I say to hell with complications or concerns for the mother's "health". Just because a woman is exposed to medical/health risk doesn't justify literal murder.

I give terrible beej's tho.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Jan 31 2021 09:21pm

So you want two deaths?

Takes practice.



Toxic masculinity. smh



I always knew Joop was based.

I just ate a 22 oz dry aged ribeye with no vegetables. Fuck yeah

uh, no. as quoted above, a mole is non-viable by definition, so no, you cant deliver it via c-section. you can deliver a clump of cells, but thats a far cry from a viable human life. a healthy embryo is more than just a clump of cells that has zero chance of developing into a baby. its a viable human life.

and again, youre conflating chance of success with viability. one has nothing to do with the other. either an embryo is viable or it isnt. whether it actually makes it to full term or not does not affect its viability. as long as it *could* make it full term to be delivered as a baby, it is a viable human life.

only 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pregnancy-loss-miscarriage/symptoms-causes/syc-20354298) if miscarriage were as prevalent as you claim, that number would be higher. even assuming that the majority of miscarriages are unknown, and you at least double that, thats still only 40% of pregnancies ending in miscarriage. not a majority. also, per https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/repeated-miscarriages less than 1% of women have multiple miscarriages. since the global average is 2.5 children per woman, its not possible that a majority of pregnancies end in miscarriage. feel free to cite sources to contradict that, but your opinion is invalid.





cool story bro. but i guarantee youre wrong. but thats besides the point, which is that regardless of its chance of survival, a viable embryo is a human life.

The bold is... just the most perfect thing ever. Your complete lack of self-awareness and inability to apply your definition. Based on the definition of viable you gave, a mole is viable. I know you posted a definition saying that a mole is not viable, but based on the definition you gave it absolutely is. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. The mole is alive, it's got its own DNA, often its own organs, and it can be delivered as living tissue.

Chance of success has 100% to do with the other. Viability is not a flat determination you can make, virtually nothing in medicine works that way. It's all about statistics, and very very very few things are 100% or 0%. Best you can do at any point is say "fetuses that have made it to this point without showing outward signs have an X% chance to develop normally from here on out".

You've added "to be delivered as a baby" to your definition of viability. Glad to see you updating your definition as you see contradictions. So tell me, what separates a mole being extracted by c-section from a baby? What's the fundamental difference that makes one viable and the other not? Ability to survive on its own? To carry out its own biological functions? That it might eventually develop into an adult? What's the actual factor that makes "as a baby" important enough to add to the definition? hint: it's that the baby has a brain. You can cause deformity in literally any part of the body except the brain and it is still considered viable. Born without legs? Viable. Born without arms? Viable. Born with a fudged up spinal cord but still living and functioning? Viable. Under-developed lungs? Viable. If its brain can be supported, it's viable. If it can't, it's not. That's the single underlying factor that says if a fetus is viable.



Unless you're a physician or a developmental biologist, I guarantee you don't know more than me. And I'm 99% sure you're neither of those.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 1 2021 12:09am

uh, no. i specifically said otherwise. i guess you just dont read well? or have a poor memory? this is not the first time ive mentioned developing into a baby.



i stated very clearly what i consider viable vs nonviable. a mole is nonviable, it will never ever lead to a human baby. it may be a clump of cells that shares some dna with humans, but it will never be a human with fully human dna. and again, as i said before, while consciousness is a usual feature of humans, it is not a defining one. unless you think someone brain dead kept alive by life support is no longer human? YOU may define humanity by consciousness, I do not. a human is a whole package, there is no single defining feature. parts here and there may be missing, including consciousness, but as long as the overall impression is that of a human, it is human.





viability is potential. potential is not determined by chance of success. if it COULD - there is potential, viability. if it WILL - is determined by chance of success.




personally, no, however my wife IS, and i can get all the information i need from her. ergo, yes, i know more than you.

Unwanted pregnancies are very strongly correlated with low socioeconomic status and broken homes. Reducing the number of abortions this way would require more investment into education and the fight against poverty. In other words: socialist faggotry.
Let's rather keep treating every unborn fetus like the most valuable thing in the world, only to let the child rot in poverty and neglect once it's born. Yeah, that sounds like a more promising approach.

look at it like this. is a tadpole a "potential" frog? is a caterpillar a "potential" butterfly? they might not make it that far, they may get eaten or otherwise die. nonetheless, its not the potential of life, it IS life, in a different stage of growth. similarly, an embryo is not a "potential" human, its a human at a different stage of development. yes, theres a chance that it may not make it to maturity, but its still the early stages of growth of a life. its not the potential for a life, it IS a life.