goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: michigancat on August 10, 2012, 03:09:56 PM
-
GO GET 'EM!!! :dance:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/09/kansas-doctor-under-attack-for-not-forcing-ten-year-old-rape-victim-to-give-birth/
-
:sdeek:
-
JFC, the people in this rough ridin' state. . .
-
Just when I thought the Phelps clan were the worst Kansans.
-
"Ten years olds should be learning how to put on make up and giggling over pictures of Justin Bieber, not learning how to change diapers."
-
Operation Rescue are some pretty big zealots. Doesn't mean that the Dr. who gave out second opinions didn't act negligently and shouldn't have had her license taken away.
-
Operation Rescue are some pretty big zealots. Doesn't mean that the Dr. who gave out second opinions didn't act negligently and shouldn't have had her license taken away.
You have absolutely got to be rough ridin' kidding me.
-
Operation Rescue are some pretty big zealots. Doesn't mean that the Dr. who gave out second opinions didn't act negligently and shouldn't have had her license taken away.
You have absolutely got to be rough ridin' kidding me.
This is from a medical professional that can tell t better than I can.
"At issue here is a physician who assigned psychiatric diagnoses without documenting the basis for those diagnoses. There are either two possibilities here: a) As the board alleged, she rubber-stamped the diagnoses without performing an adequate examination and history of the patients; or b) as she alleges, she performed the examinations and histories and did not adequately document them in the medical record. Now, here's the thing: In EITHER eventuality, that is cause, under Kansas statute (and the laws pretty much anywhere else in the United States), for a finding of professional incompetence and revocation of her license to practice. And that's not even mentioning the utterly unconscionable omission of not referring SUICIDAL patients for follow-up.
Actually, given that she claims she DELIBERATELY withheld information from the medical record, she's darned lucky she wasn't also up on felony charges (something applicable, again, anywhere in the United States). Now, was she under particular scrutiny because of the purpose for which she was providing these diagnoses? Quite possibly. That being the case, however, she was doubly the fool for providing the board with all they needed to revoke her license. We don't need physicians in this state that perform diagnoses by accepting the recommendation of a computer program (against the directions of the program provider, incidentally); we don't need physicians that deliberately falsify medical records; and we don't need physicians that are just plain stupid."
I don't think a 10-year old gild should be forced to take a pregnancy to term any more than you do. I do think that medical practitioners should be forced to do their job.
-
:sdeek:
-
Just ugh all around.
-
J F C
-
awful situation
-
You cannot have any sort of intelligent discussion re. abortion when you start off with the words "anti-choice" or "anti-life" or anything like that. It's impossible.
-
These are the same monsters who turn out in droves at the polls that yell "big government is taking away OUR freedom"!
I mean you can't make this stuff up folks...and its all wrapped in the Amercian flag with rest of the T-Douch-Baggers galloping around and preaching about personal liberty.
-
You cannot have any sort of intelligent discussion re. abortion when you start off with the words "anti-choice" or "anti-life" or anything like that. It's impossible.
Sure you can. What can't be done is discuss with someone who is inconsistent in any way. Their philosophy must continue, consistently, to all ends.
-
You cannot have any sort of intelligent discussion re. abortion when you start off with the words "anti-choice" or "anti-life" or anything like that. It's impossible.
Sure you can. What can't be done is discuss with someone who is inconsistent in any way. Their philosophy must continue, consistently, to all ends.
I just meant that intelligent discussion should probably be devoid of rhetoric.
-
You cannot have any sort of intelligent discussion re. abortion when you start off with the words "anti-choice" or "anti-life" or anything like that. It's impossible.
Sure you can. What can't be done is discuss with someone who is inconsistent in any way. Their philosophy must continue, consistently, to all ends.
:thumbs:
-
You cannot have any sort of intelligent discussion re. abortion when you start off with the words "anti-choice" or "anti-life" or anything like that. It's impossible.
Sure you can. What can't be done is discuss with someone who is inconsistent in any way. Their philosophy must continue, consistently, to all ends.
I just meant that intelligent discussion should probably be devoid of rhetoric.
Just be warned, their intelligent discussion ends with the 10 year old incest rape victim giving birth to her uncle's child.
-
How could anyone possibly be against other people having abortions?
-
How could anyone possibly be against other people having abortions?
If you believe the baby is a person, then it seems reasonably possible that you would be against another person aborting it.
-
How could anyone possibly be against other people having abortions?
If you believe the baby is a person, then it seems reasonably possible that you would be against another person aborting it.
I'll file your response under "because there's a lot of retards out there."
-
How could anyone possibly be against other people having abortions?
If you believe the baby is a person, then it seems reasonably possible that you would be against another person aborting it.
I'll file your response under "because there's a lot of retards out there."
You can file wherever you want. I was answering your question, so maybe you can file your question with my answer?
-
How could anyone possibly be against other people having abortions?
If you believe the baby is a person, then it seems reasonably possible that you would be against another person aborting it.
I'll file your response under "because there's a lot of retards out there."
You can file wherever you want. I was answering your question, so maybe you can file your question with my answer?
Dobber, do you believe "the baby is a person?"
-
Dobber, do you believe "the baby is a person?"
Yes.
-
I'm treading into this discussion carefully because there have been a billion and a half discussions about this on the internet and they're all awful. But whatever. My view on this is probably a bit radical and it's kind of an uncomfortable thing to argue, but logically, it's the only one that makes any kind of sense to me. I'm going to start off with a couple of basic premises that shouldn't be very contentious.
First, destroying something that isn't human ("clump of cells") is permissible under any circumstance. On the other hand, we must agree that killing an innocent, defenseless person under any circumstance is wrong. All sides should be able to agree with me so far.
With that in mind, I think there is only point worth considering. All other things, be they horribly tragic like rape or incest (or in the case of the musician in a symphony, as in the philosophical argument), I think are irrelevant. The only point that matters is when, exactly, it goes from "clump of cells" to "human life." This is where it gets extremely dicey because we need to determine a precise moment in time, a singular second, before which, terminating the "thing" is completely permissible, and after which is the murder of an innocent human being.
If you believe in morality, or the existence or "right and wrong," that moment is extremely profound. Again, there must exist a point in time, when one second before, the act is completely morally permissible and one second after is a heinous moral act. There have been a ton of opinions on when that moment is, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus. This is why I don't understand the significance of rape or incest. I recognize that those situations are brutal and awful, but the origin of the human or non-human doesn't really matter. Either the product of rape or incest is human or it's not. Either abortion at a singular moment in the pregnancy is wrong, or it is not. How rape or incest figures into that, other than being extremely tragic, is beyond me.
At this point, I don't think I've offered any kind of opinion on the subject of whether or not abortion is right or wrong. I think this is how the argument should be framed.
Personally, I think it's impossible to determine at which point in time that is. I think the only thing that makes sense to me is conception. I understand the arguments against it, but haven't found any that were particularly compelling. I think my view is the safest bet. I mean, we're arguing in a very murky area about whether or not something is murder. Because here's the deal: either it's murder or it's not and I think it's best to err on the side of caution.
I think it's too gray and I think it's too risky and I think if people believe there are murders against human life being sanctioned by the state that it's a worthy cause for which to fight. I know I'm going to get shallacked on here for my opinion, but any other opinion I offered would be dishonest.
-
I'm treading into this discussion carefully because there have been a billion and a half discussions about this on the internet and they're all awful. But whatever. My view on this is probably a bit radical and it's kind of an uncomfortable thing to argue, but logically, it's the only one that makes any kind of sense to me. I'm going to start off with a couple of basic premises that shouldn't be very contentious.
First, destroying something that isn't human ("clump of cells") is permissible under any circumstance. On the other hand, we must agree that killing an innocent, defenseless person under any circumstance is wrong. All sides should be able to agree with me so far.
With that in mind, I think there is only point worth considering. All other things, be they horribly tragic like rape or incest (or in the case of the musician in a symphony, as in the philosophical argument), I think are irrelevant. The only point that matters is when, exactly, it goes from "clump of cells" to "human life." This is where it gets extremely dicey because we need to determine a precise moment in time, a singular second, before which, terminating the "thing" is completely permissible, and after which is the murder of an innocent human being.
If you believe in morality, or the existence or "right and wrong," that moment is extremely profound. Again, there must exist a point in time, when one second before, the act is completely morally permissible and one second after is a heinous moral act. There have been a ton of opinions on when that moment is, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus. This is why I don't understand the significance of rape or incest. I recognize that those situations are brutal and awful, but the origin of the human or non-human doesn't really matter. Either the product of rape or incest is human or it's not. Either abortion at a singular moment in the pregnancy is wrong, or it is not. How rape or incest figures into that, other than being extremely tragic, is beyond me.
At this point, I don't think I've offered any kind of opinion on the subject of whether or not abortion is right or wrong. I think this is how the argument should be framed.
Personally, I think it's impossible to determine at which point in time that is. I think the only thing that makes sense to me is conception. I understand the arguments against it, but haven't found any that were particularly compelling. I think my view is the safest bet. I mean, we're arguing in a very murky area about whether or not something is murder. Because here's the deal: either it's murder or it's not and I think it's best to err on the side of caution.
I think it's too gray and I think it's too risky and I think if people believe there are murders against human life being sanctioned by the state that it's a worthy cause for which to fight. I know I'm going to get shallacked on here for my opinion, but any other opinion I offered would be dishonest.
I respect both sides of this issue, and believe that getting an abortion is morally wrong. I do think they should be legal, however, because of cases like this one. This girl is 10 years old, and going through with this pregnancy, could be potentially life-risking. Do you really want to force this girl to go through with the birth of a baby she had no choice in creating? Sure, there are some people who are just irresponsible and then go get an abortion, but I don't think it's really possible to allow some abortions and not others without getting into government hypocrisy, so I just prefer that they all be legal.
-
Question Dlew. Who should be responsible for the support and rearing of these rape and/or incest babies that we're forcing women to have? The already victimized mothers? Society at large? Some facts to ponder in determining the inviolate sanctity and inherent value of human life:
World Population:
7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.)
Birth rate:
19.14 births/1,000 population
note: this rate results in about 252 worldwide births per minute or 4.2 births every second (2012 est.)
Death rate:
7.99 deaths/1,000 population
note: this rate results in about 107 worldwide deaths per minute or 1.8 deaths every second (July 2012 est.)
Population growth rate:
1.096%
note: this rate results in about 145 net additions to the worldwide population every minute or 2.4 every second (2012 est.)
Point being, there are plenty of us and then some. I don't see it as an automatic that we need to protect human life at all costs.
Which brings me to my next question, could you be the one to look the victim of rape and/or incest in the eye and tell her she has to have that "baby" her feelings on the subject (i.e., her carrying, birthing, financially/emotionally supporting the child, etc.) be damned? "I know it's horribly tragic sweetheart, but it's irrelevant what you feel. Chin up." :confused:
Not me, friend.
-
Question Dlew. Who should be responsible for the support and rearing of these rape and/or incest babies that we're forcing women to have? The already victimized mothers? Society at large? Some facts to ponder in determining the inviolate sanctity and inherent value of human life:
World Population:
7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.)
Birth rate:
19.14 births/1,000 population
note: this rate results in about 252 worldwide births per minute or 4.2 births every second (2012 est.)
Death rate:
7.99 deaths/1,000 population
note: this rate results in about 107 worldwide deaths per minute or 1.8 deaths every second (July 2012 est.)
Population growth rate:
1.096%
note: this rate results in about 145 net additions to the worldwide population every minute or 2.4 every second (2012 est.)
Point being, there are plenty of us and then some. I don't see it as an automatic that we need to protect human life at all costs.
Which brings me to my next question, could you be the one to look the victim of rape and/or incest in the eye and tell her she has to have that "baby" her feelings on the subject (i.e., her carrying, birthing, financially/emotionally supporting the child, etc.) be damned? "I know it's horribly tragic sweetheart, but it's irrelevant what you feel. Chin up." :confused:
Not me, friend.
Holy crap man, you go from cold and dark heart to a plea to emotions in one post.
-
:dance:
-
I'm treading into this discussion carefully because there have been a billion and a half discussions about this on the internet and they're all awful. But whatever. My view on this is probably a bit radical and it's kind of an uncomfortable thing to argue, but logically, it's the only one that makes any kind of sense to me. I'm going to start off with a couple of basic premises that shouldn't be very contentious.
First, destroying something that isn't human ("clump of cells") is permissible under any circumstance. On the other hand, we must agree that killing an innocent, defenseless person under any circumstance is wrong. All sides should be able to agree with me so far.
With that in mind, I think there is only point worth considering. All other things, be they horribly tragic like rape or incest (or in the case of the musician in a symphony, as in the philosophical argument), I think are irrelevant. The only point that matters is when, exactly, it goes from "clump of cells" to "human life." This is where it gets extremely dicey because we need to determine a precise moment in time, a singular second, before which, terminating the "thing" is completely permissible, and after which is the murder of an innocent human being.
If you believe in morality, or the existence or "right and wrong," that moment is extremely profound. Again, there must exist a point in time, when one second before, the act is completely morally permissible and one second after is a heinous moral act. There have been a ton of opinions on when that moment is, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus. This is why I don't understand the significance of rape or incest. I recognize that those situations are brutal and awful, but the origin of the human or non-human doesn't really matter. Either the product of rape or incest is human or it's not. Either abortion at a singular moment in the pregnancy is wrong, or it is not. How rape or incest figures into that, other than being extremely tragic, is beyond me.
At this point, I don't think I've offered any kind of opinion on the subject of whether or not abortion is right or wrong. I think this is how the argument should be framed.
Personally, I think it's impossible to determine at which point in time that is. I think the only thing that makes sense to me is conception. I understand the arguments against it, but haven't found any that were particularly compelling. I think my view is the safest bet. I mean, we're arguing in a very murky area about whether or not something is murder. Because here's the deal: either it's murder or it's not and I think it's best to err on the side of caution.
I think it's too gray and I think it's too risky and I think if people believe there are murders against human life being sanctioned by the state that it's a worthy cause for which to fight. I know I'm going to get shallacked on here for my opinion, but any other opinion I offered would be dishonest.
Excellent post - I've also been avoiding any serious discussion in this thread, but what the hell - most of you guys hate me here already. There is such a huge gray area here as all it really comes down to is individual rights. All humans have the right to live, yet a woman should have the right to not be pregnant, yada yada yada... But there are so many questions. Would you consider a situation where the unborn fetus is removed from the mother and put into an incubator of sorts? If it lives - awesome - if not, sorry pro-lifers, natural causes. This probably goes into the "it's not life - it's a parasite" argument - which seems pretty harsh, but I don't know where else to go with it. I'm along the same lines as you DLew - I just don't think anyone could ever satisfy all arguments about when life becomes life.
-
Question Dlew. Who should be responsible for the support and rearing of these rape and/or incest babies that we're forcing women to have? The already victimized mothers? Society at large? Some facts to ponder in determining the inviolate sanctity and inherent value of human life:
World Population:
7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.)
Birth rate:
19.14 births/1,000 population
note: this rate results in about 252 worldwide births per minute or 4.2 births every second (2012 est.)
Death rate:
7.99 deaths/1,000 population
note: this rate results in about 107 worldwide deaths per minute or 1.8 deaths every second (July 2012 est.)
Population growth rate:
1.096%
note: this rate results in about 145 net additions to the worldwide population every minute or 2.4 every second (2012 est.)
Point being, there are plenty of us and then some. I don't see it as an automatic that we need to protect human life at all costs.
Which brings me to my next question, could you be the one to look the victim of rape and/or incest in the eye and tell her she has to have that "baby" her feelings on the subject (i.e., her carrying, birthing, financially/emotionally supporting the child, etc.) be damned? "I know it's horribly tragic sweetheart, but it's irrelevant what you feel. Chin up." :confused:
Not me, friend.
Perfectly valid questions. I don't claim to be 100% right on the subject.
I'm going to tackle your post, which really has 3 arguments, one at a time. The first: who should be responsible for the "babies" (your words, not mine)? Yes, I think society at large should be responsible, if the mothers are unwilling. I know it's a strain, but I do think there is inherent value to human life. If these are "people" (an admittedly debatable label) we're dealing with, then I think it's irresponsible to "kill" them, because the alternative would be a financial strain. We do not kill foster children, we do not kill all prisoners. My point is, society does care for human life. We already carry the burden of the poor, and the elderly, and the sick, and those in prison. Is it not just as reasonable to care for innocent children (assuming, of course, that they are "humans")?
Regarding your Malthusian argument citing population statistics: I understand. Abortion certainly helps to control growth which has terrific consequences for the rest of us, the most interesting of which, in my opinion, is the sharp decline in the crime rate, as noted in Freakonomics. But sheesh, it seems even staunch advocates of abortion would shy away from that argument. It seems awful nihilistic.
Finally, could I tell the victim of rape they need to have children? Gosh, I don't know. It'd be really rough. I guess I would have to if I really believe in this philosophy, but I'd certainly try to put it a little more delicately than "chin up."
Further though, I think I may have done a poor job of explaining what I meant. I don't find the feelings of rape victims irrelevant. I find them extremely relevant. My heart goes out to them and I couldn't imagine being in their shoes. However, I do find their feelings do not constructively contribute to the argument. Again, my point is, if the "thing" is a "human" we shouldn't kill it, even if the mother has undergone a profound injustice, I think it's wrong to kill an innocent life.
-
I'm treading into this discussion carefully because there have been a billion and a half discussions about this on the internet and they're all awful. But whatever. My view on this is probably a bit radical and it's kind of an uncomfortable thing to argue, but logically, it's the only one that makes any kind of sense to me. I'm going to start off with a couple of basic premises that shouldn't be very contentious.
First, destroying something that isn't human ("clump of cells") is permissible under any circumstance. On the other hand, we must agree that killing an innocent, defenseless person under any circumstance is wrong. All sides should be able to agree with me so far.
With that in mind, I think there is only point worth considering. All other things, be they horribly tragic like rape or incest (or in the case of the musician in a symphony, as in the philosophical argument), I think are irrelevant. The only point that matters is when, exactly, it goes from "clump of cells" to "human life." This is where it gets extremely dicey because we need to determine a precise moment in time, a singular second, before which, terminating the "thing" is completely permissible, and after which is the murder of an innocent human being.
If you believe in morality, or the existence or "right and wrong," that moment is extremely profound. Again, there must exist a point in time, when one second before, the act is completely morally permissible and one second after is a heinous moral act. There have been a ton of opinions on when that moment is, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus. This is why I don't understand the significance of rape or incest. I recognize that those situations are brutal and awful, but the origin of the human or non-human doesn't really matter. Either the product of rape or incest is human or it's not. Either abortion at a singular moment in the pregnancy is wrong, or it is not. How rape or incest figures into that, other than being extremely tragic, is beyond me.
At this point, I don't think I've offered any kind of opinion on the subject of whether or not abortion is right or wrong. I think this is how the argument should be framed.
Personally, I think it's impossible to determine at which point in time that is. I think the only thing that makes sense to me is conception. I understand the arguments against it, but haven't found any that were particularly compelling. I think my view is the safest bet. I mean, we're arguing in a very murky area about whether or not something is murder. Because here's the deal: either it's murder or it's not and I think it's best to err on the side of caution.
I think it's too gray and I think it's too risky and I think if people believe there are murders against human life being sanctioned by the state that it's a worthy cause for which to fight. I know I'm going to get shallacked on here for my opinion, but any other opinion I offered would be dishonest.
Excellent post - I've also been avoiding any serious discussion in this thread, but what the hell - most of you guys hate me here already. There is such a huge gray area here as all it really comes down to is individual rights. All humans have the right to live, yet a woman should have the right to not be pregnant, yada yada yada... But there are so many questions. Would you consider a situation where the unborn fetus is removed from the mother and put into an incubator of sorts? If it lives - awesome - if not, sorry pro-lifers, natural causes. This probably goes into the "it's not life - it's a parasite" argument - which seems pretty harsh, but I don't know where else to go with it. I'm along the same lines as you DLew - I just don't think anyone could ever satisfy all arguments about when life becomes life.
I say life begins with a heartbeat, just like it ends without one.
-
A sincere congratulations to Dlew12 for logically thinking, for himself/herself. He/she is also mostly correct.
The only issue is that there is no need to even consider when something has become something else. The fact is, to destroy something, something must first exist. What exists is a human being. Always will be, always has been. If it was not, no one would care to destroy it. The "clump of cells" is destroyed because 10 years from now, it will be a 9 year-old boy or girl. The clock has already started. It has already distinguished itself as a something.
Additionally, in a case like this, doctors should do all all they can to save both the mother and the child. Yes, it stinks that we are in this predicament, but we no longer have a choice (yes, I said that). Everything should be done to protect the health and lives of two unique individuals, as we would in any other case. And after that, there are alternatives (adoption, etc).
-
"I support choice."
Says a person whose mother chose to give birth.
"I support life."
Says a person whose taxes go towards killing others.
"We live in a messed up world."
Says a person who is being completely honest.
-
"We live in a messed up world."
Says a person who is being completely honest.
Yes. An important point that must be understood.
-
A sincere congratulations to Dlew12 for logically thinking, for himself/herself. He/she is also mostly correct.
The only issue is that there is no need to even consider when something has become something else. The fact is, to destroy something, something must first exist. What exists is a human being. Always will be, always has been. If it was not, no one would care to destroy it. The "clump of cells" is destroyed because 10 years from now, it will be a 9 year-old boy or girl. The clock has already started. It has already distinguished itself as a something.
Additionally, in a case like this, doctors should do all all they can to save both the mother and the child. Yes, it stinks that we are in this predicament, but we no longer have a choice (yes, I said that). Everything should be done to protect the health and lives of two unique individuals, as we would in any other case. And after that, there are alternatives (adoption, etc).
Interesting opinion and no where near fact.
-
Dlew, if life begins is conception, then there are more natural abortions than abortions performed by doctors. ALOT more.
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C)
-
Dlew, if life begins is conception, then there are more natural abortions than abortions performed by doctors. ALOT more.
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C)
God performs abortions? :horrorsurprise:
Why?
-
Dlew, if life begins is conception, then there are more natural abortions than abortions performed by doctors. ALOT more.
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C)
What's your point, KK? I don't think that article necessarily refutes anything I said.
-
Interesting opinion and no where near fact.
The only real argument to be had is whether or not it is OK to destroy truly innocent human beings. If you believe it is, then we can begin to discuss. This is where pro-choicers should begin.
The problem is, most would say that it isn't...
-
Dlew, if life begins is conception, then there are more natural abortions than abortions performed by doctors. ALOT more.
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C)
This definitely has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, but I can't speak for Dlew12.
"Nonetheless, the high failure rate begs challenging ethical questions. If life begins at conception, as many believe, why are so many lives immediately taken? If, as some ethicists argue, nascent life must be protected, how do we assess the degree of moral entitlement due a nascent entity that fails to pass nature’s own muster perhaps 80 percent of the time?"
Really?
-
Interesting opinion and no where near fact.
The only real argument to be had is whether or not it is OK to destroy truly innocent human beings. If you believe it is, then we can begin to discuss. This is where pro-choicers should begin.
The problem is, most would say that it isn't...
Not true. Unless you believe God frequently and without reason kills truly innocent human beings. Than we may begin a true discussion.
-
Interesting opinion and no where near fact.
The only real argument to be had is whether or not it is OK to destroy truly innocent human beings. If you believe it is, then we can begin to discuss. This is where pro-choicers should begin.
The problem is, most would say that it isn't...
Not true. Unless you believe God frequently and without reason kills truly innocent human beings. Than we may begin a true discussion.
For the record, LSOC, I think you were the first person in this thread to reference the existence of God. I think that, assuming one believes in the existence of morality and the idea that some things are "right" and others are "wrong," (which plenty of athiests would contend is true) an argument against abortion can be made without ever referencing God.
-
Interesting opinion and no where near fact.
The only real argument to be had is whether or not it is OK to destroy truly innocent human beings. If you believe it is, then we can begin to discuss. This is where pro-choicers should begin.
The problem is, most would say that it isn't...
Not true. Unless you believe God frequently and without reason kills truly innocent human beings. Than we may begin a true discussion.
For the record, LSOC, I think you were the first person in this thread to reference the existence of God. I think that, assuming one believes in the existence of morality and the idea that some things are "right" and others are "wrong," (which plenty of athiests would contend is true) an argument against abortion can be made without ever referencing God.
I can rephrase. So nature and or simple fate performs abortions?! Why?
-
Perhaps women themselves are aborting subconsciously.
Or perhaps the group of cells are self aborting due to hating each other's faces?
-
A sincere congratulations to Dlew12 for logically thinking, for himself/herself. He/she is also mostly correct.
The only issue is that there is no need to even consider when something has become something else. The fact is, to destroy something, something must first exist. What exists is a human being. Always will be, always has been. If it was not, no one would care to destroy it. The "clump of cells" is destroyed because 10 years from now, it will be a 9 year-old boy or girl. The clock has already started. It has already distinguished itself as a something.
Additionally, in a case like this, doctors should do all all they can to save both the mother and the child. Yes, it stinks that we are in this predicament, but we no longer have a choice (yes, I said that). Everything should be done to protect the health and lives of two unique individuals, as we would in any other case. And after that, there are alternatives (adoption, etc).
In the case of rape, which is where the rubber meets the road on this issue in my eyes, where is the "we" in that scenario? We're not talking about forcing the rape victim to fill out some paper work or to pee in a cup here; we're talking about 9 months of pregnancy and child birth. Who are you to have a say in that decision? She no longer has a choice not because reality so dictates, but because of the say so of someone who has no burden to bear once the decision is made, doesn't have to deal with the accompanying physical/emotional/financial fallout, wasn't raped, etc.? You get to prance off on your moral high horse after you've told all the silly rape victims of the world not only where their priorities should lie, but where they will lie, never having walked in their shoes.
I just can't wrap my mind around the arrogance of someone who thinks they get the final say over the victim in such cases. That a belief that we're all unique little snow flakes entitled to life somehow justifies perpetrating what could be a second and more devastating victimization. The whole human life above all else argument is idealistic to the point of being juvenile.
For example, consider a Typhoid Mary hypothetical. We know a child is a carrier of some super pathogen that will result in the deaths of hundreds of other human beings. The only way to prevent this mass death is the destruction of the child who would have otherwise continued on living a healthy life. Do we kill it? One to save hundreds of lives or thousands or millions? Surely the right of the many to life outweighs the right of the one? Do we consign them to death to let one innocent live? Keep in mind "[w]hat can't be done is discuss with someone who is inconsistent in any way. Their philosophy must continue, consistently, to all ends."
To me there exist considerations that trump innocent human life. The aforementioned are two of them. What about you big guy?
-
For the record, LSOC, I think you were the first person in this thread to reference the existence of God. I think that, assuming one believes in the existence of morality and the idea that some things are "right" and others are "wrong," (which plenty of athiests would contend is true) an argument against abortion can be made without ever referencing God.
He/she doesn't understand what he's/she's talking about. That it would be a second discussion. We can have both. But I can save us time and say that (A.) He can and will do whatever he wants. (B.) But in this case, he is allowing the natural processes of a fallen world to kill people. Just as tornadoes and animals and accidents, kill people. Babies die due to miscarriages, car accidents, abortions, and many other ways. Most of which people mourn and one of which we can easily prevent.
And yes, even an atheist should be able to see most of this logic, but without God, even it breaks down. Like I said earlier, consistency is key.
-
Perhaps women themselves are aborting subconsciously.
Or perhaps the group of cells are self aborting due to hating each other's faces?
I think the group of cells will do what other groups of cells will do. Grow into something else or not. But they are still just a group of cells.
One person's "natural process" is another's "miracle".
-
For the record, LSOC, I think you were the first person in this thread to reference the existence of God. I think that, assuming one believes in the existence of morality and the idea that some things are "right" and others are "wrong," (which plenty of athiests would contend is true) an argument against abortion can be made without ever referencing God.
He/she doesn't understand what he's/she's talking about. That it would be a second discussion. We can have both. But I can save us time and say that (A.) He can and will do whatever he wants. (B.) But in this case, he is allowing the natural processes of a fallen world to kill people. Just as tornadoes and animals and accidents, kill people. Babies die due to miscarriages, car accidents, abortions, and many other ways. Most of which people mourn and one of which we can easily prevent.
And yes, even an atheist should be able to see most of this logic, but without God, even it breaks down. Like I said earlier, consistency is key.
I wish you understood what you were talking about. It would really help. But you simply have no understanding so you will never understand. Then maybe you would be consistent.
-
In the case of rape, which is where the rubber meets the road on this issue in my eyes, where is the "we" in that scenario? We're not talking about forcing the rape victim to fill out some paper work or to pee in a cup here; we're talking about 9 months of pregnancy and child birth. Who are you to have a say in that decision? She no longer has a choice not because reality so dictates, but because of the say so of someone who has no burden to bear once the decision is made, doesn't have to deal with the accompanying physical/emotional/financial fallout, wasn't raped, etc.? You get to prance off on your moral high horse after you've told all the silly rape victims of the world not only where their priorities should lie, but where they will lie, never having walked in their shoes.
I just can't wrap my mind around the arrogance of someone who thinks they get the final say over the victim in such cases. That a belief that we're all unique little snow flakes entitled to life somehow justifies perpetrating what could be a second and more devastating victimization. The whole human life above all else argument is idealistic to the point of being juvenile.
For example, consider a Typhoid Mary hypothetical. We know a child is a carrier of some super pathogen that will result in the deaths of hundreds of other human beings. The only way to prevent this mass death is the destruction of the child who would have otherwise continued on living a healthy life. Do we kill it? One to save hundreds of lives or thousands or millions? Surely the right of the many to life outweighs the right of the one? Do we consign them to death to let one innocent live? Keep in mind "[w]hat can't be done is discuss with someone who is inconsistent in any way. Their philosophy must continue, consistently, to all ends."
To me there exist considerations that trump innocent human life. The aforementioned are two of them. What about you big guy?
Outstanding input.
-
The "exact point" dlew is seeking is when a person comes out of a woman. Years later, on the date of that exact point, elites will have threads on goEMAW featuring pics of birthday cakes that relate to their lives somehow.
-
Question Dlew. Who should be responsible for the support and rearing of these rape and/or incest babies that we're forcing women to have? The already victimized mothers? Society at large? Some facts to ponder in determining the inviolate sanctity and inherent value of human life:
World Population:
7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.)
Birth rate:
19.14 births/1,000 population
note: this rate results in about 252 worldwide births per minute or 4.2 births every second (2012 est.)
Death rate:
7.99 deaths/1,000 population
note: this rate results in about 107 worldwide deaths per minute or 1.8 deaths every second (July 2012 est.)
Population growth rate:
1.096%
note: this rate results in about 145 net additions to the worldwide population every minute or 2.4 every second (2012 est.)
Point being, there are plenty of us and then some. I don't see it as an automatic that we need to protect human life at all costs.
Which brings me to my next question, could you be the one to look the victim of rape and/or incest in the eye and tell her she has to have that "baby" her feelings on the subject (i.e., her carrying, birthing, financially/emotionally supporting the child, etc.) be damned? "I know it's horribly tragic sweetheart, but it's irrelevant what you feel. Chin up." :confused:
Not me, friend.
Perfectly valid questions. I don't claim to be 100% right on the subject.
I'm going to tackle your post, which really has 3 arguments, one at a time. The first: who should be responsible for the "babies" (your words, not mine)? Yes, I think society at large should be responsible, if the mothers are unwilling. I know it's a strain, but I do think there is inherent value to human life. If these are "people" (an admittedly debatable label) we're dealing with, then I think it's irresponsible to "kill" them, because the alternative would be a financial strain. We do not kill foster children, we do not kill all prisoners. My point is, society does care for human life. We already carry the burden of the poor, and the elderly, and the sick, and those in prison. Is it not just as reasonable to care for innocent children (assuming, of course, that they are "humans")?
Regarding your Malthusian argument citing population statistics: I understand. Abortion certainly helps to control growth which has terrific consequences for the rest of us, the most interesting of which, in my opinion, is the sharp decline in the crime rate, as noted in Freakonomics. But sheesh, it seems even staunch advocates of abortion would shy away from that argument. It seems awful nihilistic.
Finally, could I tell the victim of rape they need to have children? Gosh, I don't know. It'd be really rough. I guess I would have to if I really believe in this philosophy, but I'd certainly try to put it a little more delicately than "chin up."
Further though, I think I may have done a poor job of explaining what I meant. I don't find the feelings of rape victims irrelevant. I find them extremely relevant. My heart goes out to them and I couldn't imagine being in their shoes. However, I do find their feelings do not constructively contribute to the argument. Again, my point is, if the "thing" is a "human" we shouldn't kill it, even if the mother has undergone a profound injustice, I think it's wrong to kill an innocent life.
It's a very well thought-out response. The only thing I disagree with is the idea that population control as an additional supporting argument in favor of a rape victim's right to choose is nihilistic. Quite the contrary, logical arguments in favor of the greater good, particularly population control, are anything but embracing anarchy nor an expression of a belief in nothingness.
Between us, it simply comes down to how much importance you put on human life and if you're willing to sacrifice it for other considerations. I am inherently misanthropic. When it comes to the question of humankind, "more" is far from the first word that springs to my mind (myself most sincerely included).
-
In the case of rape, which is where the rubber meets the road on this issue in my eyes, where is the "we" in that scenario? We're not talking about forcing the rape victim to fill out some paper work or to pee in a cup here; we're talking about 9 months of pregnancy and child birth. Who are you to have a say in that decision? She no longer has a choice not because reality so dictates, but because of the say so of someone who has no burden to bear once the decision is made, doesn't have to deal with the accompanying physical/emotional/financial fallout, wasn't raped, etc.? You get to prance off on your moral high horse after you've told all the silly rape victims of the world not only where their priorities should lie, but where they will lie, never having walked in their shoes.
I just can't wrap my mind around the arrogance of someone who thinks they get the final say over the victim in such cases. That a belief that we're all unique little snow flakes entitled to life somehow justifies perpetrating what could be a second and more devastating victimization. The whole human life above all else argument is idealistic to the point of being juvenile.
For example, consider a Typhoid Mary hypothetical. We know a child is a carrier of some super pathogen that will result in the deaths of hundreds of other human beings. The only way to prevent this mass death is the destruction of the child who would have otherwise continued on living a healthy life. Do we kill it? One to save hundreds of lives or thousands or millions? Surely the right of the many to life outweighs the right of the one? Do we consign them to death to let one innocent live? Keep in mind "[w]hat can't be done is discuss with someone who is inconsistent in any way. Their philosophy must continue, consistently, to all ends."
To me there exist considerations that trump innocent human life. The aforementioned are two of them. What about you big guy?
The idea is that the rape victim is not superior to her baby. What would make her so? And the world we live in stinks for all, sorry. (Why?)
We aren't entitled to life. We are also not entitled to health or safety or comfort. But in some cases we can try to ensure the best for all involved.
Your hypothetical is not the same as what we are talking about here. But, if we're trying to do the best we can for all involved, we should allow the mother and child to live, instead of aborting, and we should kill the person carrying the pathogen. While I don't think a society will ever have to make a decision like that one (and I think there is a reason for that), it is interesting to note that the basis of Christianity is one, innocent, giving up his life for the lives (souls) of countless others.
This is why I say God can't be removed from these discussions because that is what gives me my consistency. Human logic, common morality, ethics, all are faulty and all can be transcended. But, we can't always know the why's and how's and problems are part of the problem.
-
The world doesn't stink.
-
Civil rights are for citizens.
-
Welp, good thing people smarter than all of us have already decided this.
-
great post dlew. that took guts.
-
great post dlew. that took guts.
Oh please. It may have taken brain cells and some time, but it did not take any guts. He laid out a common opinion, held by many others, on a message board. He is adorable, a great cat fan and a smart young man, but he didn't storm Omaha beach with the opinion that life begins at conception.
-
great post dlew. that took guts.
Oh please. It may have taken brain cells and some time, but it did not take any guts. He laid out a common opinion, held by many others, on a message board. He is adorable, a great cat fan and a smart young man, but he didn't storm Omaha beach with the opinion that life begins at conception.
THE HELL I DIDN'T!
-
great post dlew. that took guts.
Oh please. It may have taken brain cells and some time, but it did not take any guts. He laid out a common opinion, held by many others, on a message board. He is adorable, a great cat fan and a smart young man, but he didn't storm Omaha beach with the opinion that life begins at conception.
Maybe guts was too strong. But i'm mildly terrified every time i utter anything serious on this board :grin:
And while it is a common opinion in many circles - this is certainly not one of them..
-
great post dlew. that took guts.
Oh please. It may have taken brain cells and some time, but it did not take any guts. He laid out a common opinion, held by many others, on a message board. He is adorable, a great cat fan and a smart young man, but he didn't storm Omaha beach with the opinion that life begins at conception.
Well crap, I didn't even get that as his opinion. I thought he was more a viability guy.
-
most of these fetuses that are being aborted would grow up to be lousy human beings. so its probably for the better.
-
Playing devils advocate here.
Perfectly valid questions. I don't claim to be 100% right on the subject.
I'm going to tackle your post, which really has 3 arguments, one at a time. The first: who should be responsible for the "babies" (your words, not mine)? Yes, I think society at large should be responsible, if the mothers are unwilling. I know it's a strain, but I do think there is inherent value to human life. If these are "people" (an admittedly debatable label) we're dealing with, then I think it's irresponsible to "kill" them, because the alternative would be a financial strain. We do not kill foster children, we do not kill all prisoners. My point is, society does care for human life. We already carry the burden of the poor, and the elderly, and the sick, and those in prison. Is it not just as reasonable to care for innocent children (assuming, of course, that they are "humans")?
Why is it necessary for government to facilitate this. If pro-lifers were that passionate - couldn't this be charity driven? Perhaps adoption rates would go up if the process were easier through less government and people that truly do care about this issue would do more than "vote" and "pay their taxes".
Regarding your Malthusian argument citing population statistics: I understand. Abortion certainly helps to control growth which has terrific consequences for the rest of us, the most interesting of which, in my opinion, is the sharp decline in the crime rate, as noted in Freakonomics. But sheesh, it seems even staunch advocates of abortion would shy away from that argument. It seems awful nihilistic.
What would be more tragic? If the crime rate reduction were to successfully be linked to abortion - or - the obvious fact that there are so many people out there that want kids while there are so many unwanted kids out there? Why is adoption such a lengthy and expensive process?
Finally, could I tell the victim of rape they need to have children? Gosh, I don't know. It'd be really rough. I guess I would have to if I really believe in this philosophy, but I'd certainly try to put it a little more delicately than "chin up."
Further though, I think I may have done a poor job of explaining what I meant. I don't find the feelings of rape victims irrelevant. I find them extremely relevant. My heart goes out to them and I couldn't imagine being in their shoes. However, I do find their feelings do not constructively contribute to the argument. Again, my point is, if the "thing" is a "human" we shouldn't kill it, even if the mother has undergone a profound injustice, I think it's wrong to kill an innocent life.
My previous post was a serious question. If you can respect the rights of an unborn child - why can you not respect the rights of a mother? Would it be a reasonable solution to transfer the unwanted child/fetus to an incubator or even a surrogate mother to allow the "natural selection of life" determine if the unborn child lives? If you can accept "God" allowing death through natural disasters, is this scenario that far from that?
-
Lotta men here discussing what chicks should do with their vaginas.
-
I say life begins with a heartbeat, just like it ends without one.
Some would argue it begins with conception, some would argue it begins with brain activity, some would argue it begins with breath. :dunno:
-
And anyone that believesvictims of rape and or incest must carry the child to term deserves to be raped by their uncle
-
And anyone that believesvictims of rape and or incest must carry the child to term deserves to be raped by their uncle Fitz.
-
And anyone that believesvictims of rape and or incest must carry the child to term deserves to be raped by their uncle
And......I'm out.
-
Life begins when a fetus becomes viable.
-
Lotta men here discussing what chicks should do with their vaginas.
God wants it that way apparently.
-
I don't care about anyone else's fetus that was conceived a few months ago. At all. If the mother and father think their lives will be enough better if the fetus is never born to make the difficult choice to abort, I have no problem with it. I don't think I could ever do it myself, but I bet that could change if I knocked up a rando on a one night stand.
-
In the case of rape, which is where the rubber meets the road on this issue in my eyes, where is the "we" in that scenario? We're not talking about forcing the rape victim to fill out some paper work or to pee in a cup here; we're talking about 9 months of pregnancy and child birth. Who are you to have a say in that decision? She no longer has a choice not because reality so dictates, but because of the say so of someone who has no burden to bear once the decision is made, doesn't have to deal with the accompanying physical/emotional/financial fallout, wasn't raped, etc.? You get to prance off on your moral high horse after you've told all the silly rape victims of the world not only where their priorities should lie, but where they will lie, never having walked in their shoes.
I just can't wrap my mind around the arrogance of someone who thinks they get the final say over the victim in such cases. That a belief that we're all unique little snow flakes entitled to life somehow justifies perpetrating what could be a second and more devastating victimization. The whole human life above all else argument is idealistic to the point of being juvenile.
For example, consider a Typhoid Mary hypothetical. We know a child is a carrier of some super pathogen that will result in the deaths of hundreds of other human beings. The only way to prevent this mass death is the destruction of the child who would have otherwise continued on living a healthy life. Do we kill it? One to save hundreds of lives or thousands or millions? Surely the right of the many to life outweighs the right of the one? Do we consign them to death to let one innocent live? Keep in mind "[w]hat can't be done is discuss with someone who is inconsistent in any way. Their philosophy must continue, consistently, to all ends."
To me there exist considerations that trump innocent human life. The aforementioned are two of them. What about you big guy?
The idea is that the rape victim is not superior to her baby. What would make her so? And the world we live in stinks for all, sorry. (Why?)
We aren't entitled to life. We are also not entitled to health or safety or comfort. But in some cases we can try to ensure the best for all involved.
Your hypothetical is not the same as what we are talking about here. But, if we're trying to do the best we can for all involved, we should allow the mother and child to live, instead of aborting, and we should kill the person carrying the pathogen. While I don't think a society will ever have to make a decision like that one (and I think there is a reason for that), it is interesting to note that the basis of Christianity is one, innocent, giving up his life for the lives (souls) of countless others.
This is why I say God can't be removed from these discussions because that is what gives me my consistency. Human logic, common morality, ethics, all are faulty and all can be transcended. But, we can't always know the why's and how's and problems are part of the problem.
People interpret God differently than others. Take this for example:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" 5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit,"
Did John 3:5 just reference life beginning at being born of water? As in being born of amniotic fluid?
That may seem as a stretch to a christrian pro-lifer - but for someone looking for biblical reference to when life becomes life... that's the closest I've ever found. Furthermore, for a group of people that believe in an afterlife - why is death such a tragic thing? Would a soul prefer the life of an unwanted/unloved child? Seems like that would lead a person to a life leading to Hell... If you believe such a place.
-
Really would like to hear fannings thoughts on this subject :popcorn:
-
Nobody should look to the Bible for why abortion should or should not be legal (see Separation of Church and State thread).
-
Nobody should look to the Bible for why abortion should or should not be legal (see Separation of Church and State thread).
I basically agree with this.
-
I wasn't planning on taking it there. But that's where majority of pro-lifers take it.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
Nobody should look to the Bible for why abortion should or should not be legal (see Separation of Church and State thread).
I basically agree with this.
Well, the Constitution...
-
I wasn't planning on taking it there. But that's where majority of pro-lifers take it.
I think you'd be surprised at the number of pro-lifers that don't reference the Bible when discussing their views. Dlew12 is the ballsiest for posting his views here, despite what KK says, but I highly doubt he's the only one.
-
God is brought up often though. If god is brought up, the only way you can defend your argument is to reference the bible.
I would say I really appreciate Dlews input and think it was rational and well thought out - but I don't think his input was controversial.
-
God is brought up often though. If god is brought up, the only way you can defend your argument is to reference the bible.
He/She/It/They shouldn't be brought up in any political argument.
-
I agree. But it is, and you can't debate an issue by ignoring it.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
yesterday someone thought people could be too old for 311, today someone thinks it takes balls to have a right-leaning stance in the DK Dome. My word.
-
yesterday someone thought people could be too old for 311, today someone thinks it takes balls to have a right-leaning stance in the DK Dome. My word.
In my short stint on the DK Dome, FSD has been the only one consistently reppin' the right-side. That's not good company.
Also, right-wing social issues are much tougher to stick to here than, well, any political view. Look at the Chick-Fil-A thread for reference. Abortion is a much greyer area than gay marriage, but still.
-
But he questioned the logic - he did not impose his views. I took Dlew's post as one that was tolerant of others views. Just didn't seem controversial to me.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
This is why we value life on earth.
Psalm 139:13
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb."
We're all really selfish. It's why we feel cheated if someone eats something we were planning to eat. Or why we don't want some people staying with us for extended periods of time. Or why we don't want someone to tell us what we can do with our bodies. Or why having a kid will be painful and inconvenience us. We want to do and believe exactly as we choose. The problem is, we aren't all there is.
-
Bottom line is its legal in all 50 states and this doctor did the right thing. Psychos at OR need to get off her case.
-
Bottom line is its legal in all 50 states and this doctor did the right thing. Psychos at OR need to get off her case.
Yeah. No matter what your stance on this issue is, if a 10 year old wants an abortion, that should be okay. I think it would be commendable if the girl actually wanted to go through with the pregnancy and put the baby up for adoption, but I certainly would not even try to convince her to go that route.
-
Life begins when a fetus becomes viable.
So how old am I?
-
Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
This is why we value life on earth.
Psalm 139:13
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb."
We're all really selfish. It's why we feel cheated if someone eats something we were planning to eat. Or why we don't want some people staying with us for extended periods of time. Or why we don't want someone to tell us what we can do with our bodies. Or why having a kid will be painful and inconvenience us. We want to do and believe exactly as we choose. The problem is, we aren't all there is.
Yeah, I could interpret that any way I wanted. But anyway, I'll ask again. What's more sad - abortion, or the fact that there are unwanted pregnancies?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
yesterday someone thought people could be too old for 311, today someone thinks it takes balls to have a right-leaning stance in the DK Dome. My word.
In my short stint on the DK Dome, FSD has been the only one consistently reppin' the right-side. That's not good company.
Also, right-wing social issues are much tougher to stick to here than, well, any political view. Look at the Chick-Fil-A thread for reference. Abortion is a much greyer area than gay marriage, but still.
bookcat and ednksu are consistently repping the left, so....
-
Because here's the deal: either it's murder or it's not and I think it's best to err on the side of caution.
I think it's too gray and I think it's too risky and I think if people believe there are murders against human life being sanctioned by the state that it's a worthy cause for which to fight.
"Totally courageous!"
Wait wait wait. Let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet.
Which is it, Dlew? On one hand you paint the issue as black and white (first sentence quoted here). Then in the very next sentence, you refer to it as gray. I mean...
Mr. Bread has had by far the most rational response in this thread so far.
Oh, and a person is more than a fetus. Absolutely and in every way. If they were equal, parents would have funerals and grieve at the same level for a miscarriage that they do when their teenager dies in a car wreck. But they don't. Know why? Because a person is more than a fetus.
And yep: if you think you should be allowed to tell a pregnant 10 year-old rape victim that she should be forced to carry her attacker's baby to term, then I hope her rapist gets to you, too, and I hope he is ruthless. eff off with that bullshit.
-
yesterday someone thought people could be too old for 311, today someone thinks it takes balls to have a right-leaning stance in the DK Dome. My word.
In my short stint on the DK Dome, FSD has been the only one consistently reppin' the right-side. That's not good company.
Also, right-wing social issues are much tougher to stick to here than, well, any political view. Look at the Chick-Fil-A thread for reference. Abortion is a much greyer area than gay marriage, but still.
bookcat and ednksu are consistently repping the left, so....
wtf are you jocking me for?
As for abortion I like the way dlew framed it from the start. I'm pro life. I think its silly to make concrete laws in an ever changing scientific reality where viability is a changing term. Think of it i this way. 40ish years ago viability is dramatically different than today. I don't think we should make static laws which make definite bright lines of distinctions when individual situations are so different. I think abortion should be banned if we are going to have laws on the books to protect life. I think those laws should begin at conception. I think we should dramatically overhaul adoption systems, allow gays to adopt, and de-stigmatize adoption so people see it as a great option instead of a last resort.
-
This has gotten a little ridiculous.
Life isn't always about being right or wrong. Most of the time it's about the way you go about living it.
Much peace and love to all.
:clac:
-
Because here's the deal: either it's murder or it's not and I think it's best to err on the side of caution.
I think it's too gray and I think it's too risky and I think if people believe there are murders against human life being sanctioned by the state that it's a worthy cause for which to fight.
"Totally courageous!"
Wait wait wait. Let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet.
Which is it, Dlew? On one hand you paint the issue as black and white (first sentence quoted here). Then in the very next sentence, you refer to it as gray. I mean...
Mr. Bread has had by far the most rational response in this thread so far.
Oh, and a person is more than a fetus. Absolutely and in every way. If they were equal, parents would have funerals and grieve at the same level for a miscarriage that they do when their teenager dies in a car wreck. But they don't. Know why? Because a person is more than a fetus.
And yep: if you think you should be allowed to tell a pregnant 10 year-old rape victim that she should be forced to carry her attacker's baby to term, then I hope her rapist gets to you, too, and I hope he is ruthless. eff off with that bullshit.
Those aren't contradictory statements. He is saying that killing an unborn fetus/ baby is either murder or it isn't. He is also saying that defining when that fetus/ baby constitutes a human life is "gray," meaning it is too hard to define. Therefore, it is best to err on the side of caution with regards to when we say a fetus/ baby constitutes a human life because if we don't then there is a good chance that we are sanctioning murder.
-
Interesting opinion and no where near fact.
The only real argument to be had is whether or not it is OK to destroy truly innocent human beings. If you believe it is, then we can begin to discuss. This is where pro-choicers should begin.
The problem is, most would say that it isn't...
Not true. Unless you believe God frequently and without reason kills truly innocent human beings. Than we may begin a true discussion.
For the record, LSOC, I think you were the first person in this thread to reference the existence of God. I think that, assuming one believes in the existence of morality and the idea that some things are "right" and others are "wrong," (which plenty of athiests would contend is true) an argument against abortion can be made without ever referencing God.
I can rephrase. So nature and or simple fate performs abortions?! Why?
Something dying of natural causes is much different than something dying because a person or persons decided to end its life.
-
A sincere congratulations to Dlew12 for logically thinking, for himself/herself. He/she is also mostly correct.
The only issue is that there is no need to even consider when something has become something else. The fact is, to destroy something, something must first exist. What exists is a human being. Always will be, always has been. If it was not, no one would care to destroy it. The "clump of cells" is destroyed because 10 years from now, it will be a 9 year-old boy or girl. The clock has already started. It has already distinguished itself as a something.
While that may be true in some cases it is far from the truth in many other cases.
Additionally, in a case like this, doctors should do all all they can to save both the mother and the child. Yes, it stinks that we are in this predicament, but we no longer have a choice (yes, I said that). Everything should be done to protect the health and lives of two unique individuals, as we would in any other case. And after that, there are alternatives (adoption, etc).
I can agree with this. It is also important to point out that ever-increasing technology is making this continuously more feasible and easier to accomplish.
-
Personally, I probably lean with Dlew on the issue. If people laid eggs immediately after conception, would it be OK for an
But politically, I'm more in the camp of "let's solve the problem of uncles raping 10-year olds first". This girl is not laying an egg; she's facing a potentially life-threatening procedure. So erring on the side of caution (which, again, I agree with), it seems like she has a right to life, too.
My problem with the viability argument is that technology can change the parameters of human life, both at the beginning and the end. So maybe a rich man's viable is a poor man's abortion.
Also, I enjoyed watching Dlew's premonition of the "anti-life/anti-choice" tags come to fruition via "your mother should have aborted you" and "I hope you get raped (roughly) by your uncle" (<--I especially enjoyed how the second one implied an alternative of "gentle rape").
-
Excellent post - I've also been avoiding any serious discussion in this thread, but what the hell - most of you guys hate me here already. There is such a huge gray area here as all it really comes down to is individual rights. All humans have the right to live, yet a woman should have the right to not be pregnant, yada yada yada... But there are so many questions.
Would you consider a situation where the unborn fetus is removed from the mother and put into an incubator of sorts? If it lives - awesome - if not, sorry pro-lifers, natural causes.
I think transferring the embryo/ fetus/ baby to another "womb" be it mechanical or into another woman would constitute doing right by both the pregnant woman and the
This probably goes into the "it's not life - it's a parasite" argument - which seems pretty harsh, but I don't know where else to go with it.
There are many differences between a parasite and an human embryo. They are not the same thing.
-
A sincere congratulations to Dlew12 for logically thinking, for himself/herself. He/she is also mostly correct.
The only issue is that there is no need to even consider when something has become something else. The fact is, to destroy something, something must first exist. What exists is a human being. Always will be, always has been. If it was not, no one would care to destroy it. The "clump of cells" is destroyed because 10 years from now, it will be a 9 year-old boy or girl. The clock has already started. It has already distinguished itself as a something.
Additionally, in a case like this, doctors should do all all they can to save both the mother and the child. Yes, it stinks that we are in this predicament, but we no longer have a choice (yes, I said that). Everything should be done to protect the health and lives of two unique individuals, as we would in any other case. And after that, there are alternatives (adoption, etc).
In the case of rape, which is where the rubber meets the road on this issue in my eyes, where is the "we" in that scenario? We're not talking about forcing the rape victim to fill out some paper work or to pee in a cup here; we're talking about 9 months of pregnancy and child birth. Who are you to have a say in that decision? She no longer has a choice not because reality so dictates, but because of the say so of someone who has no burden to bear once the decision is made, doesn't have to deal with the accompanying physical/emotional/financial fallout, wasn't raped, etc.? You get to prance off on your moral high horse after you've told all the silly rape victims of the world not only where their priorities should lie, but where they will lie, never having walked in their shoes.
It isn't about a moral high horse. It is about whether or not an embryo constitutes a human life and, thusly, should be afforded the rights that come with life. Additionally, if both the pregnant woman and the embryo are both afforded human rights do one's supersede the other's.
Fortunately, we rarely have to ask that question (the second one).
I just can't wrap my mind around the arrogance of someone who thinks they get the final say over the victim in such cases. That a belief that we're all unique little snow flakes entitled to life somehow justifies perpetrating what could be a second and more devastating victimization. The whole human life above all else argument is idealistic to the point of being juvenile.
It's not actually. If we are to arbitrarily decide who gets to live and when they die we are treading on a very slippery slope.
For example, consider a Typhoid Mary hypothetical. We know a child is a carrier of some super pathogen that will result in the deaths of hundreds of other human beings. The only way to prevent this mass death is the destruction of the child who would have otherwise continued on living a healthy life. Do we kill it? One to save hundreds of lives or thousands or millions? Surely the right of the many to life outweighs the right of the one? Do we consign them to death to let one innocent live? Keep in mind "[w]hat can't be done is discuss with someone who is inconsistent in any way. Their philosophy must continue, consistently, to all ends."
I'm trying to wrap my head around how this hypothetical relates to abortion outside of a case where the pregnant woman will most assuredly die or have her quality of life drastically worsened by not getting an abortion. Of course this is all moot if we don't deem an embryo/ fetus/ baby a human life.
To me there exist considerations that trump innocent human life. The aforementioned are two of them. What about you big guy?
-
Playing devils advocate here.
Perfectly valid questions. I don't claim to be 100% right on the subject.
I'm going to tackle your post, which really has 3 arguments, one at a time. The first: who should be responsible for the "babies" (your words, not mine)? Yes, I think society at large should be responsible, if the mothers are unwilling. I know it's a strain, but I do think there is inherent value to human life. If these are "people" (an admittedly debatable label) we're dealing with, then I think it's irresponsible to "kill" them, because the alternative would be a financial strain. We do not kill foster children, we do not kill all prisoners. My point is, society does care for human life. We already carry the burden of the poor, and the elderly, and the sick, and those in prison. Is it not just as reasonable to care for innocent children (assuming, of course, that they are "humans")?
Why is it necessary for government to facilitate this. If pro-lifers were that passionate - couldn't this be charity driven? Perhaps adoption rates would go up if the process were easier through less government and people that truly do care about this issue would do more than "vote" and "pay their taxes".
Regarding your Malthusian argument citing population statistics: I understand. Abortion certainly helps to control growth which has terrific consequences for the rest of us, the most interesting of which, in my opinion, is the sharp decline in the crime rate, as noted in Freakonomics. But sheesh, it seems even staunch advocates of abortion would shy away from that argument. It seems awful nihilistic.
What would be more tragic? If the crime rate reduction were to successfully be linked to abortion - or - the obvious fact that there are so many people out there that want kids while there are so many unwanted kids out there? Why is adoption such a lengthy and expensive process?
Finally, could I tell the victim of rape they need to have children? Gosh, I don't know. It'd be really rough. I guess I would have to if I really believe in this philosophy, but I'd certainly try to put it a little more delicately than "chin up."
Further though, I think I may have done a poor job of explaining what I meant. I don't find the feelings of rape victims irrelevant. I find them extremely relevant. My heart goes out to them and I couldn't imagine being in their shoes. However, I do find their feelings do not constructively contribute to the argument. Again, my point is, if the "thing" is a "human" we shouldn't kill it, even if the mother has undergone a profound injustice, I think it's wrong to kill an innocent life.
My previous post was a serious question. If you can respect the rights of an unborn child - why can you not respect the rights of a mother? Would it be a reasonable solution to transfer the unwanted child/fetus to an incubator or even a surrogate mother to allow the "natural selection of life" determine if the unborn child lives? If you can accept "God" allowing death through natural disasters, is this scenario that far from that?
I can agree with all of this.
-
God is brought up often though. If god is brought up, the only way you can defend your argument is to reference the bible.
Considering that most of the "major" religions denounce abortion this isn't true.
-
Not that anyone cares but after quoting multiple posts I should probably share my views on the subject.
I probably can't put it any better than Dlew, so I won't try. I will add a couple of things.
It is my hope that as time progresses there will be less "need" for abortion. Technology and innovation should provide a variety of alternatives to abortion as time progresses and it is my belief that they should be ardently sought. I also agree with Heinballz' assertion that we should look to increase the ease of availability of adoption, encourage adoption, and do all we can to prevent abortion through education, etc. There are plenty of options out there that allow most abortion cases to be handled differently.
-
God is brought up often though. If god is brought up, the only way you can defend your argument is to reference the bible.
Considering that most of the "major" religions denounce abortion this isn't true.
But is it religious men/women that denounce it, or god?
I asked the question earlier why death was such a horrible thing, is it horrible in gods eyes, or mans? I would wager I have vastly different views on religion than every single member of this board - but that's a different thread.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
God is brought up often though. If god is brought up, the only way you can defend your argument is to reference the bible.
Considering that most of the "major" religions denounce abortion this isn't true.
But is it religious men/women that denounce it, or god?
I asked the question earlier why death was such a horrible thing, is it horrible in gods eyes, or mans? I would wager I have vastly different views on religion than every single member of this board - but that's a different thread.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
I can hear that. I just wanted to point out that adversary attitudes toward abortion. I apologize if I came off combative.
-
codename: dominate
-
I am struggling. I am not as great with words as some others are on goEMAW. When we are having a serious conversation, I really want to keep it an open conversation, but I am easily swayed to turn it into name calling and general stupidity.
One great, general point somebody made is that it is difficult to explain exactly how you feel on a message board without someone interpreting your opinion as rash and stubborn at best or mean at worst (paraphrased). This leads to one other concern I have about attempting to have this discussion on a message board, which is that I honestly don't believe I will change anyone's opinion on this subject and may be more likely to cause someone to dig their heels into the ground even further against my position.
I am pro life (freely admitted somewhere back on page 2 whereby my admittance basically meant that I was a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)). I believe that human life starts at conception. Really, I don't have much more of an argument other than to tell you that I am a father and each time my wife and I confirmed we were pregnant, it changed my life. My life didn't stay the same up until the birth or in the 3rd tri-mester, it changed as soon as we knew we were pregnant. I would go further and say that even before we knew for certain we were pregnant but suspected we might be, I felt my life changing. I don't believe that a clump of cells does that. I can also tell you that it is beyond me to know how anyone it today's world can look at an ultrasound and then believe that a baby isn't a human until it is born.
The other nonfactual argument I would offer is that I personally know of women that have had abortions that are haunted by it for the rest of their lives. I have never met someone who said, "I sure wish I would have aborted that child of mine." I realize there are many women who have abortions and have no issues with after the fact and there probably are even a few women that wish they would have aborted one of their kids. I am only stating that I have experienced distraught people after having abortions and I have never personally met someone who wished they would have had one. I know others will not agree with my position, but that will not change my position.
There was one point that was made in favor of abortion that got some praise on here which I wanted to address. It basically equated that killing one infectiously sick person for the sake of many, perhaps thousands, is worth it. What really struck me about that post is that it is basically saying that Scott Roeder was in the right, as he thought he was killing one to save many, perhaps thousands. For the record, I agree with neither the premise of killing one infectiously sick person for the sake of many nor do I agree that George Tiller's killer was in the right.
-
Not only do I agree w/ abortion, I think the government should provide this service for free.
-
Not that anyone cares but after quoting multiple posts I should probably share my views on the subject.
I probably can't put it any better than Dlew, so I won't try. I will add a couple of things.
It is my hope that as time progresses there will be less "need" for abortion. Technology and innovation should provide a variety of alternatives to abortion as time progresses and it is my belief that they should be ardently sought. I also agree with Heinballz' assertion that we should look to increase the ease of availability of adoption, encourage adoption, and do all we can to prevent abortion through education, etc. There are plenty of options out there that allow most abortion cases to be handled differently.
sterilization, which can be reversed by applying for a birth license, government form DD-5527-A.
-
Saul, is there anything that the government should stay OUT of? (Not being a smart ass.)
-
Just let the women decide. Lots of dudes here talking about cells and feti(?) like that's all this issue is about. (not everyone, but lots).
-
Saul, is there anything that the government should stay OUT of? (Not being a smart ass.)
Yes
very few things though
-
I can hear that. I just wanted to point out that adversary attitudes toward abortion. I apologize if I came off combative.
Absolutely not, I take no offense to anyone here - even when I know they're personal attacks - which I have never taken anything you have said as a personal attack. I know I come off as combative as I'm very pig headed; I've put a lot of time into my thoughts and they're not easily changed. Although I have great appreciation for alternate view points that are not easily changed, as long as it appears those conclusions were not formed hastily.
-
I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion. Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.
-
I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion. Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.
it's their (the people who don't want abortion/gay marriage/loud music) way of wanting to impose their worldview on others.
-
I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion. Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.
I believe it to be a human life. That is my reason to have an opinion of what other people should do.
-
I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion. Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.
it's their (the people who don't want abortion/gay marriage/loud music) way of wanting to impose their worldview on others.
If someone believes that it is wrong to kill people,and they believe that an abortion is killing a person, then they probably care about someone else having an abortion. You both know this already.
-
I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion. Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.
it's their (the people who don't want abortion/gay marriage/loud music) way of wanting to impose their worldview on others.
If someone believes that it is wrong to kill people,and they believe that an abortion is killing a person, then they probably care about someone else having an abortion. You both know this already.
it's certainly not wrong to kill people
-
I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion. Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.
it's their (the people who don't want abortion/gay marriage/loud music) way of wanting to impose their worldview on others.
I don't see the correlation between the three? Otherwise, see my response to Trim. If that is imposing my worldview on others, then so be it. It does seem a bit odd that you would brush aside my personal feelings as trying to impose my worldview on others.
-
I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion. Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.
it's their (the people who don't want abortion/gay marriage/loud music) way of wanting to impose their worldview on others.
If someone believes that it is wrong to kill people,and they believe that an abortion is killing a person, then they probably care about someone else having an abortion. You both know this already.
it's certainly not wrong to kill people
Your singular/simplistic statements make me wonder what your motive is.
-
I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion. Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.
it's their (the people who don't want abortion/gay marriage/loud music) way of wanting to impose their worldview on others.
If someone believes that it is wrong to kill people,and they believe that an abortion is killing a person, then they probably care about someone else having an abortion. You both know this already.
it's certainly not wrong to kill people
Your singular/simplistic statements make me wonder what your motive is.
we kill people all the time.
-
I don't. Do you?
-
I don't. Do you?
Maybe inadvertently at some point.
-
I don't. Do you?
Maybe inadvertently at some point.
So is there a difference between killing someone inadvertently vs. intentionally?
-
yesterday someone thought people could be too old for 311, today someone thinks it takes balls to have a right-leaning stance in the DK Dome. My word.
posting the first serious take on the most toxic issue of the past several years was ballsy.
-
I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion. Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.
I believe it to be a human life. That is my reason to have an opinion of what other people should do.
Lots of people have weird beliefs. Not a reason to impose theories stemming from those beliefs on people*.
*humans that have been birf'd.
-
If you took religion out if it, then wouldn't it come down to survivability outside the womb without machine assistance? Old people get taken off machines to die. And if the baby could survive but was going to kill the mother, you could argue self defense. So, if you take religion out of it then the law would be whatever arbitrary month/week is generally accepted as survivable. And that is pretty much what we have, isn't it?
-
I don't. Do you?
Maybe inadvertently at some point.
So is there a difference between killing someone inadvertently vs. intentionally?
Are you planning to vote for Romney or Obama? If so, you're supporting killing innocent people in the middle east. :dunno:
-
I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion. Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.
I believe it to be a human life. That is my reason to have an opinion of what other people should do.
Lots of people have weird beliefs. Not a reason to impose theories stemming from those beliefs on people*.
*humans that have been birf'd.
I guess I am supposed to apologize because my beliefs are weird? Also, it would seem to me that you are the one that is trying to impose your theories on me by belittling what I believe.
-
If you took religion out if it, then wouldn't it come down to survivability outside the womb without machine assistance? Old people get taken off machines to die. And if the baby could survive but was going to kill the mother, you could argue self defense. So, if you take religion out of it then the law would be whatever arbitrary month/week is generally accepted as survivable. And that is pretty much what we have, isn't it?
A baby born at 8 months may be perfectly health but need a machine to live for the first week or two. If the parents decide they didn't want the baby, is it okay to let it die by not hooking it up to a machine?
-
I don't. Do you?
Maybe inadvertently at some point.
So is there a difference between killing someone inadvertently vs. intentionally?
Are you planning to vote for Romney or Obama? If so, you're supporting killing innocent people in the middle east. :dunno:
I have voted for others who are pro-choice. Is that what you are getting at? I am trying not to engage this from a political standpoint. I am also trying to understand where you are trying to go.
-
If you took religion out if it, then wouldn't it come down to survivability outside the womb without machine assistance? Old people get taken off machines to die. And if the baby could survive but was going to kill the mother, you could argue self defense. So, if you take religion out of it then the law would be whatever arbitrary month/week is generally accepted as survivable. And that is pretty much what we have, isn't it?
A baby born at 8 months may be perfectly health but need a machine to live for the first week or two. If the parents decide they didn't want the baby, is it okay to let it die by not hooking it up to a machine?
yes. just as it's okay to decide the same thing for an aging parent.
-
If you took religion out if it, then wouldn't it come down to survivability outside the womb without machine assistance? Old people get taken off machines to die. And if the baby could survive but was going to kill the mother, you could argue self defense. So, if you take religion out of it then the law would be whatever arbitrary month/week is generally accepted as survivable. And that is pretty much what we have, isn't it?
If you take religion out of the equation, is it fair to ask what is a greater crime to humanity, Abortion or growing up unwanted & unloved?
-
I don't. Do you?
Maybe inadvertently at some point.
So is there a difference between killing someone inadvertently vs. intentionally?
Are you planning to vote for Romney or Obama? If so, you're supporting killing innocent people in the middle east. :dunno:
I have voted for others who are pro-choice. Is that what you are getting at? I am trying not to engage this from a political standpoint. I am also trying to understand where you are trying to go.
No, I'm getting at foreign policy. If you are for war, you are okay with killing innocent people. If you can sleep with that logic tucked under your pillow, why is abortion any different? And if it's not political - it's religious - so which is it. And understand, I'm not so much taking a position in this argument as I am asking difficult questions.
-
If you took religion out if it, then wouldn't it come down to survivability outside the womb without machine assistance? Old people get taken off machines to die. And if the baby could survive but was going to kill the mother, you could argue self defense. So, if you take religion out of it then the law would be whatever arbitrary month/week is generally accepted as survivable. And that is pretty much what we have, isn't it?
If you take religion out of the equation, is it fair to ask what is a greater crime to humanity, Abortion or growing up unwanted & unloved?
it's an irrelevant question. legally speaking.
-
yesterday someone thought people could be too old for 311, today someone thinks it takes balls to have a right-leaning stance in the DK Dome. My word.
posting the first serious take on the most toxic issue of the past several years was ballsy.
That was dobber, fwiw, and Trim quickly called him a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). It takes less balls for Dlew to do something like that because everybody likes him.
-
I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.
-
If you took religion out if it, then wouldn't it come down to survivability outside the womb without machine assistance? Old people get taken off machines to die. And if the baby could survive but was going to kill the mother, you could argue self defense. So, if you take religion out of it then the law would be whatever arbitrary month/week is generally accepted as survivable. And that is pretty much what we have, isn't it?
If you take religion out of the equation, is it fair to ask what is a greater crime to humanity, Abortion or growing up unwanted & unloved?
it's an irrelevant question. legally speaking.
So wait - Is this a law of society, religion, or government?
Law of society - Abortion is an individual choice and not open to public discussion.
Law of religion - Abortion is open to interpretation of when life is/isn't created and not open to discussion outside of the church.
Law of Government - Abortion is illegal based off of protection of the child's civil liberties, (but you're also imposing force on the mothers rights to not be pregnant - hence the gray area)
-
yesterday someone thought people could be too old for 311, today someone thinks it takes balls to have a right-leaning stance in the DK Dome. My word.
posting the first serious take on the most toxic issue of the past several years was ballsy.
That was dobber, fwiw, and Trim quickly called him a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). It takes less balls for Dlew to do something like that because everybody likes him.
What, everybody doesn't like me!?! :cry:
Actually, I only admitted to being pro-life. I think it was Dlew who had the serious take.
-
I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.
How do you not see the hypocrisy here? Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society.
Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency. You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.
-
I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.
How do you not see the hypocrisy here? Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society.
Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency. You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.
So are you saying all war deaths are senseless killings and all abortions are senseless killings?
If you aren't careful with these tough questions, I am going to have RD change that "z" to an "s."
-
Civil rights are for citizens.
This is the argument that got us slavery for the first 90 years or so as a nation.
-
I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion. Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.
I believe it to be a human life. That is my reason to have an opinion of what other people should do.
Lots of people have weird beliefs. Not a reason to impose theories stemming from those beliefs on people*.
*humans that have been birf'd.
I guess I am supposed to apologize because my beliefs are weird? Also, it would seem to me that you are the one that is trying to impose your theories on me by belittling what I believe.
No, just trying to understand how somebody could 1) believe that and 2) even if they do, would feel entitled to or even care about what somebody else with their own belief system is doing.
I really don't get why anyone is arguing about beliefs of when cells become people or whatever. It seems very definable. A person is a person once they're born. I can understand why people would take issue with killing birf'd babies (it should be much less of an issue than with older children or adults) but until there's actually a quantifiable person in our world, whether a woman proceeds with birf'n whatever's inside the woman (or man, shoutout to fitz!) really shouldn't be of anyone's concern, unless the issue people have with it is something about souls or spirituality or whatever. If that's what it really comes down to, people should just be honest about it and say they're against abortion because of religion, not some rationalization of a calendar.
What I can see being of concern to strangers is potential moms who intend to birf the kid doing things during pregnancy (drugs, booze, going to juggalo gatherings, etc.) that will harm the potential child that will then be in the world at a disadvantage, or really anything that would come at a cost to society.
-
What I can see being of concern to strangers is potential moms who intend to birf the kid doing things during pregnancy (drugs, booze, going to juggalo gatherings, etc.) that will harm the potential child that will then be in the world at a disadvantage, or really anything that would come at a cost to society.
:thumbs:
-
If you took religion out if it, then wouldn't it come down to survivability outside the womb without machine assistance? Old people get taken off machines to die. And if the baby could survive but was going to kill the mother, you could argue self defense. So, if you take religion out of it then the law would be whatever arbitrary month/week is generally accepted as survivable. And that is pretty much what we have, isn't it?
If you take religion out of the equation, is it fair to ask what is a greater crime to humanity, Abortion or growing up unwanted & unloved unprovided for, uneducated?
added a few.
-
I don't. Do you?
Maybe inadvertently at some point.
So is there a difference between killing someone inadvertently vs. intentionally?
Are you planning to vote for Romney or Obama? If so, you're supporting killing innocent people in the middle east. :dunno:
I have voted for others who are pro-choice. Is that what you are getting at? I am trying not to engage this from a political standpoint. I am also trying to understand where you are trying to go.
No, I'm getting at foreign policy. If you are for war, you are okay with killing innocent people. If you can sleep with that logic tucked under your pillow, why is abortion any different? And if it's not political - it's religious - so which is it. And understand, I'm not so much taking a position in this argument as I am asking difficult questions.
And not to get too far afield but if you are not donating every extra penny you have to hunger and disease relief in developing countries, or even our own country, (foregoing EMAW games, vacations, desserts, new cars, cable t.v., new clothes, children's toys) you are not really dedicated to saving innocent life. There are millions of innocent babies who starve to death (a truly awful and painful death) while we in America spend millions trying to sway the Government to tell a 10 year old rape victim she must have that baby or else.
-
I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion. Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.
I believe it to be a human life. That is my reason to have an opinion of what other people should do.
Lots of people have weird beliefs. Not a reason to impose theories stemming from those beliefs on people*.
*humans that have been birf'd.
I guess I am supposed to apologize because my beliefs are weird? Also, it would seem to me that you are the one that is trying to impose your theories on me by belittling what I believe.
No, just trying to understand how somebody could 1) believe that and 2) even if they do, would feel entitled to or even care about what somebody else with their own belief system is doing.
I really don't get why anyone is arguing about beliefs of when cells become people or whatever. It seems very definable. A person is a person once they're born. I can understand why people would take issue with killing birf'd babies (it should be much less of an issue than with older children or adults) but until there's actually a quantifiable person in our world, whether a woman proceeds with birf'n whatever's inside the woman (or man, shoutout to fitz!) really shouldn't be of anyone's concern, unless the issue people have with it is something about souls or spirituality or whatever. If that's what it really comes down to, people should just be honest about it and say they're against abortion because of religion, not some rationalization of a calendar.
What I can see being of concern to strangers is potential moms who intend to birf the kid doing things during pregnancy (drugs, booze, going to juggalo gatherings, etc.) that will harm the potential child that will then be in the world at a disadvantage, or really anything that would come at a cost to society.
This is an analogy,right?
-
I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.
How do you not see the hypocrisy here? Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society.
Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency. You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.
So are you saying all war deaths are senseless killings and all abortions are senseless killings?
If you aren't careful with these tough questions, I am going to have RD change that "z" to an "s."
I don't want to get too far off topic - but I'm saying there is indeed such a thing as casualties of war. People write these off as necessary for the campaign. Drone strikes don't just take out an individual, they take out city blocks. Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, & children have been killed in the middle east by American policy over the last 20 years - people that were just guilty of living close to a target. Throw in unjust wars & fighting for financial gain, and you've got a whole other can of worms when talking about unnecessary death.
If we're approaching abortion as inherently wrong based solely on the reasoning that killing human life out of convenience is wrong... well then, we need an entire paradigm shift in all facets of how we interact within society and the world. Anything less would be hypocrisy.
-
I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion. Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.
I believe it to be a human life. That is my reason to have an opinion of what other people should do.
Lots of people have weird beliefs. Not a reason to impose theories stemming from those beliefs on people*.
*humans that have been birf'd.
I guess I am supposed to apologize because my beliefs are weird? Also, it would seem to me that you are the one that is trying to impose your theories on me by belittling what I believe.
No, just trying to understand how somebody could 1) believe that and 2) even if they do, would feel entitled to or even care about what somebody else with their own belief system is doing.
I really don't get why anyone is arguing about beliefs of when cells become people or whatever. It seems very definable. A person is a person once they're born. I can understand why people would take issue with killing birf'd babies (it should be much less of an issue than with older children or adults) but until there's actually a quantifiable person in our world, whether a woman proceeds with birf'n whatever's inside the woman (or man, shoutout to fitz!) really shouldn't be of anyone's concern, unless the issue people have with it is something about souls or spirituality or whatever. If that's what it really comes down to, people should just be honest about it and say they're against abortion because of religion, not some rationalization of a calendar.
What I can see being of concern to strangers is potential moms who intend to birf the kid doing things during pregnancy (drugs, booze, going to juggalo gatherings, etc.) that will harm the potential child that will then be in the world at a disadvantage, or really anything that would come at a cost to society.
This is an analogy,right?
I don't think so.
-
I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.
How do you not see the hypocrisy here? Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society.
Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency. You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.
So are you saying all war deaths are senseless killings and all abortions are senseless killings?
If you aren't careful with these tough questions, I am going to have RD change that "z" to an "s."
I don't want to get too far off topic - but I'm saying there is indeed such a thing as casualties of war. People write these off as necessary for the campaign. Drone strikes don't just take out an individual, they take out city blocks. Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, & children have been killed in the middle east by American policy over the last 20 years - people that were just guilty of living close to a target. Throw in unjust wars & fighting for financial gain, and you've got a whole other can of worms when talking about unnecessary death.
If we're approaching abortion as inherently wrong based solely on the reasoning that killing human life out of convenience is wrong... well then, we need an entire paradigm shift in all facets of how we interact within society and the world. Anything less would be hypocrisy.
Is abortion inadvertent or intentional? Is killing innocent people in a war inadvertent or intentional?
-
I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.
How do you not see the hypocrisy here? Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society.
Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency. You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.
So are you saying all war deaths are senseless killings and all abortions are senseless killings?
If you aren't careful with these tough questions, I am going to have RD change that "z" to an "s."
I don't want to get too far off topic - but I'm saying there is indeed such a thing as casualties of war. People write these off as necessary for the campaign. Drone strikes don't just take out an individual, they take out city blocks. Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, & children have been killed in the middle east by American policy over the last 20 years - people that were just guilty of living close to a target. Throw in unjust wars & fighting for financial gain, and you've got a whole other can of worms when talking about unnecessary death.
If we're approaching abortion as inherently wrong based solely on the reasoning that killing human life out of convenience is wrong... well then, we need an entire paradigm shift in all facets of how we interact within society and the world. Anything less would be hypocrisy.
One could make the distinction that abortion is intentionally ending a life while war casualties are unintentional consequences of war. I would tread lightly with that distinction though, because I would say that if you go to war you are making a conscious decision knowing full well that innocent casualties are a given.
For the record I'm not a big war guy either, nor to I support the death penalty. Basically, I can't justify going to war other than our own country being attacked, or in rarer cases a country being attacked that A) cannot defend itself and B) we deem the attack being unprovoked or without good reason. You could argue that it would be fine to defend a country that affords us certain benefits (resources, etc.) but that is itself a questionable moral practice, which is why I would prefer not to get involved in other countries wars at all. <<---- super off-topic
-
I still can't wrap my head around why anyone except maybe the expectant father would care about somebody else having an abortion. Dobber being rightfully excited when he finds out his own wife is expecting doesn't seem like a good reason to have any opinion on what other people should do when they're expecting.
I believe it to be a human life. That is my reason to have an opinion of what other people should do.
Lots of people have weird beliefs. Not a reason to impose theories stemming from those beliefs on people*.
*humans that have been birf'd.
I guess I am supposed to apologize because my beliefs are weird? Also, it would seem to me that you are the one that is trying to impose your theories on me by belittling what I believe.
No, just trying to understand how somebody could 1) believe that and 2) even if they do, would feel entitled to or even care about what somebody else with their own belief system is doing.
I really don't get why anyone is arguing about beliefs of when cells become people or whatever. It seems very definable. A person is a person once they're born. I can understand why people would take issue with killing birf'd babies (it should be much less of an issue than with older children or adults) but until there's actually a quantifiable person in our world, whether a woman proceeds with birf'n whatever's inside the woman (or man, shoutout to fitz!) really shouldn't be of anyone's concern, unless the issue people have with it is something about souls or spirituality or whatever. If that's what it really comes down to, people should just be honest about it and say they're against abortion because of religion, not some rationalization of a calendar.
What I can see being of concern to strangers is potential moms who intend to birf the kid doing things during pregnancy (drugs, booze, going to juggalo gatherings, etc.) that will harm the potential child that will then be in the world at a disadvantage, or really anything that would come at a cost to society.
This is an analogy,right?
I don't think so.
:horrorsurprise:
-
:horrorsurprise:
I mean, what's more :horrorsurprise: ? A new mom who realizes she probably isn't going to make the cast of Teen Mom 4 and dumping a newborn in a dumpster, or a mom of a 10-year-old deciding motherhood is wack and offing the kid? Both pretty bad, but killing somebody who the world has interacted with to me seems worse than the belated abortion of a baby that the isn't really part of the world at large yet. Obviously, killing a good adult in his (or her!) prime would be worst. Kind of like a bell curve.
-
MEN, WE'RE GOING INTO THIS WAR WITHOUT THE INTENTION OF KILLING ANYONE.
-
I think Trim is saying who the eff do people think they are telling someone what and what not to do with their bodies while at the same time you don't have to suffer the consequences of your opinions/laws?
And if you really believe it is your right/duty to dictate what other people do with their body you had better get off your ass and end all wars as well as giving every extra cent you possess to the poor/starving. <--- I added that part.
-
I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.
How do you not see the hypocrisy here? Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society.
Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency. You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.
So are you saying all war deaths are senseless killings and all abortions are senseless killings?
If you aren't careful with these tough questions, I am going to have RD change that "z" to an "s."
I don't want to get too far off topic - but I'm saying there is indeed such a thing as casualties of war. People write these off as necessary for the campaign. Drone strikes don't just take out an individual, they take out city blocks. Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, & children have been killed in the middle east by American policy over the last 20 years - people that were just guilty of living close to a target. Throw in unjust wars & fighting for financial gain, and you've got a whole other can of worms when talking about unnecessary death.
If we're approaching abortion as inherently wrong based solely on the reasoning that killing human life out of convenience is wrong... well then, we need an entire paradigm shift in all facets of how we interact within society and the world. Anything less would be hypocrisy.
Is abortion inadvertent or intentional? Is killing innocent people in a war inadvertent or intentional?
That's like asking if putting a turtle on his back is inadvertently killing it... If you know the end result is death - you are intentionally doing it. If you drop a bomb on a city block and you know the end result is innocent people dieing, how could it be anything but intentional? Even then, you're suggesting that your original target is justifiably needing to be killed. I don't think that's always the case in a lot of the wars we've been part of.
-
I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.
How do you not see the hypocrisy here? Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society.
Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency. You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.
So are you saying all war deaths are senseless killings and all abortions are senseless killings?
If you aren't careful with these tough questions, I am going to have RD change that "z" to an "s."
I don't want to get too far off topic - but I'm saying there is indeed such a thing as casualties of war. People write these off as necessary for the campaign. Drone strikes don't just take out an individual, they take out city blocks. Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, & children have been killed in the middle east by American policy over the last 20 years - people that were just guilty of living close to a target. Throw in unjust wars & fighting for financial gain, and you've got a whole other can of worms when talking about unnecessary death.
If we're approaching abortion as inherently wrong based solely on the reasoning that killing human life out of convenience is wrong... well then, we need an entire paradigm shift in all facets of how we interact within society and the world. Anything less would be hypocrisy.
Is abortion inadvertent or intentional? Is killing innocent people in a war inadvertent or intentional?
That's like asking if putting a turtle on his back is inadvertently killing it... If you know the end result is death - you are intentionally doing it. If you drop a bomb on a city block and you know the end result is innocent people dieing, how could it be anything but intentional? Even then, you're suggesting that your original target is justifiably needing to be killed. I don't think that's always the case in a lot of the wars we've been part of.
We (the US) hasn't fought a war without intentionally killing innocent people in a LONG time, if ever. We are still droning the crap out of the Taliban and their families with the hopes that they get sick of seeing their families splattered all over the road, drop the IEDs and get back to cultivating poppies for our drugs. We have always hoped to inflict maximum suffering to gain capitulation.
-
I think Trim is saying who the eff do people think they are telling someone what and what not to do with their bodies while at the same time you don't have to suffer the consequences of your opinions/laws?
Somewhat, but with snarky comments thrown in throughout. Mainly, I can understand why one wouldn't want to abort their own potential child, but I can't understand why anyone would care about what some other person with their own unique situation does with their potential child. Like if somebody is in a situation where they're contemplating an abortion (and they're not fun, so it's almost certainly a situation where the abort'r has a good idea that having that child will not be a good thing) what is the harm in them having the abortion? I can't think of any, unless like I said earlier, it's about souls or religion.
-
I think Trim is saying who the eff do people think they are telling someone what and what not to do with their bodies while at the same time you don't have to suffer the consequences of your opinions/laws?
Somewhat, but with snarky comments thrown in throughout. Mainly, I can understand why one wouldn't want to abort their own potential child, but I can't understand why anyone would care about what some other person with their own unique situation does with their potential child. Like if somebody is in a situation where they're contemplating an abortion (and they're not fun, so it's almost certainly a situation where the abort'r has a good idea that having that child will not be a good thing) what is the harm in them having the abortion? I can't think of any, unless like I said earlier, it's about souls or religion.
It's about control.
-
I think Trim is saying who the eff do people think they are telling someone what and what not to do with their bodies while at the same time you don't have to suffer the consequences of your opinions/laws?
Somewhat, but with snarky comments thrown in throughout. Mainly, I can understand why one wouldn't want to abort their own potential child, but I can't understand why anyone would care about what some other person with their own unique situation does with their potential child. Like if somebody is in a situation where they're contemplating an abortion (and they're not fun, so it's almost certainly a situation where the abort'r has a good idea that having that child will not be a good thing) what is the harm in them having the abortion? I can't think of any, unless like I said earlier, it's about souls or religion.
It's about control.
So it is a government issue... and no moral reasoning is welcome in this argument.
-
My grandmother had three children and five miscarriages throughout her life. At any point has she considered herself to be a mother of 8? Would anyone consider her to be a mother of 8? Did she have funerals for the five miscarriages or grieve as much about them as she did when her son had a heart attack at 45? Of course the answer to all of these is no. Because a person is more than a fetus.
The health, stability, and well-being of a 10 year-old rape victim who walks the Earth and already has to live with being the victim of a horrible crime is FAR more important and worth FAR more than the "life" that some of you want to force her to carry inside her for nine months and then care for for 18 years. To suggest that they are equal is completely rough ridin' ludicrous, as is suggesting there's no gray area. Of course there's a gray area, but there's one area that's absolutely, undeniably black and white as a human: 10 year-old rape victims. A person is more than a fetus. "But the issue here is that those of us who believe life begins at conception think they're equal." Well, if you think they're equal then you're a moron.
And by the way (and admittedly this probably doesn't apply to any EMAWs here, but it definitely does to the GPC and Ksf pro-lifers):
If you say you're against abortion but aren't actively campaigning to do everything you possibly can to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place (making birth control free and easy to obtain for anyone who wants it, promoting comprehensive sex ed in public schools, etc.), then you aren't really against abortion. You're against consequence-free pre-marital sex. You just want a punishment.
-
I think Trim is saying who the eff do people think they are telling someone what and what not to do with their bodies while at the same time you don't have to suffer the consequences of your opinions/laws?
Somewhat, but with snarky comments thrown in throughout. Mainly, I can understand why one wouldn't want to abort their own potential child, but I can't understand why anyone would care about what some other person with their own unique situation does with their potential child. Like if somebody is in a situation where they're contemplating an abortion (and they're not fun, so it's almost certainly a situation where the abort'r has a good idea that having that child will not be a good thing) what is the harm in them having the abortion? I can't think of any, unless like I said earlier, it's about souls or religion.
Keep in mind that over half of the abortions performed in America are not on first-timers, and I wouldn't call those unique situations. I would think that they would learn the first time...
-
My grandmother had three children and five miscarriages throughout her life. At any point has she considered herself to be a mother of 8? Would anyone consider her to be a mother of 8? Did she have funerals for the five miscarriages or grieve as much about them as she did when her son had a heart attack at 45? Of course the answer to all of these is no. Because a person is more than a fetus.
The health, stability, and well-being of a 10 year-old rape victim who walks the Earth and already has to live with being the victim of a horrible crime is FAR more important and worth FAR more than the "life" that some of you want to force her to carry inside her for nine months and then care for for 18 years. To suggest that they are equal is completely rough ridin' ludicrous, as is suggesting there's no gray area. Of course there's a gray area, but there's one area that's absolutely, undeniably black and white as a human: 10 year-old rape victims. A person is more than a fetus. "But the issue here is that those of us who believe life begins at conception think they're equal." Well, if you think they're equal then you're a moron.
And by the way (and admittedly this probably doesn't apply to any EMAWs here, but it definitely does to the GPC and Ksf pro-lifers):
If you say you're against abortion but aren't actively campaigning to do everything you possibly can to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place (making birth control free and easy to obtain for anyone who wants it, promoting comprehensive sex ed in public schools, etc.), then you aren't really against abortion. You're against consequence-free pre-marital sex. You just want a punishment.
I have actually had somebody argue with me that the HPV vaccination is a bad idea because the only people who get HPV are whores who sleep around.
-
I think Trim is saying who the eff do people think they are telling someone what and what not to do with their bodies while at the same time you don't have to suffer the consequences of your opinions/laws?
Somewhat, but with snarky comments thrown in throughout. Mainly, I can understand why one wouldn't want to abort their own potential child, but I can't understand why anyone would care about what some other person with their own unique situation does with their potential child. Like if somebody is in a situation where they're contemplating an abortion (and they're not fun, so it's almost certainly a situation where the abort'r has a good idea that having that child will not be a good thing) what is the harm in them having the abortion? I can't think of any, unless like I said earlier, it's about souls or religion.
Keep in mind that over half of the abortions performed in America are not on first-timers, and I wouldn't call those unique situations. I would think that they would learn the first time...
I'd say it's unique from dobber's happy family having a kid. At the dobber household, you've got a family that's psyched up about their potential addition to the family, and in your example, you've got a girl who, while maybe having exercised poor judgment earlier, I would argue is now showing some maturity in making an informed decision about her and her potential child's future. Two very unique situations.
-
To me, the fact that there is apparently three major stances on abortion now is mind-blowing in itself. Remember when is used to be for or against (except in extreme cases of rape, incest, etc.)? Now people are actually trying to make the unequivocal "no" abortion. :runaway:
-
Lot of anti-lifers and anti-choicers in this thread.
-
I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.
How do you not see the hypocrisy here? Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society.
Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency. You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.
So are you saying all war deaths are senseless killings and all abortions are senseless killings?
If you aren't careful with these tough questions, I am going to have RD change that "z" to an "s."
I don't want to get too far off topic - but I'm saying there is indeed such a thing as casualties of war. People write these off as necessary for the campaign. Drone strikes don't just take out an individual, they take out city blocks. Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, & children have been killed in the middle east by American policy over the last 20 years - people that were just guilty of living close to a target. Throw in unjust wars & fighting for financial gain, and you've got a whole other can of worms when talking about unnecessary death.
If we're approaching abortion as inherently wrong based solely on the reasoning that killing human life out of convenience is wrong... well then, we need an entire paradigm shift in all facets of how we interact within society and the world. Anything less would be hypocrisy.
Is abortion inadvertent or intentional? Is killing innocent people in a war inadvertent or intentional?
That's like asking if putting a turtle on his back is inadvertently killing it... If you know the end result is death - you are intentionally doing it. If you drop a bomb on a city block and you know the end result is innocent people dieing, how could it be anything but intentional? Even then, you're suggesting that your original target is justifiably needing to be killed. I don't think that's always the case in a lot of the wars we've been part of.
We (the US) hasn't fought a war without intentionally killing innocent people in a LONG time, if ever. We are still droning the crap out of the Taliban and their families with the hopes that they get sick of seeing their families splattered all over the road, drop the IEDs and get back to cultivating poppies for our drugs. We have always hoped to inflict maximum suffering to gain capitulation.
I don't think that's any sort of mystery. I, for one, am not condoning it either.
-
Keep in mind that over half of the abortions performed in America are not on first-timers, and I wouldn't call those unique situations. I would think that they would learn the first time...
And these are the people you want to be parents???
-
We (the US) hasn't fought a war without intentionally killing innocent people in a LONG time, if ever. We are still droning the crap out of the Taliban and their families with the hopes that they get sick of seeing their families splattered all over the road, drop the IEDs and get back to cultivating poppies for our drugs. We have always hoped to inflict maximum suffering to gain capitulation.
As a contributing author to that policy, let me clarify that we never meant for it to be examined ethically.
-
codename: dominate
:thumbs:
-
I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.
How do you not see the hypocrisy here? Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society.
Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency. You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.
They can also become president, even if they have no relationship with their father and sent off to live with grandparents.
-
Keep in mind that over half of the abortions performed in America are not on first-timers, and I wouldn't call those unique situations. I would think that they would learn the first time...
And these are the people you want to be parents???
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not throw out accusations all willy-nilly (no stereotype). I'm a proponent of the concept that if the woman is capable of making an informed decision about her and her child's future, then she should be capable of identifying other options. In our convenience-based society, abortion is nothing more than a solution to the need for convenience. That's the reason why around half of the abortions are not on first-timers; convenience. It just wasn't convenient for the parent(s) to have the child.
My sister and her husband adopted a child that was "unwanted, unloved, unprovided for, uneducated", but the mother decided against abortion. From my position, the joy that one child has now, and brings to those around him provides adequate valuation to lessening the availability to abortion.
I'm sure there are other examples, but I have a close friend whose parents split while he was at med school. His mother told him after that event that he was basically lucky to be alive-she wanted to have an abortion when she became pregnant with him, but his father wouldn't allow it. It tore her up for 30+ years. This is the same kid who saves lives every month now (lives from wanted, loved, provided for, etc. homes) in the ER. How can you quantify his benefit to society? I realize that we can play the "if game" never-ending, but my sister adopting solidified my viewpoint. BTW I'm not trying to square off with anyone here.
-
I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.
How do you not see the hypocrisy here? Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society.
Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency. You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.
They can also become president, even if they have no relationship with their father and sent off to live with grandparents.
Which do you think happens more often? Be honest.
-
This is the same kid who saves lives every month now (lives from wanted, loved, provided for, etc. homes) in the ER. How can you quantify his benefit to society?
meh
-
I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.
How do you not see the hypocrisy here? Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society.
Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency. You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.
They can also become president, even if they have no relationship with their father and sent off to live with grandparents.
Which do you think happens more often? Be honest.
hey little guy. Sure you have a chance at life. Buuuut it's not statistically relevant. So, chin up! You won't even feel this.
-
I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.
How do you not see the hypocrisy here? Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society.
Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency. You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.
They can also become president, even if they have no relationship with their father and sent off to live with grandparents.
Which do you think happens more often? Be honest.
hey little guy. Sure you have a chance at life. Buuuut it's not statistically relevant. So, chin up! You won't even feel this.
If we are playing statics, then we are all mumped.
-
Keep in mind that over half of the abortions performed in America are not on first-timers, and I wouldn't call those unique situations. I would think that they would learn the first time...
And these are the people you want to be parents???
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not throw out accusations all willy-nilly (no stereotype). I'm a proponent of the concept that if the woman is capable of making an informed decision about her and her child's future, then she should be capable of identifying other options. In our convenience-based society, abortion is nothing more than a solution to the need for convenience. That's the reason why around half of the abortions are not on first-timers; convenience. It just wasn't convenient for the parent(s) to have the child.
My sister and her husband adopted a child that was "unwanted, unloved, unprovided for, uneducated", but the mother decided against abortion. From my position, the joy that one child has now, and brings to those around him provides adequate valuation to lessening the availability to abortion.
I'm sure there are other examples, but I have a close friend whose parents split while he was at med school. His mother told him after that event that he was basically lucky to be alive-she wanted to have an abortion when she became pregnant with him, but his father wouldn't allow it. It tore her up for 30+ years. This is the same kid who saves lives every month now (lives from wanted, loved, provided for, etc. homes) in the ER. How can you quantify his benefit to society? I realize that we can play the "if game" never-ending, but my sister adopting solidified my viewpoint. BTW I'm not trying to square off with anyone here.
I think everyone here would agree adoption is the best possible scenario - I posed the question earlier why is adoption so difficult & expensive. Perhaps government involvement is prohibiting a lot advancement in these issues.
-
I just want to be clear that my first case best scenario is zero raping-uncles. Then maybe adoption works its way into my 2-5.
-
Again, that's no more uncles raping, then other solutions second.
-
Again, that's no more uncles raping, then other solutions second.
I agree at starting with the no uncle rape. So this thread is about to turn to crime and punishment, right?
I mean, rape once, shame on you, rape twice shame on us for not killing the guy....right?
I guess I am saying that rapey uncles should be put down in a more than timely manner. Appeals shouldn't be very active here. just do the paternity test and fire up the anti-breathing machine. Swift justice as a deterrent :dunno:
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
Here come all the posts about some rapey uncles that turned out to be president or Beethoven or something.
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
I don't know why the pro-choice crowd keeps coming back to religion? Seems kind of funny. I don't know that many arguments have been made on here that religion is the reason that someone is against abortion.
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
I don't know why the pro-choice crowd keeps coming back to religion? Seems kind of funny. I don't know that many arguments have been made on here that religion is the reason that someone is against abortion.
All joking and religion aside, I think rapey uncles should die quickly at the hands of our justice system.
-
I think everyone here would agree adoption is the best possible scenario - I posed the question earlier why is adoption so difficult & expensive. Perhaps government involvement is prohibiting a lot advancement in these issues.
Yes, it is. But for obvious reasons it's a PITA, i.e. child predators, people in it for the money, etc. I still remember helping my sister and BIL put together a scrapbook of our family and stuff. It's pretty much indescribable how it feels to market your family. I tried to sneak "badass" and several derivatives of EMAW in the description, but got shot down because it wasn't a "good impression". :jerk:
-
I admittedly just scanned this, but it seems the proposed solution for abortion is executing rapey uncles. I see no middle ground, and if you do you deserve to have your aborted fetus roughly raped by your uncle.
-
I think everyone here would agree adoption is the best possible scenario - I posed the question earlier why is adoption so difficult & expensive. Perhaps government involvement is prohibiting a lot advancement in these issues.
Yes, it is. But for obvious reasons it's a PITA, i.e. child predators, people in it for the money, etc. I still remember helping my sister and BIL put together a scrapbook of our family and stuff. It's pretty much indescribable how it feels to market your family. I tried to sneak "badass" and several derivatives of EMAW in the description, but got shot down because it wasn't a "good impression". :jerk:
Yes, we have a few sets of friends that have adopted from over seas. It takes an insane amount of money and time.
-
I admittedly just scanned this, but it seems the proposed solution for abortion is executing rapey uncles. I see no middle ground, and if you do you deserve to have your aborted fetus roughly raped by your uncle.
Erase all of the other posts. This sums it up. :thumbs:
-
I just don't view war killings and abortion the same way. I am certainly not in favor of war for the sake of war, but some wars have brought about a better society or more freedoms for all. I am not certain how one could argue that a past abortion has ever done that.
How do you not see the hypocrisy here? Unwanted children often turn to a life of crime and do not become productive members of society.
Now, I'll reiterate, I'm not taking a stance on abortion with this argument - I think there are better ways to better society than killing babies, I'm just looking for a bit of consistency. You're either okay with senseless killing - or You're not.
They can also become president, even if they have no relationship with their father and sent off to live with grandparents.
Which do you think happens more often? Be honest.
:rolleyes: I agree that in this particular instance we may have been better off. I was going to say something mean and nasty, but I won't.
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
I don't know why the pro-choice crowd keeps coming back to religion? Seems kind of funny. I don't know that many arguments have been made on here that religion is the reason that someone is against abortion.
What's the reason again (specifically as to other peoples' abortions)?
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
I don't know why the pro-choice crowd keeps coming back to religion? Seems kind of funny. I don't know that many arguments have been made on here that religion is the reason that someone is against abortion.
The reason it keeps coming back to religion is because the most outspoken of your ilk (not necessarily on this here bbs) seem to bring it back to this. I wouldn't be using the mocking word "sacred" if I hadn't heard the phrase a million times before from outspoken pro-life religious zealots.
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
I don't know why the pro-choice crowd keeps coming back to religion? Seems kind of funny. I don't know that many arguments have been made on here that religion is the reason that someone is against abortion.
What's the reason again (specifically as to other peoples' abortions)?
1. It's important to try to stop things that are fundamentally wrong.
2. Murder of an innocent is fundamentally wrong.
3. Abortion might equate to the murder of an innocent.
4. Abortion might be fundamentally wrong.
5. It might be important to try to stop abortion.
-
I admittedly just scanned this, but it seems the proposed solution for abortion is executing rapey uncles. I see no middle ground, and if you do you deserve to have your aborted fetus roughly raped by your uncle.
It definitely won't help this 10yr girl in particular, but it may deter the next rapey uncle from raping his niece if he new that rapey uncles get the axe and quick. Don't get me wrong, I am not a kill-them-all-and-sort-them-out-later type of guy. But I do think that child rape should be added to the list of things people get put to death for.
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
I don't know why the pro-choice crowd keeps coming back to religion? Seems kind of funny. I don't know that many arguments have been made on here that religion is the reason that someone is against abortion.
What's the reason again (specifically as to other peoples' abortions)?
I personally believe that it is a baby. Haven't I stated that? I don't think it is right to kill a baby. I know that you don't believe it is a baby. I understand that.
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
I don't know why the pro-choice crowd keeps coming back to religion? Seems kind of funny. I don't know that many arguments have been made on here that religion is the reason that someone is against abortion.
What's the reason again (specifically as to other peoples' abortions)?
I personally believe that it is a baby. Haven't I stated that? I don't think it is right to kill a baby. I know that you don't believe it is a baby. I understand that.
Are you in favor of doing everything we possibly can to make sure unintended pregnancies never happen? (By this I mean subsidizing the cost for free and widely-disseminated birth control, and for teaching comprehensive sex ed. early and often in all schools?) If any of you who consider abortion to be The Great Evil can't swallow your pride and make allowances for those two things which would greatly reduce the need for abortions, you aren't as pro-life as you say you are.
-
Are you in favor of doing everything we possibly can to make sure unintended pregnancies never happen? (By this I mean subsidizing the cost for free and widely-disseminated birth control, and for teaching comprehensive sex ed. early and often in all schools?) If any of you who consider abortion to be The Great Evil can't swallow your pride and make allowances for those two things which would greatly reduce the need for abortions, you aren't as pro-life as you say you are.
I wouldn't have any problem with this.
:dunno:
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
I don't know why the pro-choice crowd keeps coming back to religion? Seems kind of funny. I don't know that many arguments have been made on here that religion is the reason that someone is against abortion.
What's the reason again (specifically as to other peoples' abortions)?
1. It's important to try to stop things that are fundamentally wrong.
2. Murder of an innocent is fundamentally wrong.
3. Abortion war might equate to the murder of an innocent.
4. Abortion war might be fundamentally wrong.
5. It might be important to try to stop abortion war.
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
I don't know why the pro-choice crowd keeps coming back to religion? Seems kind of funny. I don't know that many arguments have been made on here that religion is the reason that someone is against abortion.
What's the reason again (specifically as to other peoples' abortions)?
1. It's important to try to stop things that are fundamentally wrong.
2. Murder of an innocent is fundamentally wrong.
3. Abortion war might equate to the murder of an innocent.
4. Abortion war might be fundamentally wrong.
5. It might be important to try to stop abortion war.
Although I don't see what you're getting at, I don't disagree with you.
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
I don't know why the pro-choice crowd keeps coming back to religion? Seems kind of funny. I don't know that many arguments have been made on here that religion is the reason that someone is against abortion.
What's the reason again (specifically as to other peoples' abortions)?
1. It's important to try to stop things that are fundamentally wrong.
2. Murder of an innocent is fundamentally wrong.
3. Abortion starvation might equate to the murder of an innocent.
4. Abortion allowing starvation might be fundamentally wrong.
5. It might be important to try to stop abortion allowing starvation.
-
1. It's important to try to stop things that are fundamentally wrong.
2. Murder of an innocent is fundamentally wrong.
3. Abortion starvation might equate to the murder of an innocent.
4. Abortion allowing starvation might be fundamentally wrong.
5. It might be important to try to stop abortion allowing starvation.
Now you're being silly.
-
We are in agreement on 1 and 2. But not the rest?
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
I don't know why the pro-choice crowd keeps coming back to religion? Seems kind of funny. I don't know that many arguments have been made on here that religion is the reason that someone is against abortion.
What's the reason again (specifically as to other peoples' abortions)?
1. It's important to try to stop things that are fundamentally wrong.
2. Murder of an innocent is fundamentally wrong.
3. Abortion might equate to the murder of an innocent.
4. Abortion might be fundamentally wrong.
5. It might be important to try to stop abortion.
:thumbs: a valid answer to the question. I am not smart enough to get what Limestone is doing.
-
We are in agreement on 1 and 2. But not the rest?
Quite the contrary, I think we both agree that trying to end wars and end starvation are worthy pursuits.
I might disagree with your increasingly broad definition of "murder," but in general, I think we're on the same page.
-
We are in agreement on 1 and 2. But not the rest?
Quite the contrary, I think we both agree that trying to end wars and end starvation are worthy pursuits.
I might disagree with your increasingly broad definition of "murder," but in general, I think we're on the same page.
My point is that everyone agrees allowing the death of innocent babies is morally wrong and lots of people are really keen on telling a 16 year old, unwed pregnant girl that she sure as hell will have that unplanned baby because we said so regardless of circumstances. There are not so many people want to dip into their pocket and send 50% of what they make to poverty relief and/or pay $10/gal at the pump when we finally pull out of the ME. One makes us feel good and puts that little tramp in her place. The other seems kind of tough and would really call for a personal sacrifice. better her sacrifice than us.
Like I said, this is all about control. It's not saving innocent babies or people would do things a lot differently.
-
We are in agreement on 1 and 2. But not the rest?
Quite the contrary, I think we both agree that trying to end wars and end starvation are worthy pursuits.
I might disagree with your increasingly broad definition of "murder," but in general, I think we're on the same page.
My point is that everyone agrees allowing the death of innocent babies is morally wrong and lots of people are really keen on telling a 16 year old, unwed pregnant girl that she sure as hell will have that unplanned baby because we said so regardless of circumstances. There are not so many people want to dip into their pocket and send 50% of what they make to poverty relief and/or pay $10/gal at the pump when we finally pull out of the ME. One makes us feel good and puts that little tramp in her place. The other seems kind of tough and would really call for a personal sacrifice. better her sacrifice than us.
Like I said, this is all about control. It's not saving innocent babies or people would do things a lot differently.
I don't understand what you mean.
But it sounds like maybe we didn't both agree earlier when you said it's important to try to end hunger/wars. If I'm misunderstanding set me straight.
-
We are in agreement on 1 and 2. But not the rest?
Quite the contrary, I think we both agree that trying to end wars and end starvation are worthy pursuits.
I might disagree with your increasingly broad definition of "murder," but in general, I think we're on the same page.
My point is that everyone agrees allowing the death of innocent babies is morally wrong and lots of people are really keen on telling a 16 year old, unwed pregnant girl that she sure as hell will have that unplanned baby because we said so regardless of circumstances. There are not so many people want to dip into their pocket and send 50% of what they make to poverty relief and/or pay $10/gal at the pump when we finally pull out of the ME. One makes us feel good and puts that little tramp in her place. The other seems kind of tough and would really call for a personal sacrifice. better her sacrifice than us.
Like I said, this is all about control. It's not saving innocent babies or people would do things a lot differently.
You're reaching.
-
We are in agreement on 1 and 2. But not the rest?
Quite the contrary, I think we both agree that trying to end wars and end starvation are worthy pursuits.
I might disagree with your increasingly broad definition of "murder," but in general, I think we're on the same page.
My point is that everyone agrees allowing the death of innocent babies is morally wrong and lots of people are really keen on telling a 16 year old, unwed pregnant girl that she sure as hell will have that unplanned baby because we said so regardless of circumstances. There are not so many people want to dip into their pocket and send 50% of what they make to poverty relief and/or pay $10/gal at the pump when we finally pull out of the ME. One makes us feel good and puts that little tramp in her place. The other seems kind of tough and would really call for a personal sacrifice. better her sacrifice than us.
Like I said, this is all about control. It's not saving innocent babies or people would do things a lot differently.
I don't understand what you mean.
But it sounds like maybe we didn't both agree earlier when you said it's important to try to end hunger/wars. If I'm misunderstanding set me straight.
I guess I don't understand what you mean either. I sure thought I did. Ships passing in the night and such.
-
I guess I don't understand what you mean either. I sure thought I did. Ships passing in the night and such.
Sometimes that happens. Oh well. Still friends?
:cheers:
-
I guess I don't understand what you mean either. I sure thought I did. Ships passing in the night and such.
Sometimes that happens. Oh well. Still friends?
:cheers:
go be friends with a fetus, dlew12.
-
I guess I don't understand what you mean either. I sure thought I did. Ships passing in the night and such.
Sometimes that happens. Oh well. Still friends?
:cheers:
:cheers:
-
I guess I don't understand what you mean either. I sure thought I did. Ships passing in the night and such.
Sometimes that happens. Oh well. Still friends?
:cheers:
go be friends with a fetus, dlew12.
Cram it, dorkweed.
-
I guess I don't understand what you mean either. I sure thought I did. Ships passing in the night and such.
Sometimes that happens. Oh well. Still friends?
:cheers:
go be friends with a fetus, dlew12.
Cram it, dorkweed.
i am betrayed. five years of friendship and you never once mentioned that you were against killing babies. have a good life.
-
:lol:
-
Like I said, this is all about control. It's not saving innocent babies or people would do things a lot differently.
You're reaching.
I don't think he is. It's not ENTIRELY all about control like he says, but a shitload of it certainly is for some people. That's why so many want to end abortion but don't want to make allowances for things like birth control or sex ed. that would actually have an impact toward that end. Again, if you're the type who considers abortion to be The Great Evil of our society but you're not making allowances to prevent it like allowing poor people access to effective birth control, you aren't really about eliminating abortion. You're about control. You're about not letting people have consequence-free premarital sex.
(Again this doesn't apply to most of the pro-life people in this thread, as you all seem to be the most level-headed and non-religious of your ilk that I've ever seen argue this. You are the exception, however.)
-
Well as a pro-lifer I promise anyone debating having an abortion that I will adopt their child. Mrs. Stevesie60 and I have been trying to adopt for a year and a half. So, Trim keeps asking how it affects us. It affects me. Twice now we've had people close to us get pregnant, debate what to do with the baby, we told them we'd adopt it, they aborted it. SkinBen, I know it's not much of a sacrifice, because we legitimately want to be parents, but it's what I have to offer.
Admittedly, I haven't had time to process the "rape" issue. That is a terrible situation that no one should be in. But to that girl I promise I'd adopt their child, incest-deformities and all.
-
Well as a pro-lifer I promise anyone debating having an abortion that I will adopt their child. Mrs. Stevesie60 and I have been trying to adopt for a year and a half. So, Trim keeps asking how it affects us. It affects me. Twice now we've had people close to us get pregnant, debate what to do with the baby, we told them we'd adopt it, they aborted it. SkinBen, I know it's not much of a sacrifice, because we legitimately want to be parents, but it's what I have to offer.
Admittedly, I haven't had time to process the "rape" issue. That is a terrible situation that no one should be in. But to that girl I promise I'd adopt their child, incest-deformities and all.
this is why you're one of the best people i know.
-
Well as a pro-lifer I promise anyone debating having an abortion that I will adopt their child. Mrs. Stevesie60 and I have been trying to adopt for a year and a half. So, Trim keeps asking how it affects us. It affects me. Twice now we've had people close to us get pregnant, debate what to do with the baby, we told them we'd adopt it, they aborted it. SkinBen, I know it's not much of a sacrifice, because we legitimately want to be parents, but it's what I have to offer.
Admittedly, I haven't had time to process the "rape" issue. That is a terrible situation that no one should be in. But to that girl I promise I'd adopt their child, incest-deformities and all.
Look at Jakesie talking the talk AND WALKING THE WALK! That counts for a lot. Don't you dare sell yourself short.
-
Well as a pro-lifer I promise anyone debating having an abortion that I will adopt their child. Mrs. Stevesie60 and I have been trying to adopt for a year and a half. So, Trim keeps asking how it affects us. It affects me. Twice now we've had people close to us get pregnant, debate what to do with the baby, we told them we'd adopt it, they aborted it. SkinBen, I know it's not much of a sacrifice, because we legitimately want to be parents, but it's what I have to offer.
Admittedly, I haven't had time to process the "rape" issue. That is a terrible situation that no one should be in. But to that girl I promise I'd adopt their child, incest-deformities and all.
this is why you're one of the best people i know.
Definitely.
This discussion is tough to carry out when the people have personal experiences that none of us can rebut. Let's put this thread to bed.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.zaazu.com%2Fimg%2FGoodnight-good-night-good-evening-night-smiley-emoticon-000736-huge.png&hash=729b869c482802b44deb955be7d33d87ecb9cbe4)
-
Well as a pro-lifer I promise anyone debating having an abortion that I will adopt their child. Mrs. Stevesie60 and I have been trying to adopt for a year and a half. So, Trim keeps asking how it affects us. It affects me. Twice now we've had people close to us get pregnant, debate what to do with the baby, we told them we'd adopt it, they aborted it. SkinBen, I know it's not much of a sacrifice, because we legitimately want to be parents, but it's what I have to offer.
Admittedly, I haven't had time to process the "rape" issue. That is a terrible situation that no one should be in. But to that girl I promise I'd adopt their child, incest-deformities and all.
Now that I can devote more than 10 minutes to this on a study break, give me something that shows precisely what has been preventing an adoption from occurring (obviously, I don't need any more info on the 2 aborted potential people) and we'll see if we can make this happen. I still believe we can have both a Jakesie Jr. AND unlimited abortions.
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
I don't know why the pro-choice crowd keeps coming back to religion? Seems kind of funny. I don't know that many arguments have been made on here that religion is the reason that someone is against abortion.
What's the reason again (specifically as to other peoples' abortions)?
1. It's important to try to stop things that are fundamentally wrong.
2. Murder of an innocent is fundamentally wrong.
3. Abortion might equate to the murder of an innocent.
4. Abortion might be fundamentally wrong.
5. It might be important to try to stop abortion.
Once you get to the "mights," what factors play in to whether it is or isn't?
-
Outlaw abortion but ask everyone in the us to register as pro life or choice. All the new born babies will be awarded on a lottery basis to those registered as pro life.
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
I don't know why the pro-choice crowd keeps coming back to religion? Seems kind of funny. I don't know that many arguments have been made on here that religion is the reason that someone is against abortion.
What's the reason again (specifically as to other peoples' abortions)?
1. It's important to try to stop things that are fundamentally wrong.
2. Murder of an innocent is fundamentally wrong.
3. Abortion might equate to the murder of an innocent.
4. Abortion might be fundamentally wrong.
5. It might be important to try to stop abortion.
Once you get to the "mights," what factors play in to whether it is or isn't?
I think that's what is up for debate. Or at least part of it.
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
I don't know why the pro-choice crowd keeps coming back to religion? Seems kind of funny. I don't know that many arguments have been made on here that religion is the reason that someone is against abortion.
What's the reason again (specifically as to other peoples' abortions)?
1. It's important to try to stop things that are fundamentally wrong.
2. Murder of an innocent is fundamentally wrong.
3. Abortion might equate to the murder of an innocent.
4. Abortion might be fundamentally wrong.
5. It might be important to try to stop abortion.
Once you get to the "mights," what factors play in to whether it is or isn't?
I think that's what is up for debate. Or at least part of it.
I know. To me, it's as simple as the fact that I'm 22 and a half and not 23 and a quarter. But I'm open to considering some non-religious reasons why I'm wrong.
-
Outlaw abortion but ask everyone in the us to register as pro life or choice. All the new born babies will be awarded on a lottery basis to those registered as pro life.
Oh this is fantastic.
-
But CNSCasey, ALL life is SACRED.
I don't know why the pro-choice crowd keeps coming back to religion? Seems kind of funny. I don't know that many arguments have been made on here that religion is the reason that someone is against abortion.
What's the reason again (specifically as to other peoples' abortions)?
1. It's important to try to stop things that are fundamentally wrong.
2. Murder of an innocent is fundamentally wrong.
3. Abortion might equate to the murder of an innocent.
4. Abortion might be fundamentally wrong.
5. It might be important to try to stop abortion.
Once you get to the "mights," what factors play in to whether it is or isn't?
I think that's what is up for debate. Or at least part of it.
I know. To me, it's as simple as the fact that I'm 22 and a half and not 23 and a quarter. But I'm open to considering some non-religious reasons why I'm wrong.
My nephew was born at 26 wks. So this October, he's turning 4 instead of 4 and a quarter. :dunno:
-
Outlaw abortion but ask everyone in the us to register as pro life or choice. All the new born babies will be awarded on a lottery basis to those registered as pro life.
:thumbs:
This is assuming anyone on the list could be asked to be moved to the top.
-
Outlaw abortion but ask everyone in the us to register as pro life or choice. All the new born babies will be awarded on a lottery basis to those registered as pro life.
This. I would also think to remain consistent, contraception should be outlawed as well. Also the cost of any "glut" of children (ie more children than adopting parents) would then be paid through a tax assigned to those who selected prolife.
-
Outlaw abortion but ask everyone in the us to register as pro life or choice. All the new born babies will be awarded on a lottery basis to those registered as pro life.
:thumbs:
This is assuming anyone on the list could be asked to be moved to the top.
No, it'd have to be a true lottery where unwanted babies are forced upon pro-lifers, so that if you're going to declare yourself pro-life, you also have to be willing to take on caring for babies who otherwise would've been aborted. I figure that would leave room for the good Jakesies of the world to then market themselves as being extra willing to take that on and have the pro-lifers-that-aren't pay Jakesie to adopt the kid rather than the current system where Jakesie has to pay to do a good deed.
Of course, if under the threat of having to pay money or take on more responsibility, a majority of people aren't pro-life, then abortion should be legal for all. Wouldn't this work? If you're so committed to the position and want to impose it on everyone, you have to accept the possibility that the "burden" (I'm aware some won't see it as a burden, and will thus profit on this) could fall directly on you.
-
Outlaw abortion but ask everyone in the us to register as pro life or choice. All the new born babies will be awarded on a lottery basis to those registered as pro life.
:thumbs:
This is assuming anyone on the list could be asked to be moved to the top.
No, it'd have to be a true lottery where unwanted babies are forced upon pro-lifers, so that if you're going to declare yourself pro-life, you also have to be willing to take on caring for babies who otherwise would've been aborted. I figure that would leave room for the good Jakesies of the world to then market themselves as being extra willing to take that on and have the pro-lifers-that-aren't pay Jakesie to adopt the kid rather than the current system where Jakesie has to pay to do a good deed.
Of course, if under the threat of having to pay money or take on more responsibility, a majority of people aren't pro-life, then abortion should be legal for all. Wouldn't this work? If you're so committed to the position and want to impose it on everyone, you have to accept the possibility that the "burden" (I'm aware some won't see it as a burden, and will thus profit on this) could fall directly on you.
Yeah, I'd like having money AND kids better. Good point, Trim. :thumbs:
-
Man, we solved the abortion debate in less than 10 full pages. Good work, goEMAW.
-
If goEMAW as a whole ever ran for president, I picture us just PI'ing people to vote for us.
-
If goEMAW as a whole ever ran for president, I picture us just PI'ing people to vote for us.
We'd be elected but then be assassinated pretty quick.
-
PI'ing
Look how well it worked in this very thread.
-
Abortion would still be prevalent in that scenario.
I like my idea better.
Forced sterilization. All births must then be approved by a bureaucratic process.
-
Abortion would still be prevalent in that scenario.
I like my idea better.
Forced sterilization. All births must then be approved by a bureaucratic process.
Not a bad idea at all.
-
And the first question in that process is, "How do you spell Amy?"
A) Amy
B) Amiee
C) Aimee
D) Aymeigh
If you pick anything but A we not only abort your child but also get in a time machine and go back and abort you. Or maybe we should just do the time machine part first.
-
And the first question in that process is, "How do you spell Amy?"
A) Amy
B) Amiee
C) Aimee
D) Aymeigh
If you pick anything but A we not only abort your child but also get in a time machine and go back and abort you. Or maybe we should just do the time machine part first.
:opcat:
-
Wow. Phonics guy got real racist real fast.
-
Wow. Phonics guy got real racist real fast.
Welp, I was going to stop posting in here, but now they are talking about aborting babies using racism as the deciding factor. I can't let this crap continue... :shakesfist:
-
I thought misspelling names was a white midwesterner thing.
-
I thought misspelling names was a white midwesterner thing.
This is absolutely true. None of the variations of Amy I listed have ever been done by anyone other than white people. So eff off.
-
Wow. Phonics guy got real racist real fast.
Welp, I was going to stop posting in here, but now they are talking about aborting babies using racism as the deciding factor. I can't let this crap continue... :shakesfist:
No, we solved the whole thing by 10 this morning. Good luck in the lottery!
-
Wow. Phonics guy got real racist real fast.
Welp, I was going to stop posting in here, but now they are talking about aborting babies using racism as the deciding factor. I can't let this crap continue... :shakesfist:
No, we solved the whole thing by 10 this morning. Good luck in the lottery!
I hope the lawyers volunteer their time to help the adoptive parents with all of the legal bs. It sounds like a great plan. :cheers:
-
Wow. Phonics guy got real racist real fast.
Welp, I was going to stop posting in here, but now they are talking about aborting babies using racism as the deciding factor. I can't let this crap continue... :shakesfist:
No, we solved the whole thing by 10 this morning. Good luck in the lottery!
I hope the lawyers volunteer their time to help the adoptive parents with all of the legal bs. It sounds like a great plan. :cheers:
Only the pro-life ones, and it won't be volunteering. It'll be mandated.
-
I thought misspelling names was a white midwesterner thing.
This is absolutely true. None of the variations of Amy I listed have ever been done by anyone other than white people. So eff off.
Maybe the English teacher should google "racism"?
-
Hey don't worry FelixRex, I have many black friends. None of whom are named Aimee, Amiee, or Aymeigh, though.
:users:
-
I have a black friend :lol:
-
Glad you picked up on that one. :cheers:
-
#Gottlieb4KSU
-
Glad you picked up on that one. :cheers:
terrible
-
:babywillie:
-
Wow. Phonics guy got real racist real fast.
Welp, I was going to stop posting in here, but now they are talking about aborting babies using racism as the deciding factor. I can't let this crap continue... :shakesfist:
No, we solved the whole thing by 10 this morning. Good luck in the lottery!
I hope the lawyers volunteer their time to help the adoptive parents with all of the legal bs. It sounds like a great plan. :cheers:
Only the pro-life ones, and it won't be volunteering. It'll be mandated.
key
-
I don't really mind the register as pro-life ban abortion deal.
-
I don't really mind the register as pro-life ban abortion deal.
The logistics involved in getting every single person to register for such a thing isn't realistic.
-
I don't really mind the register as pro-life ban abortion deal.
The logistics involved in getting every single person to register for such a thing isn't realistic.
I'd considered that but I think it's worth investing in trying. I mean, this is perfect.
-
I don't really mind the register as pro-life ban abortion deal.
The logistics involved in getting every single person to register for such a thing isn't realistic.
I'd considered that but I think it's worth investing in trying. I mean, this is perfect.
microchip
-
Do a majority of Americans even support banning abortion? I couldn't imagine a majority would support it if it meant they had to adopt kids.
-
Do a majority of Americans even support banning abortion? I couldn't imagine a majority would support it if it meant they had to adopt kids.
Probably not, but that would be the point.
-
I couldn't imagine a majority would support it if it meant they had to adopt kids.
:thumbsup:
-
I don't really mind the register as pro-life ban abortion deal.
The logistics involved in getting every single person to register for such a thing isn't realistic.
I never said it isn't realistic. I said I liked it, it's also pretty fair. The only people that would have a problem with it are the zealots on either side of the argument.
-
So in this awesome fantasy land are we still making rape victims have the babies? Because that's where it stops being awesome.
-
So in this awesome fantasy land are we still making rape victims have the babies? Because that's where it stops being awesome.
It depends who wins the vote. If given the individual consequences of the votes, the majority of our great land is against banning abortions, anything goes. If the majority choose to ban abortions and going on a list that randomly assigns people on the list the care of the potential baby (including health care costs while the rape victim has to go through the whole process), then yes, she has to have the baby at no charge.
-
i don't get why the exemption is always "rape, incest & health of the mother". i get the rape and health exemptions, but why incest? if it's non-consensual incest, then it's covered with rape. if you're also exempting consensual, then you're just providing an incest incentive.
-
i don't get why the exemption is always "rape, incest & health of the mother". i get the rape and health exemptions, but why incest? if it's non-consensual incest, then it's covered with rape. if you're also exempting consensual, then you're just providing an incest incentive.
because it's not a human if it's born with 3 eyes.
-
The thing about a rape exemption is that any woman wanting an abortion would still be able to claim she was raped, regardless of what actually happened. The exemption is not worth the trouble, so it's best to just allow all abortions. Not to mention, who really cares if irresponsible people are getting abortions? These people are no threat to the living portion of society, and the Christian thing to do would be to not judge them.
-
Not to mention, who really cares if irresponsible people are getting abortions?
Good God, we've answered this question at least 5 times in this thread: People care because people believe those "things" that are being aborted are "people."
That's why they care.
They care for the same reason society cares when some White Trash Broad drowns her 2 year old in the bath tub.
-
Point being, there are plenty of us and then some. I don't see it as an automatic that we need to protect human life at all costs.
I think that's a terrible way of looking at the world.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
-
Rape victims are a tough argument. While I 100% think that a child conceived of a horrible injustice like rape deserves a chance at life, I'm uncomfortable telling a rape victim to put their life and future on hold for up to two years because of a tragedy. But at the same time, what has that child done to deserve the punishment of death?
I should probably mention that I didn't read the entire thread. But I couldn't listen to Mr Breads opinion without stating that.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
-
We should've /thread'd this when we solved it on page 10.
Is there another issue that's preventing utopia that the people would like goEMAW to solve?
-
Is there another issue that's preventing utopia that the people would like goEMAW to solve?
Drought
-
Is there another issue that's preventing utopia that the people would like goEMAW to solve?
Drought
Not familiar. Are there 2 polarizing sides to the debate?
-
Is there another issue that's preventing utopia that the people would like goEMAW to solve?
Drought
Not familiar. Are there 2 polarizing sides to the debate?
Probably. I just hear everyone talk about the drought. Maybe global warming is the one to tackle, seems like people have strong opinions and stuff.
-
But at the same time, what has that child done to deserve the punishment of death?
is half-monster
-
But at the same time, what has that child done to deserve the punishment of death?
is half-monster
debateable.
-
But at the same time, what has that child done to deserve the punishment of death?
is half-monster
debateable.
denied, not debatable.
-
But at the same time, what has that child done to deserve the punishment of death?
is half-monster
debatable.
denied, not debatable.
You realize not everyone grows up to be 100% like the two people that made them, right?
-
We should be aborting more. There are too many people in the world. Anyone having more than 2 kids is selfish and arrogant.
-
You realize not everyone grows up to be 100% like the two people that made them, right?
are you familiar with genes, dna, etc?
-
Anyone having more than 2 kids is selfish and arrogant.
I propose that people be allowed to produce as many children as they desire, but can have no more than two in the world at a time. Abortion is wasted on the unborn.
-
Let's say abortions are illegal. Would the penalty for performing one be the same as the penalty for murder?
-
Let's say abortions are illegal. Would the penalty for performing one be the same as the penalty for murder?
Probably a lower-degree murder.
-
Anyone having more than 2 kids is selfish and arrogant.
I propose that people be allowed to produce as many children as they desire, but can have no more than two in the world at a time. Abortion is wasted on the unborn.
I see you :thumbs:
Sent from my GT-S5830M using Tapatalk 2
-
Welp :sdeek:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rep-todd-akin-no-pregnancy-from-legitimate-rape-20120819,0,7447581.story
-
Welp :sdeek:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rep-todd-akin-no-pregnancy-from-legitimate-rape-20120819,0,7447581.story
:facepalm:
-
Why do people vote for a candidate based on their stance on abortion? That is like the least important thing in the entire world.
-
Why do people vote for a candidate based on their stance on abortion? That is like the least important thing in the entire world.
Because statements like this are usually indicators that they're complete idiots about lots of other things as well? :dunno:
-
Why do people vote for a candidate based on their stance on abortion? That is like the least important thing in the entire world.
Because statements like this are usually indicators that they're complete idiots about lots of other things as well? :dunno:
-
Why do people vote for a candidate based on their stance on abortion? That is like the least important thing in the entire world.
Because statements like this are usually indicators that they're complete idiots about lots of other things as well? :dunno:
I agree this guy seems like a dumbass, but that is not the point of my post.
-
Akin leads McCaskill by several points in recent polls.
:sdeek:
-
Akin leads McCaskill by several points in recent polls.
:sdeek:
I think this is going to be another rough election for the democrats.
-
Akin leads McCaskill by several points in recent polls.
:sdeek:
I think this is going to be another rough election for the democrats.
Meh. Akin led McCaskill in a poll that was conducted before he ever detonated his entire career the other day. I have a feeling he won't be leading in the polls much longer. I read someone's comments on his Facebook page (highly entertaining right now, btw) that said something to the effect of, "Akin, you moron! We were supposed to coast to this victory! You could have kept your mouth shut and backed your way into that seat without even trying, but instead you had to talk. Resign right now and give up your spot to someone who will actually have a chance at winning!"
-
Akin leads McCaskill by several points in recent polls.
:sdeek:
I think this is going to be another rough election for the democrats.
Meh. Akin led McCaskill in a poll that was conducted before he ever detonated his entire career the other day. I have a feeling he won't be leading in the polls much longer. I read someone's comments on his Facebook page (highly entertaining right now, btw) that said something to the effect of, "Akin, you moron! We were supposed to coast to this victory! You could have kept your mouth shut and backed your way into that seat without even trying, but instead you had to talk. Resign right now and give up your spot to someone who will actually have a chance at winning!"
The fact that Akin ever led at all is telling, though. It will be interesting to see what happens nationally. I think Obama will win big, but the house and senate will go largely republican.
-
Probably, but this guy's toast. Or he should be.
-
Are you guys are under the impression the people of Missourah disagree with him?
-
Are you guys are under the impression the people of Missourah disagree with him?
Enough people will disagree with him to make it highly unlikely that he gets elected. I mean that might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard a politician say, which is impressive in a way.
-
Are you guys are under the impression the people of Missourah disagree with him?
Enough people will disagree with him to make it highly unlikely that he gets elected. I mean that might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard a politician say, which is impressive in a way.
Maybe, but these are the same folks that are happy to be in the SEC with "their" people.
-
I would get off your little high-horse there, Kansas.
-
Probably, but this guy's toast. Or he should be.
Nope. If anything this will get him more votes.
-
Probably, but this guy's toast. Or he should be.
Nope. If anything this will get him more votes.
he'll play the victim card
-
Probably, but this guy's toast. Or he should be.
Nope. If anything this will get him more votes.
he'll play the victim card
He used the "misspoke" thing, so the media should let him off the hook.
-
I would get off your little high-horse there, Kansas.
Yeah, this guy would probably be a shoe-in in Kansas.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-senators-call-todd-akin-quit-race-rape/story?id=17041857#.UDJyStBSRgs
Guy has to resign by Tuesday or he's on the ballot for good.
-
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/08/republican-congressman-proposes-national-security-role-for-uterus.html (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/08/republican-congressman-proposes-national-security-role-for-uterus.html)
-
The Onion is crushing this douche:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-misspokewhat-i-meant-to-say-is-i-am-dumb-as-dog,29256/
http://www.theonion.com/articles/republicans-condemn-akins-comments-as-blemish-on-p,29259/
http://www.theonion.com/articles/pregnant-woman-relieved-to-learn-her-rape-was-ille,29258/
-
The Onion is crushing this douche:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/pregnant-woman-relieved-to-learn-her-rape-was-ille,29258/
:sdeek: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
DAAAAAAAAAMN.
Eve Ensler lowers the boom from The Congo. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/todd-akin-rape_b_1812930.html)
-
DAAAAAAAAAMN.
Eve Ensler lowers the boom from The Congo. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/todd-akin-rape_b_1812930.html)
Great article
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/13/arizona-abortion-law-2012-pregnancy-fetus-ultrasound-late-term-abortion-20-weeks-jan-brewer_n_1422853.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/13/arizona-abortion-law-2012-pregnancy-fetus-ultrasound-late-term-abortion-20-weeks-jan-brewer_n_1422853.html)
Arizona passes law that says life begins 2 weeks prior to conception.
-
Welp, this social con believes rape children are similar to out-of-wedlock children:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/377911/20120827/tom-smith-senator-rape-abortion-akin-wedlock.htm
Sorry if luked, but I hadn't seen it on here.
-
i just read that this dumbass now says that homosexuals can be cured by drinking breastmilk
i mean, i don't even
-
i just read that this dumbass now says that homosexuals can be cured by drinking breastmilk
i mean, i don't even
:facepalm: OK_Cat
-
was it not a real story? someone had a link to an article on facebook, but i didn't read it.
-
i just read that this dumbass now says that homosexuals can be cured by drinking breastmilk
i mean, i don't even
That was from a spoof site, but it's hilarious just how believable the article is, given the other stupid crap he's said.
-
yeah, i didn't read it because it sounded like something that dumbass would say.
i bet he's thought it
-
A quick google search of "todd akin breast milk" shows that OK Cat was not alone in believing the article.
This was the original article. http://dailycurrant.com/2012/08/26/todd-akin-claims-breastmilk-cures-homosexuality/ (http://dailycurrant.com/2012/08/26/todd-akin-claims-breastmilk-cures-homosexuality/)
"Lesbians can be cured by drinking something else," Akin replied "I'll leave that one to your imagination."
That was my favorite part.
-
A quick google search of "todd akin breast milk" shows that OK Cat was not alone in believing the article.
More proof liberals are gullible retards.
The "well it sounds like something a R would say, so I'm not a rough ridin' dipshit" is demonstrative of their sociopathic and/or willfully ignorant tendencies.
Sad really. Not as sad as when this guy ultimately defeats a bigger moron in Clair McCaskill.
-
Looks like FSD has never seen http://literallyunbelievable.org
-
A quick google search of "todd akin breast milk" shows that OK Cat was not alone in believing the article.
More proof liberals are gullible retards.
The "well it sounds like something a R would say, so I'm not a rough ridin' dipshit" is demonstrative of their sociopathic and/or willfully ignorant tendencies.
Sad really. Not as sad as when this guy ultimately defeats a bigger moron in Clair McCaskill.
hey dumbass, the guy just said that "legitimate rapes" won't get a woman pregnant. Him saying that "breast milk cures homosexuality" isn't that far of a stretch.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/13/arizona-abortion-law-2012-pregnancy-fetus-ultrasound-late-term-abortion-20-weeks-jan-brewer_n_1422853.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/13/arizona-abortion-law-2012-pregnancy-fetus-ultrasound-late-term-abortion-20-weeks-jan-brewer_n_1422853.html)
Arizona passes law that says life begins 2 weeks prior to conception.
That's ridiculous.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/13/arizona-abortion-law-2012-pregnancy-fetus-ultrasound-late-term-abortion-20-weeks-jan-brewer_n_1422853.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/13/arizona-abortion-law-2012-pregnancy-fetus-ultrasound-late-term-abortion-20-weeks-jan-brewer_n_1422853.html)
Arizona passes law that says life begins 2 weeks prior to conception.
That's ridiculous.
Obviously a joke you gullible Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/13/arizona-abortion-law-2012-pregnancy-fetus-ultrasound-late-term-abortion-20-weeks-jan-brewer_n_1422853.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/13/arizona-abortion-law-2012-pregnancy-fetus-ultrasound-late-term-abortion-20-weeks-jan-brewer_n_1422853.html)
Arizona passes law that says life begins 2 weeks prior to conception.
That's ridiculous.
Obviously a joke you gullible Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs.
The only retards are the ultra-social conservatives with their views on abortion. Seriously absolute rough ridin' retards. How people support this crap is beyond me.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/13/arizona-abortion-law-2012-pregnancy-fetus-ultrasound-late-term-abortion-20-weeks-jan-brewer_n_1422853.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/13/arizona-abortion-law-2012-pregnancy-fetus-ultrasound-late-term-abortion-20-weeks-jan-brewer_n_1422853.html)
Arizona passes law that says life begins 2 weeks prior to conception.
That's ridiculous.
Obviously a joke you gullible Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs.
A real blow to all woman wishing to abort their non-existent unborn children everywhere.
Likes I said, retards, all of them.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/13/arizona-abortion-law-2012-pregnancy-fetus-ultrasound-late-term-abortion-20-weeks-jan-brewer_n_1422853.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/13/arizona-abortion-law-2012-pregnancy-fetus-ultrasound-late-term-abortion-20-weeks-jan-brewer_n_1422853.html)
Arizona passes law that says life begins 2 weeks prior to conception.
That's ridiculous.
Obviously a joke you gullible respect libs.
A real blow to all woman wishing to abort their non-existent unborn children everywhere.
Likes I said, retards, all of them.
Seems like the person who wrote this law is a pretty unbalanced individual.