal essentially for no reason other than because many people find it distasteful. We all agree here that just because something is personally distasteful to you doesn’t mean it should be illegal. There needs to be a reason for something to be illegal. Having an abortion harms no one (no, it doesn’t harm the fetus, it’s simply stopping the fetus from growing into a person), so there’s no reason for it to be illegal. No one even really debates this, the only reason pro-lifers ever seem to give is that the bible says it’s wrong. So, if there’s no rational reason for it to be illegal, then why should it be?
That's how we have legally defined it. But we know that is not always the way. It was illegal to be gay not to long ago, our system made something as natural as breathing illegal because that's how we define it.

To me and many they are a person, I love kids and I don't care how poor I become. I find there is nothing more amazing in this world than having kids.

Additionally there is so much we still don't know in this world. For example we still don't know what causes rain, or how airplanes really fly. We have theories, but we don't know exactly why. If we don't know something far less complex than the human mind. How, can we possibly state with such certainty that a fetus is not a person.

The truth and fact of the matter is that we don't know.

The rest is just a justification, to carry out the action.

Just like all of us here have justified that it's ok to be unfaithful with a SP, MPA, or dancer. But just because we have justified it, it doesn't mean it's right, and all of us feel and know it's wrong. If you desagree you are just lying to yourself.
 

Grimnul

Well-known member
May 15, 2018
1,482
27
48
We actually do know exactly how planes fly, that’s kind of what the field of aeronautics is all about. Hell, the very fact that we have planes means we know how they fly, nature didn’t make planes, we did. We know exactly how they work.

That aside... it doesn’t matter what’s “right”. Morals and values are relative. What matters is what’s legal. The law exists to protect people. It doesn’t exists to tell those people how to act (within reason). It is immoral to use the law to try to impose your values onto others. There has to be a reason for something to be illegal. An illegal act has to cause harm to other people or their property. If we start making laws based on what a small percentage (or even a majority) of people think, we start getting things like being gay being illegal, as you mentioned above. There’s no reason for being gay to be illegal other than because the bible says so and insecure people think it’s gross. That’s not a legitimate reason for it to be illegal. Same with abortion. There are no arguments for it being illegal beyond subjective moral ones.
 

icespot

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2005
1,692
84
48
We actually do know exactly how planes fly, that’s kind of what the field of aeronautics is all about. Hell, the very fact that we have planes means we know how they fly, nature didn’t make planes, we did. We know exactly how they work.

That aside... it doesn’t matter what’s “right”. Morals and values are relative. What matters is what’s legal. The law exists to protect people. It doesn’t exists to tell those people how to act (within reason). It is immoral to use the law to try to impose your values onto others. There has to be a reason for something to be illegal. An illegal act has to cause harm to other people or their property. If we start making laws based on what a small percentage (or even a majority) of people think, we start getting things like being gay being illegal, as you mentioned above. There’s no reason for being gay to be illegal other than because the bible says so and insecure people think it’s gross. That’s not a legitimate reason for it to be illegal. Same with abortion. There are no arguments for it being illegal beyond subjective moral ones.
The flight point, was to highlight how little we know. And flight is not as complex as creating live or understanding how the mind works....

Etihad Airways, the UAE national carrier, has signed a deal with Boeing to become the world's biggest customer for the revolutionary 787-9 Dreamliner.

Featuring pioneering use of composite materials and impressive fuel efficiency, the craft certainly fits well with the UAE's reputation for investing in cutting-edge technology.

By all accounts, Etihad's chief executive, James Hogan, is getting a fleet of outstanding aircraft for his US$2.8 billion (Dh10bn).

But it is intriguing to ponder his response if, pen poised above chequebook, he had been told that there is still bitter dispute about how the 787-9 - or indeed any aircraft - gets off the ground.

Mr Hogan and those currently waiting in departure lounges may wish to stop reading at this point, but more than a century after the Wright brothers' historic first flight, it is still possible to ask three aerodynamicists to explain how aircraft fly and get four different answers.

This may come as a shock to anyone familiar with the seemingly straightforward explanation given on many websites and textbooks.

According to this, aircraft fly because the air flowing over the top of their wings moves faster than that underneath, producing a net upwards pressure over the wing, resulting in the force known as "lift".

The trouble starts with the attempts to explain precisely how wings achieve this difference in flow speeds. It is often claimed that air molecules flowing over the top of the "cambered" wing clearly have further to go, so must speed up to ensure they meet up their former companions travelling underneath. Quite why air molecules cannot bear to be separated from their friends in this way is not clear - and is known to be nonsense in any case.

A barely less ludicrous explanation is that the camber somehow squashes the air flowing over the top surface, compelling it to go faster - a bit like how water travels faster and further through a garden hose if its end is squeezed.

Again, exactly what the camber is squeezing the air "against" is not obvious. This did not stop Einstein himself coming up with this kind of explanation during his brief and inglorious stint as an aerodynamics consultant, which led to an aircraft that, according to its test-pilot, flew "like a pregnant duck".

A somewhat better account of lift focuses on Newton's laws, arguing that lift is just the result of the underside of the wing deflecting the oncoming air downwards, producing an equal and opposite force upwards. This sounds impressive until one realises that it means a plank should then be as effective as a cambered wing - which is not so.

Yet surely someone must know how aircraft stay aloft. After all, apart from the occasional - and impressively rare - mishap, they can and do. But as a fascinating new study of the history of aerodynamics shows, the science of wings is like the physics of the atom: there is an impressively reliable theory - but one whose foundations are not as solid as one might like.

In The Enigma of the Aerofoil (University of Chicago Press), science philosopher Professor David Bloor, of the University of Edinburgh, shows how early aerodynamicists came to terms with this disturbing truth after a decades-long dispute of almost religious intensity among some of the most brilliant mathematical minds of the day.

At the heart of the problem was the physics of fluid flow. About a century ago, this seemed well-established: the law showing that fluid pressure drops with increasing speed had been published by the great Swiss mathematician, Daniel Bernoulli, in 1738.

This seemed to hold the key to understanding lift, reducing it to the challenge of explaining why air travelled faster over the top of the wing than underneath. But there was a problem. The law strictly holds only for fluids that have zero viscosity, or "stickiness", which is not really true for air.

Scientists routinely encounter such challenges, and one time-honoured approach is to just carry on and hope the "technicality" can be ignored.

That is pretty much what early aerodynamicists in Germany did - with great success. They claimed that wings created a circulating flow of air over their surface, which generated the crucial speed difference needed for lift.

Yet British experts dismissed all this as little more than wishful thinking. They pointed to a fundamental theorem that proved that air could not circulate in the way claimed and began a quest for the "real" explanation.

The bad news was that this meant confronting the notorious Navier-Stokes equations, which can cope with viscosity, but only at the price of appalling mathematical complexity.

Meanwhile, over in Europe, aircraft design based on the dodgy explanation went from strength to strength. In an attempt to heal the rift, German theorists, notably Ludwig Prandtl, developed arguments to explain their success, based on kicking all the messy viscosity effects into something they called the "boundary layer".

Their wind-tunnel studies even revealed the existence of the "impossible" circulating air.

Yet the British remained unimpressed and stuck doggedly to their holy mission of trying to extract the "real" explanation from the Navier-Stokes equations.

By the mid-1930s, however, they had thrown in the towel. They might be using the right mathematics but they still struggled to explain the wind-tunnel results. So grudgingly they accepted the pragmatic, if scientifically questionable, "explanation" of the Germans.

The timing of their capitulation is significant. At about the same time, physicists were developing quantum theory, a description of the subatomic world that worked wonderfully well but whose foundations were - and remain - deeply mysterious. Meanwhile, mathematicians had discovered questions that were probably forever beyond their grasp. In short, the limits of human understanding were becoming painfully clear on many fronts.

So how do aircraft fly? Some will point to Bernoulli's Law, others to Prandtl's boundary layer theory and some to the Navier Stokes equations.

But in the end, all aircraft are carried aloft on wings made from metaphors, none of which capture the true nature of reality.



Robert Matthews is Visiting Reader in Science at Aston University, Birmingham, England.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,750
17,571
113
Just to be clear, the 23 week fetus below in the womb is not alive and it's like a seed to a tree? Are you sure or do my eyes deceive me?

http://www.humpath.com/IMG/jpg/sefliesasbaby.jpg[/[/QUOTE]

Then you should personally state you'll take over full responsibility of these unwanted babies you force to be born.
Maybe you should be arguing that instead of abortions they should be c sectioned as preemies that you and the incredibly religious types would then take care of for the rest of their lives.

Then you could show us your moral superiority as backed up by action, instead of demanding women raise unwanted children because abortion upsets you personally.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
It’s not a person. Period. It doesn’t really matter if it’s alive in the very most literal of senses, it’s not sentient, it couldn’t survive outside the mother at that point, it is not a viable human life at that point, no.
Here's one born prematurely at 21 weeks (i.e. two week earlier than the 23 week fetus posted earlier that you claim is not sentient and not a viable human life).

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/08/health/premature-baby-21-weeks-survivor-profile/index.html
 

Grimnul

Well-known member
May 15, 2018
1,482
27
48
Here's one born prematurely at 21 weeks (i.e. two week earlier than the 23 week fetus posted earlier that you claim is not sentient and not a viable human life).

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/08/health/premature-baby-21-weeks-survivor-profile/index.html
Completely meaningless. The notion that just because something CAN happen means that it’s even a remote possibility is fallacious. Every time you flip a coin, it could land perfectly on its side, but how often have you seen that happen? This case was an extreme outlier, extreme methods were used, and the fetus still was not expected to survive. The fact that it did means that crazy shit happens on rare occasion, it does not mean that all fetuses at that age are viable.
 
Toronto Escorts