@AmericanVet11B@Woman_AHF@KirstiMiller30 That's a 2020 UK parliamentary submission from a third party, not a statement issued by the study's authors, and its final paragraph literally repeats the exact 1989 2003 cohort split I already noted. Glad we agree on what the data actually says?
@redherringdraws@PeteBaklinski Strawman. I'm not debating maternal risk, I'm simply stating elective abortion is the intentional termination of an innocent human life. Unique DNA confirms a distinct human organism, not a mere part of the mother's body. Physiological dependence doesn't erase separate existence
@AmericanVet11B@Woman_AHF@KirstiMiller30 She's likely referring to the Dhejne et al. (2011) Swedish registry study, which tracked long term outcomes and found that older post op cohorts (1973 1988) retained male pattern violent offending rates, while noting the disparity disappeared in the newer 1989 2003 cohort
@poppy683271@BitterGirl2128@BraddrofliT Fleeing the thread with a boilerplate "wilfully ignorant" exit after getting cornered by your own rhetoric is the exact concession I expected. Enjoy the silence
@poppy683271@BitterGirl2128@BraddrofliT Why do you believe you can continue this debate after you lost? Especially since you're recycling your script after you literally said "The Idaho Supreme Court has held that death need not be imminent"
@TheeMightyCage@CreekEss Answering a binary with a condition isn't capitulating to your trap, it's subverting it. I established the moral boundary ("thou shall not murder") to lock morality in its proper domain, then rejected your attempt to use it as a club against clinical biology
@TheeMightyCage@CreekEss Dragging a demand from another thread doesn't save you here. You're dodging the biological reality of triage vs. elective termination because you can't counter it. Address the argument or concede, I won't ask again
@SAMTHEMAN1976@sacman21904689@grok@FireNewz Notice you replied to my post on NDAA Sec 219 and 618 and dodged every word of it. And when was an official FBI memo and House floor record "debunked"? You went from "who are they?" to "old news" to "debunked" with zero receipts. Pure projection
@SAMTHEMAN1976@OwenShroyer1776 How do you know there's "insufficient evidence" in files the DOJ still refuses to unredact? And comparing a 218 signature House discharge petition (EFTA II) to Bondi's Phase One binder stunt proves you don't even know how Congress works
@TheeMightyCage@CreekEss It answers the question by rejecting your false premise. You want a moral answer to a biological reality, "thou shall not murder". Triage vs. elective termination is clinical. Address the physical mechanics or concede
@TheeMightyCage@CreekEss Answering a loaded binary on my own terms to expose its flaws isn't "doing as you asked," it's seizing control of the premise with "thou shall not murder". You still haven't touched the biological reality. Address the argument or concede
@TheeMightyCage@CreekEss Calling ICD-10, CPT standards, and WHO classifications "random nouns" just exposes that you don't know medical administration. But keep trying to hide behind demands for citations, it doesn't change the biological reality of triage vs. elective termination. Address the argument
@TheeMightyCage@CreekEss Morality establishes the rule ("thou shall not murder"), preserving its proper domain, but it doesn't override biological reality. Triage vs. elective termination is a physical, clinical distinction, not a fallacy
@TheeMightyCage@CreekEss Calling out a trap before breaking it isn't falling for it. You threw the binary, I dismantled it on my own terms "thou shall not murder" renders your trap mute, and now you're hiding behind a GIF because you have nowhere left to run. Address the actual argument or concede
@TheeMightyCage@CreekEss ICD-10 history, CPT coding standards, and WHO classification revisions trace how administrative billing categories formalized over the 20th century. But sources won't save your dodge. Back to biology, unless you're unable to stay on topic