I don’t know how else to explain this. Can I really formulate an argument that will explain why we shouldn’t murder disabled children? If you don’t immediately recognize the eugenic slaughter of handicapped babies as something severely troubling, I’m not sure that I can offer any insights to help you understand.
You see, this is the problem. This is why we can’t come to any agreements. This is why our arguments are fruitless. They don’t have to be — arguing could be a rather worthwhile activity. But a constructive argument, or debate, or dialogue, or whatever you want to call it, requires both parties to have some shared concept of right vs wrong and fact vs fiction. Without that, neither side can appeal to the other, because they both exist in entirely different universes.
So, me personally, I’m livin’ over here in a world where it’s never OK to execute a disabled baby, or any baby, for any reason. In fact, in my universe — a universe we might call “reality” — the murder of children could be, without hyperbole, classified as THE worst thing. It is the worst of all that is bad. It is the lowest of low. It is the ugliest of ugly. It is the Pinnacle of Wrong. If it isn’t wrong to kill children, then it can not be wrong to do anything else.
Let me say that again, because it’s a crucial point:
If it isn’t wrong to kill children, then it can not be wrong to do anything else.
Literally anything else.
Slavery? Genocide? How can they be condemned? Of what sort of moral standard have they fallen short? If the bar has sunken low enough so that infanticide can leap above it, then I doubt that any atrocity could find a way to limbo underneath.
Believe it or not, even politically incorrect comments about homosexuality have to be excused if we are to believe that baby killing is a moral act.
I’m often told that I need to be more understanding on this topic, but this is an unfair request. There are people — millions of them, in fact — who think it should be legal to murder babies, but then illegal to, say, pay a fast food worker less than minimum wage, or refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. How could I possibly understand this mentality? How could I wrap my head around the thought process that leads one to conclude that the latter cases are so atrocious — so dehumanizing — that they ought to be outlawed, but the former case is so acceptable that it ought to be vigorously defended, and even funded, by the federal government?
Understanding? No. I do not understand. I do not. And I hope that I never do. CS Lewis wrote about the Abolition of Man, and reading his book is the closest I can come to understanding a society that has devolved into this kind of murderous insanity. He wrote:
“The Tao, which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgment of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or ideologies all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they posses.”
We have arbitrarily wrenched certain values from the One Source of all values, and they have now swollen to madness in their isolation.
I say all of this because my initial intention was to sit down and write about the couple in Washington who just won a 50 million dollar “wrongful birth” settlement. Brock and Rhea Wuth sued a hospital because their son was born severely disabled. No, they were not alleging that the hospital caused the disability; they alleged that the hospital (and a lab testing facility) did not run the correct tests that would have detected the genetic defects while the child was still in the womb. Had they been given the correct tests, they would have known that the baby was “defective,” and then killed it. Tragically, they were robbed of the opportunity to abort their son, so the hospital must pay for the son’s care — for the rest of his life.
Oh, but don’t judge them: they still “love” their child. They wish he was dead, they wish they had killed him, but they still “love” him. Make no judgments. Offer no stern words. They sued a hospital for not giving them the chance to kill their child, but do not think yourself qualified to condemn such a thing.
Or that’s what I’ve been told, anyway.
So I sat down and intended to write about this case. I was going to explore all of the angles. I was going to point out, as a secondary issue, how these “wrongful birth lawsuits” (this one is hardly the first) will serve to make it even more expensive to have a baby at a hospital. Think of the liability issues involved if medical establishments can now be sued for not killing your baby. I was going to explain how this story is an inevitable side effect of the death cult philosophy which tells us that human life is worthless, and a parent’s right to convenience and comfort can trump a child’s right to the life God gave it. I was going to point out how the Nazis also murdered the disabled for the same reason we do: to rid society of those who might be considered a “burden.”
Here’s an excerpt from Hitler’s Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseased Offspring:
Since the National Revolution public opinion has become increasingly preoccupied with questions of demographic policy and the continuing decline in the birthrate. However, it is not only the decline in population which is a cause for serious concern but equally the increasingly evident genetic composition of our people. Whereas the hereditarily healthy families have for the most part adopted a policy of having only one or two children, countless numbers of inferiors and those suffering from hereditary conditions are reproducing unrestrainedly while their sick and asocial offspring burden the community.
I was going to say that abortion apologists have, in more than one way, aligned themselves with one of the most wicked political regimes in the history of mankind.
I was going to explain why this is not a good thing.
I was going to explain why disabled children shouldn’t be murdered.
I was going to explain why all children, disabled or not, should be protected.
I was going to, but I can’t. These facts are self evident, and I can’t explain a self evident fact. I’m not that good.
If you don’t understand, I can’t make you. All I can do is pray for your soul.
No, the argument is bollocks. There clearly are differences between killing a disabled child and liquidating an ethnic group. They are not equal, so to equate them and use that "fact" as the basis of an argument is a fallacy.
Not at all. There are so many problems with this, first is that it argues from the standpoint of universal morality, despite the fact that it is only seen as universal in the western world, the fact that there are relative views in the Eastern world more or less defeats the idea of universal morality as a whole.
Second problem I see, going back to the above, is that he's equating abortion to baby-killing, I think its well established at this point that there are a lot of people out there (myself included) who don't consider a first or second trimester fetus to be a human/child.
And I can keep writing, but theres no point. Eloquent, that is not. In fact... bro, do you even know what eloquent means?
No, it really isn't, simply because a foetus isn't a baby and someone that says otherwise is either ignorant (when it is based in personal opinion rather than scientific evidence), or malicious (when they try to use that argument to control what a women should or shouldn't do with their own body).
Second problem I see, going back to the above, is that he's equating abortion to baby-killing, I think its well established at this point that there are a lot of people out there (myself included) who don't consider a first or second trimester fetus to be a human/child.
You are welcome to your opinion.
It is always easier to destroy something you have dehumanized or " do not consider a human".
No, it really isn't, simply because a foetus isn't a baby and someone that says otherwise is either ignorant (when it is based in personal opinion rather than scientific evidence), or malicious (when they try to use that argument to control what a women should or shouldn't do with their own body).
Second problem I see, going back to the above, is that he's equating abortion to baby-killing, I think its well established at this point that there are a lot of people out there (myself included) who don't consider a first or second trimester fetus to be a human/child.
You are welcome to your opinion.
It is always easier to destroy something you have dehumanized or " do not consider a human".
No, it really isn't, simply because a foetus isn't a baby and someone that says otherwise is either ignorant (when it is based in personal opinion rather than scientific evidence), or malicious (when they try to use that argument to control what a women should or shouldn't do with their own body).
THis was a great comedy piece. It started with a talk about the break down of rational discourse then responded to it with logical fallacies- Wait he's serious?
Again, a problem, Just like when my group tried to study discrimiation, we ran into the roadblock of different internal definitions.
Baby could equal the second it turns from just a sperm and the egg, it could never have been called a fetus
No, I was simply affirming that fetus is not a baby.
Fetus = before birth
Baby = after birth
Of course "baby" is a bad label. Perhaps newborn or infant better describes the immediate label transformation from pre to post birth.
It was the blog post that you so "aptly" described as "eloquent" that made the connection in the first place, so trying to undermine my post when I just went with the same connection is again either an example of ignorance (through a lack of reading comprehension in this case), or of malice (since you knew full well what I was referring to and choose to try the "Reductio ad absurdum" approach instead).
Mr. Burning wrote: Fetus - an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.
So before 8 weeks its fair game then?
The heart starts beating around the sixth week.
At the 8th week I am seeing definite physical traits. So, no maybe you don't want to kill it at this time.
Awww... appeal to emotion, how cute of you.
Now do you wan't to try any factual arguments for your position or are you just going to tick all the other crappy debate class techniques that you've learned in high school?
Mr. Burning wrote: Fetus - an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.
So before 8 weeks its fair game then?
The heart starts beating around the sixth week.
At the 8th week I am seeing definite physical traits. So, no maybe you don't want to kill it at this time.
Awww... appeal to emotion, how cute of you.
Now do you wan't to try any factual arguments for your position or are you just going to tick all the other crappy debate class techniques that you've learned in high school?
I was just answering your question of, "So before 8 weeks its fair game then?"
So... okay. Well, to address what I think is his overall argument he seems to think that if we are a moral society we'd be hypocrites not to want abortions of genetically defective kids. What he fails to do is explain why it is a moral thing and instead promises he will do so later.
Where to start... well, I don't know the latin term for this, but he is doing that thing where he says "If you want this, then you should want this too!". Humans are diverse in their opinions and they can want different things. Absolute morality is something that really doesn't exist in our society. Just because someone wants minimum wage laws doesn't mean they are hypocritical for not wanting abortions. There are things called "Rights of the unborn" so such a person would be completely justified in not wanting abortions.
A counter argument to his is who is he to judge the value of life? Where is the line between "Good enough to live" or "Needs to die"? Who makes these decisions? Who defines the category?
Or, using his logic, if you support the euthaniziation of genetically defective children then you'd have to support the euthanization of the homeless. These people are not living a proper life. They suffer each and every day from conditions that will never or very rarely improve. Imagine all the costs to society that will be saved if we just killed all the homeless.
No, I was simply affirming that fetus is not a baby.
Fetus = before birth
Baby = after birth
Of course "baby" is a bad label. Perhaps newborn or infant better describes the immediate label transformation from pre to post birth.
It was the blog post that you so "aptly" described as "eloquent" that made the connection in the first place, so trying to undermine my post when I just went with the same connection is again either an example of ignorance (through a lack of reading comprehension in this case), or of malice (since you knew full well what I was referring to and choose to try the "Reductio ad absurdum" approach instead).
I agree
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: So... okay. Well, to address what I think is his overall argument he seems to think that if we are a moral society we'd be hypocrites not to want abortions of genetically defective kids. What he fails to do is explain why it is a moral thing and instead promises he will do so later.
Where to start... well, I don't know the latin term for this, but he is doing that thing where he says "If you want this, then you should want this too!". Humans are diverse in their opinions and they can want different things. Absolute morality is something that really doesn't exist in our society. Just because someone wants minimum wage laws doesn't mean they are hypocritical for not wanting abortions. There are things called "Rights of the unborn" so such a person would be completely justified in not wanting abortions.
A counter argument to his is who is he to judge the value of life? Where is the line between "Good enough to live" or "Needs to die"? Who makes these decisions? Who defines the category?
Or, using his logic, if you support the euthaniziation of genetically defective children then you'd have to support the euthanization of the homeless. These people are not living a proper life. They suffer each and every day from conditions that will never or very rarely improve. Imagine all the costs to society that will be saved if we just killed all the homeless.
Guns are messy. If only we had some kind of, chamber. A place we could stack the babies and then quiety euthenize them with some kind of gas. A gas chamber if you would.
So its far better to make an incurably ill child live out their final days in pain rather than choosing how they die meaning less pain and their family being able to prepare themselves as there will be a definitive time
I agree with medical euthanasia since there are situations where unending pain and suffering shouldn't b forced on someone. But what I'm talking about is forced euthanasia as in "Rounding up homeless people and murdering them".
So its far better to make an incurably ill child live out their final days in pain rather than choosing how they die meaning less pain and their family being able to prepare themselves as there will be a definitive time
I don't know what is better. I just thought that it was interesting that euthanasia was brought up and there was a recent development.
I do feel that a society that permits anything does not stand for anything.
jamesk1973 wrote: I think he was using a deliberately ridiculous premise to point out how terrible abortion is.
It is terrible for the mother and fatal for the blastula/embryo/fetus.
When I say terrible for the mother I mean the physical, mental, and spiritual trauma that goes hand-in-hand with an abortion.
The guilt has got to be crushing.
As opposed to the pain and trauma associated with knowing that giving birth to a child who will die painfully over a longer period of time?
Some parents would give birth to a child they know is going to be terminal. If not for any other reason than to have had that time spend with the child.
Other than that IDK.
Now the article he quoted there was mention of a wrongful birth suit concerning an disabled child. Oliver was born with an “unbalanced chromosome translocation,” a genetic defect that affects the little boy mentally and physically. So, no not a terminal child.
Is it not arguable that woman only feel terrible for having abortions because society makes them feel terrible? I wouldn't care if anybody I knew had an abortion, I'd encourage it if the child wasn't planned (and that was the route they were thinking about taking, obviously not encouraging abortions for all unplanned children).
Medium of Death wrote: Is it not arguable that woman only feel terrible for having abortions because society makes them feel terrible? I wouldn't care if anybody I knew had an abortion, I'd encourage it if the child wasn't planned (and that was the route they were thinking about taking, obviously not encouraging abortions for all unplanned children).
No. It isn't. And you especially can't start to make that argument if you have a penis.
Second problem I see, going back to the above, is that he's equating abortion to baby-killing, I think its well established at this point that there are a lot of people out there (myself included) who don't consider a first or second trimester fetus to be a human/child.
You are welcome to your opinion.
It is always easier to destroy something you have dehumanized or " do not consider a human".
Whats your point?
The heart starts beating around the sixth week.
At the 8th week I am seeing definite physical traits. So, no maybe you don't want to kill it at this time.
Definite traits of what? A misshapen peanut?
Even though the heart starts beating at that point, its not until well into the 3rd trimester that a fetus is capable of surviving for any significant amount of time outside of the uterus. In my unprofessional non-expert opinion, this is not indicative of a unique, individual, separate, distinct, and complete organism, but rather a more-or-less parasitic entity.
Guns are messy. If only we had some kind of, chamber. A place we could stack the babies and then quiety euthenize them with some kind of gas. A gas chamber if you would.
Do minority babies have to get in the back of the chamber? (Note: I'm not trying to be offensive, only sardonic... if it makes you feel any better for laughing, I am also a minority even though I don't really look it).
I think he was using a deliberately ridiculous premise to point out how terrible abortion is.
It is terrible for the mother and fatal for the blastula/embryo/fetus.
When I say terrible for the mother I mean the physical, mental, and spiritual trauma that goes hand-in-hand with an abortion.
The guilt has got to be crushing.
For some it is. But I know some personally who have done so and have no mental or spiritual trauma (and not much in the way of physical) to speak of, again: RELATIVE MORALITY.
For some it is. But I know some personally who have done so and have no mental or spiritual trauma (and not much in the way of physical) to speak of, again: RELATIVE MORALITY.
What you call relative morality in this case would be called a lack of morality by others.
For some it is. But I know some personally who have done so and have no mental or spiritual trauma (and not much in the way of physical) to speak of, again: RELATIVE MORALITY.
Well that makes it so much better then! Like James said, it's easy to destroy things when you dehumanizes them. It's why lots of sociopaths refer to their victims as it.
Second problem I see, going back to the above, is that he's equating abortion to baby-killing, I think its well established at this point that there are a lot of people out there (myself included) who don't consider a first or second trimester fetus to be a human/child.
You are welcome to your opinion.
It is always easier to destroy something you have dehumanized or " do not consider a human".
Whats your point?
That it is always easier to destroy something you have dehumanized or " do not consider a human".
He does not consider a 1st or 2nd trimester fetus to be a human. Ergo, he would have no problem killing it.
For some it is. But I know some personally who have done so and have no mental or spiritual trauma (and not much in the way of physical) to speak of, again: RELATIVE MORALITY.
What you call relative morality in this case would be called a lack of morality by others.
Again, its relative morality. You can't enforce your own view of morality onto someone else (especially if that someone is from a different culture and faith than yours).
That it is always easier to destroy something you have dehumanized or " do not consider a human".
He does not consider a 1st or 2nd trimester fetus to be a human. Ergo, he would have no problem killing it.
And again, I say, whats your point? I'm not even really sure I consider a 1st or 2nd trimester fetus to even be alive, so is aborting it really killing it?
Medium of Death wrote: Is it not arguable that woman only feel terrible for having abortions because society makes them feel terrible? I wouldn't care if anybody I knew had an abortion, I'd encourage it if the child wasn't planned (and that was the route they were thinking about taking, obviously not encouraging abortions for all unplanned children).
No. It isn't. And you especially can't start to make that argument if you have a penis.
I wasn't making an argument, I was just putting something out there. Surely social pressue and appealing to emotion does scew things slightly? It might not be the full picture, but couldn't it be part of the picture?
Second problem I see, going back to the above, is that he's equating abortion to baby-killing, I think its well established at this point that there are a lot of people out there (myself included) who don't consider a first or second trimester fetus to be a human/child.
You are welcome to your opinion.
It is always easier to destroy something you have dehumanized or " do not consider a human".
Whats your point?
That it is always easier to destroy something you have dehumanized or " do not consider a human".
He does not consider a 1st or 2nd trimester fetus to be a human. Ergo, he would have no problem killing it.
You know why they aren't considered human? Because they aren't.
A heartbeat doesn't define something as human, otherwise pretty much all animals would be considered human.
Having a shape similar to the human form also doesn't qualify something as human, otherwise pretty much all simians would be considered human as well...
You know what makes someone human? Our brain, our sense of self.
So if you wan't to discuss that terminating a pregnancy after the 12th week (the earliest where brain activity can be measured in an EEG), is the equivalent of killing a person, you'll at least have some semblance of logic to fall back on and I would even be inclined to agree with you (barring some noticeable exceptions like extreme danger to the life of the mother or inviability of the foetus after birth and other reasons like those), otherwise please do stop with the nonsense posts because I can feel my brain cells suiciding every time I have to read them...
jamesk1973 wrote: I think he was using a deliberately ridiculous premise to point out how terrible abortion is.
It is terrible for the mother and fatal for the blastula/embryo/fetus.
When I say terrible for the mother I mean the physical, mental, and spiritual trauma that goes hand-in-hand with an abortion.
The guilt has got to be crushing.
It can however be balanced against the very real life problems that an unwanted child can bring.
Fortunately for men, when considering the crushing guilt of abortion we can withdraw entirely from the debate, and leave it to the people involved, since it will never concern us.
jamesk1973 wrote: I think he was using a deliberately ridiculous premise to point out how terrible abortion is.
It is terrible for the mother and fatal for the blastula/embryo/fetus.
When I say terrible for the mother I mean the physical, mental, and spiritual trauma that goes hand-in-hand with an abortion.
The guilt has got to be crushing.
It can however be balanced against the very real life problems that an unwanted child can bring.
Fortunately for men, when considering the crushing guilt of abortion we can withdraw entirely from the debate, and leave it to the people involved, since it will never concern us.
Except for those men that want to have a say. They have no option whatsoever.
The settlement was silly, unless there was payment for certain tests which were not administered or were administered incorrectly. If they were not given services they had paid for, then a settlement makes sense, but 50 million *seems* excessive.
That being said, there is a difference between murdering a living child, and terminating a fetus.
The line between where I consider life to begin is the point where a fetus becomes viable to survive out of the womb without constant medical care. The only time this line shifts is if there is some developmental disability that causes the fetus to not be viable even beyond birth, in which case "life" begins at birth.
I don't know all the specific circumstances of this situation. It is possible that the fetus could have been viable without significant constant medical care, and that the tests would have been conducted beyond this point.
But if those tests would have been conducted prior to the point of viability, then the argument being made by the OP's article is a poor one.
Kilkrazy wrote: They should get a sex change and become pregnant, then they will have a say in their own pregnancy, unless their boyfriend disagrees, of course.
Or if the male wants to abort a pregnancy and the female does not there should be legal recourse for him so he isn't on the hook for the next 18 years.
So if you wan't to discuss that terminating a pregnancy after the 12th week (the earliest where brain activity can be measured in an EEG), is the equivalent of killing a person, you'll at least have some semblance of logic to fall back on and I would even be inclined to agree with you (barring some noticeable exceptions like extreme danger to the life of the mother or inviability of the foetus after birth and other reasons like those), otherwise please do stop with the nonsense posts because I can feel my brain cells suiciding every time I have to read them...
I want to express my wholehearted agreement with what you wrote here. Well, except for that last part about the brain cells.
I think the EEG benchmark is an outstanding point at which we establish personhood.
OP: Complains about the emotional guilt and suffering that must surely be impacting women who have had an abortion.
After posting an article comparing their decision to terminate their pregnancy with genocide and other "you should feel emotional guilt and mental suffering for your decision" talk.
Of course everything OP complains about and doesn't like is covered by the non-gun portion of the constitution.
Medium of Death wrote: Is it not arguable that woman only feel terrible for having abortions because society makes them feel terrible? I wouldn't care if anybody I knew had an abortion, I'd encourage it if the child wasn't planned (and that was the route they were thinking about taking, obviously not encouraging abortions for all unplanned children).
Of course it is. It's not even arguable that the people dancing around screaming that you're evil for having an abortion play a part in all the guilt. And some people have an abortion and don't care at all.
But then, it's all about policing women's sexuality anyway. If it wasn't they'd actually care about the fetus after it was born.
A heartbeat doesn't define something as human, otherwise pretty much all animals would be considered human.
Having a shape similar to the human form also doesn't qualify something as human, otherwise pretty much all simians would be considered human as well...
You know what makes someone human? Our brain, our sense of self.
Of course, if you go by measurable brain activity then you're again including many animals.
All that aside, there is a potential discussion about disability that is quite interesting and touches on a lot of the assumptions we make about life (though it's a bit buried under the nonsense about a fetus being "a baby".). If you could tell your baby was going to turn out disabled in some way and abort it, then have a new, un-disabled baby, would that be a good thing to do?
I find it easy to say, well, if you do that then maybe the net misery in the world will decrease and we'll all be better off, but that seems very dismissive of the positives hardships can provide and the value of diversity.
Ableism has to play a part somewhere - the idea that a disabled child is somehow worth less. But I don't believe that more lives > less lives.
I think my final answer is that it's a problem that we view disabled people's lives as worth less than other people's, like there's some objective standard for judging how valuable someone's life is and they're at the low end of it. Aborting disabled kids is a symptom of that rather than the issue itself.
But then, it's all about policing women's sexuality anyway. If it wasn't they'd actually care about the fetus after it was born.
This statement is exceeding full of gak.
All that aside, there is a potential discussion about disability that is quite interesting and touches on a lot of the assumptions we make about life (though it's a bit buried under the nonsense about a fetus being "a baby".). If you could tell your baby was going to turn out disabled in some way and abort it, then have a new, un-disabled baby, would that be a good thing to do?
I find it easy to say, well, if you do that then maybe the net misery in the world will decrease and we'll all be better off, but that seems very dismissive of the positives hardships can provide and the value of diversity.
Ableism has to play a part somewhere - the idea that a disabled child is somehow worth less. But I don't believe that more lives > less lives.
I think my final answer is that it's a problem that we view disabled people's lives as worth less than other people's, like there's some objective standard for judging how valuable someone's life is and they're at the low end of it. Aborting disabled kids is a symptom of that rather than the issue itself.
Kilkrazy wrote: They should get a sex change and become pregnant, then they will have a say in their own pregnancy, unless their boyfriend disagrees, of course.
so men only are involved in making kids when it comes to money/support?
so maybe woman should split into two pieces like a bacterium if they want sole decision making rights? thats the same logic you just used.
as it is, its quite sexist to pretend that men are not involved in the making of a child, and should have no say in abortions.
I think that if two people are responsible, reasonable adults, they will of course both come to a mutually agreeable decision.
It would be a very unreasonable man or woman who thought they were the only one with a say in something that obviously affects both people, and was made by both people.
this is something that each COUPLE will have to choose for themselves.
It only physically affects one person. Pregnancy is a complex medical problem experienced by the woman that is having her body adapt to this condition. The man might have been involved in making it, by it's the woman's body that is forever changed and/or damaged by this.
A woman can't force a man to have or not to have a medical procedure either.
Human fetuses are babys, it's a fact. Just because a politician bases legal abortion around a fetuses age truly makes no difference. Show me a fetus born of a woman that turns out a puppy or kitten, it doesnt happen. They are people.
d-usa wrote: It only physically affects one person. Pregnancy is a complex medical problem experienced by the woman that is having her body adapt to this condition. The man might have been involved in making it, by it's the woman's body that is forever changed and/or damaged by this.
A woman can't force a man to have or not to have a medical procedure either.
pregnancy isnt forced.... when you have consensual sex, you have consented-to the possibility of having a child, together, and there most certainly is mutual "ownership" of the child at any stage,
abortions can also harm a womans body, let alone the childs, so the "OMG PREGNANCY IS AWFUL" argument isnt as valid as you think,
not to mention your argument is basically "you dont have a vagina, so your opinion does not count"
it takes two to make one, it takes two to choose if they want to break one.
any responsible, enlightened couple, will make a mutual decision, not a unilateral one based on who has the vagina.
Rotary wrote: Human fetuses are babys, it's a fact. Just because a politician bases legal abortion around a fetuses age truly makes no difference. Show me a fetus born of a woman that turns out a puppy or kitten, it doesnt happen. They are people.
Every sperm and egg is a baby in a yet unrealized combination, it's a fact. Just because a politician bases legal abortion around an arbitrary bundle of cells in proximity to each other truly makes no difference. Show me an egg and sperm that's then born of a woman that turns out to a puppy or kitten, it doesnt happen. They are people.
Ergo, by not forcing everyone to reproduce as rapidly as possible, you're literally slaughtering millions, daily.
d-usa wrote: It only physically affects one person. Pregnancy is a complex medical problem experienced by the woman that is having her body adapt to this condition. The man might have been involved in making it, by it's the woman's body that is forever changed and/or damaged by this.
A woman can't force a man to have or not to have a medical procedure either.
pregnancy isnt forced.... when you have consensual sex, you have consented-to the possibility of having a child, together, and there most certainly is mutual "ownership" of the child at any stage,
abortions can also harm a womans body, let alone the childs, so the "OMG PREGNANCY IS AWFUL" argument isnt as valid as you think,
not to mention your argument is basically "you dont have a vagina, so your opinion does not count"
it takes two to make one, it takes two to choose if they want to break one.
any responsible, enlightened couple, will make a mutual decision, not a unilateral one based on who has the vagina.
Fething a woman didn't give you ownership or medical decision making rights over her body.
It's not rocket science. You wanting the child does not mean you get to violate her right to make her own healthcare decisions.
Fething a woman didn't give you ownership or medical decision making rights over her body.
It's not rocket science. You wanting the child does not mean you get to violate her right to make her own healthcare decisions.
who said I wanted the kid?
good to see you are just arguing out of fashionable outrage at a position I only take in your imagination.
A woman shouldnt be able to force a man to keep a child any more then he should be able to force her to keep it.
its not rocket science, it takes TWO to make a kid consensually, it takes TWO to deal with the consequences.
should women get the ENTIRE vote since its inside them for 9 months?
well men still have the rest of the 18+ years to deal with it, and that woman consented to have sex, which means its a mutual thing. She knew getting pregnant was a risk when she consented to sex, just like the man did.
so yes men do have a say.
by your logic, when a man breaks his back earning $, he should have the right to ALL that money, and not give the wife a say in how its spent.
Rotary wrote: Human fetuses are babys, it's a fact. Just because a politician bases legal abortion around a fetuses age truly makes no difference. Show me a fetus born of a woman that turns out a puppy or kitten, it doesnt happen. They are people.
Every sperm and egg is a baby in a yet unrealized combination, it's a fact. Just because a politician bases legal abortion around an arbitrary bundle of cells in proximity to each other truly makes no difference. Show me an egg and sperm that's then born of a woman that turns out to a puppy or kitten, it doesnt happen. They are people.
Ergo, by not forcing everyone to reproduce as rapidly as possible, you're literally slaughtering millions, daily.
That is funny to think about But sperm and egg's only have 23 chromosomes, left to their own seperated from each other they will never become a human. A zygote will, however. I personally don't believe in abortion, but i've had to experience still borns and even worse things in my life.
My only argument is that they are human regardless of what people call it. Mothers self abort fetuses all the time naturally, sometimes with out ever knowing they were pregnant. I want to avoid the abortion topic because I can't make adult choices for others. Regardless of how or when a fetus/baby dies it is still a human, unique from both parents.
Fething a woman didn't give you ownership or medical decision making rights over her body.
It's not rocket science. You wanting the child does not mean you get to violate her right to make her own healthcare decisions.
who said I wanted the kid?
good to see you are just arguing out of fashionable outrage at a position I only take in your imagination.
A woman shouldnt be able to force a man to keep a child any more then he should be able to force her to keep it.
its not rocket science, it takes TWO to make a kid consensually, it takes TWO to deal with the consequences.
should women get the ENTIRE vote since its inside them for 9 months?
well men still have the rest of the 18+ years to deal with it, and that woman consented to have sex, which means its a mutual thing. She knew getting pregnant was a risk when she consented to sex, just like the man did.
so yes men do have a say.
by your logic, when a man breaks his back earning $, he should have the right to ALL that money, and not give the wife a say in how its spent.
The reason the man doesn't have a say in abortions is because it has nothing to do with the man. Legally it doesn't even have anything to do with the child. It's a medical procedure and the decision to have it is between a woman and her physician.
She doesn't get to make a unilateral decision about what procedure to force on the child because the child is inside of her for 9 months, it's not a procedure for the child. She gets to make a unilateral decision about what procedure she wants to consent to for her body because it is her body.
I actually agree with d-USA here, with some caveats.
I think late term abortions should require the say of both parents.
I think men should have some recourse if they'd prefer to abort and the woman doesn't want to so they're not on the hook for 18 years, as sadly "trap" pregnancies are a very real thing.
I am pro choice, or pro baby murder, whatever way you want to call it.
But that said, I dunno about all this messing around with language. Fetus, baby, newborn, it's semantics.
I dislike it when people say "The science says" or "the facts say".
Because in truth, science has nothing in particular to say about when a ball of genetically unique cells becomes a "person" with rights and legal protections and so on. It's not a question which is in the scope of science to answer. It's a question of philosophy and ethics, and of the kind of society we want. Science doesn't answer stuff like that. For some people, it's religion that does, for others it's a personal ethic. Demanding people "stick to the science" is a very poor argument.
For myself, I do figure that the little ball of cells is at least a potential person, but I'm okay with that person dying because I have no connection to them. This is much the same as me not having any real reaction to the thousands of deaths happening for frivolous reasons around the globe all the time. If it was my kid, I'd be a bit more emotionally involved, and it would be a pretty difficult thing for me if my partner wanted to abort.
I've eventually come to terms with the fact that at the end of the day, it doesn't get to be my decision.
I think late term abortions should require the say of both parents.
I'm in favor if the general accepted dividing line for legal abortions: viability. If a child can survive on its own then the rules change. This could easily be an emotional decision for me instead of a well thought out legal reason, but it seems to be a standard accepted across the board.
But we (pro-choice side) have to realize that using viability =/= the same magical number that has always been used. As medicine advances the window for abortions will get shorter.
She doesn't get to make a unilateral decision about what procedure to force on the child because the child is inside of her for 9 months, it's not a procedure for the child.
Oh, I think we a pretty clear the the procedure is definitely AGAINST the child.
Da Boss wrote: I am pro choice, or pro baby murder, whatever way you want to call it.
But that said, I dunno about all this messing around with language. Fetus, baby, newborn, it's semantics.
I dislike it when people say "The science says" or "the facts say".
Because in truth, science has nothing in particular to say about when a ball of genetically unique cells becomes a "person" with rights and legal protections and so on. It's not a question which is in the scope of science to answer. It's a question of philosophy and ethics, and of the kind of society we want. Science doesn't answer stuff like that. For some people, it's religion that does, for others it's a personal ethic. Demanding people "stick to the science" is a very poor argument.
For myself, I do figure that the little ball of cells is at least a potential person, but I'm okay with that person dying because I have no connection to them. This is much the same as me not having any real reaction to the thousands of deaths happening for frivolous reasons around the globe all the time. If it was my kid, I'd be a bit more emotionally involved, and it would be a pretty difficult thing for me if my partner wanted to abort.
I've eventually come to terms with the fact that at the end of the day, it doesn't get to be my decision.
At first I thought I was reading something similar to A Modest Proposal, but that's giving the author entirely too much credit. I'm surprised neither of these made the rounds yet:
Now gather 'round, youngins, while I dispense some ol' pappy's advice.
EVERY time you have sex with a woman, EVERY time, you are exposing yourself to the chance that you may have be involved in her life in some meaningful way for the next eighteen years and nine months.
This is due to inescapable facts of human biology, namely she has a uterus, womb, and associated baby incubating apparatus and you don't. You DO NOT have any right to help decide how or when this apparatus is used, end of story.
I am on board with abortions - we aren't running out of people and I can't find dredge up any strong feelings for potential people when I don't really care about all the actual people we have who die on a regular basis.
On the other hand, since I am willing to cede full abortion rights, I am a staunch believer in my opting out of any sort of child support or what have you. If I accidentally pop a baby in some chick and I want her to abort but she wants to keep it; fine and dandy but I am not paying for anything. I am willing to ruin my own life just to spite anyone who tries to force something like that.
jamesk1973 wrote: I think he was using a deliberately ridiculous premise to point out how terrible abortion is.
It is terrible for the mother and fatal for the blastula/embryo/fetus.
When I say terrible for the mother I mean the physical, mental, and spiritual trauma that goes hand-in-hand with an abortion.
The guilt has got to be crushing.
That should be the mother's choice though, it should be their decision based on their circumstances and personal morality, not dictated to them by the state or religious pressure groups. Unlike Hitler, who marched other people into the gas chambers against their will and removed people's children for extermination, pro choice people merely offer mothers freedom of choice. Pro-life people deny that freedom of choice. When pro-choice people become pro-abortion and start forcing people to undergo abortions against their will, then comparisons to Hitler are valid.
OP's article makes several absurd leaps, I thought it might be a philosophically interesting argument so was disappointed when it predictably twisted around to the abortion debate, one which I'm not going to spend my Christmas on beyond what I've written above...
Kilkrazy wrote: They should get a sex change and become pregnant, then they will have a say in their own pregnancy, unless their boyfriend disagrees, of course.
Or if the male wants to abort a pregnancy and the female does not there should be legal recourse for him so he isn't on the hook for the next 18 years.
He had the recourse of not getting her pregnant in the first place. Having done so, he can flee the country if he wants to avoid paying child maintenance.
You seem to be suggesting that men have the right to make sexual slaves of women.
Kilkrazy wrote: They should get a sex change and become pregnant, then they will have a say in their own pregnancy, unless their boyfriend disagrees, of course.
Or if the male wants to abort a pregnancy and the female does not there should be legal recourse for him so he isn't on the hook for the next 18 years.
He had the recourse of not getting her pregnant in the first place. Having done so, he can flee the country if he wants to avoid paying child maintenance.
You seem to be suggesting that men have the right to make sexual slaves of women.
And her? Flip tables, where the male wants the child and the female doesn't, that argument doesn't stand.
You can't flip the table, since the woman bears the child and men can't.
It's a classic HR situation. You cannot compare women's and men's child-bearing roles since they don't both exist. You therefore have to consider the position of the woman without reference to the position of the man. In legal terms, he doesn't have standing in the case.
Kilkrazy wrote: They should get a sex change and become pregnant, then they will have a say in their own pregnancy, unless their boyfriend disagrees, of course.
Or if the male wants to abort a pregnancy and the female does not there should be legal recourse for him so he isn't on the hook for the next 18 years.
He had the recourse of not getting her pregnant in the first place. Having done so, he can flee the country if he wants to avoid paying child maintenance.
You seem to be suggesting that men have the right to make sexual slaves of women.
That suggestion was nowhere remotely in my comment. Nowhere.
I'm suggesting men should have the option to legally "opt out" of fatherhood during the pregnancy and be afforded similar protections as a sperm donor.
There is a problem in the UK with a lack of sperm donors because of the law forcing them retrospectively to become maintainers of the children created from their donations.
There is a problem in the UK with a lack of sperm donors because of the law forcing them retrospectively to become maintainers of the children created from their donations.
All the more reason to opt for adoption as opposed to abortion.
Medium of Death wrote: Is it not arguable that woman only feel terrible for having abortions because society makes them feel terrible? I wouldn't care if anybody I knew had an abortion, I'd encourage it if the child wasn't planned (and that was the route they were thinking about taking, obviously not encouraging abortions for all unplanned children).
Adoption?
No need to kill/murder and practically guilt free.
If you wouldn't have people using manipulative language such as murder and killing there would be less guilt already. It's telling when people complain about a problem they help create.
"poor women having to live with the emotional guilt that I create and maintain..."
I have mixed feelings on this issue as I work with adults who are mentally or physically differently abled. They have such unique viewpoints and can contribute so much that I find it sad someone would be willing to undertaken an abortion on that basis alone.
I do however appreciate that it can be a very difficult challenge for parents in addition to every other challenge children go through.
As long as the potential parent or parents are making an informed choice, which I assume they are as part of the process of obtaining an abortion.
The quoted argument is terrible. I may not agree with or understand fully the stance of potential parents undertaking an abortion due to their potential child being differently abled, however I will always agree that it is their choice, or more specifically the mother's choice as to whether or not they complete the pregnancy.
jamesk1973 wrote: All the more reason to opt for adoption as opposed to abortion.
It seems there is a demand.
I don't think there are many people who are trying for a child and cannot conceive who go for an abortion instead... kind of completely the wrong medical procedure
Oh, wait, you are trying to say that people should be forced to give birth because other people can't have or have difficulty in having children.
Yeah... I don't think that is particularly appropriate...
cincydooley wrote: I think men should have some recourse if they'd prefer to abort and the woman doesn't want to so they're not on the hook for 18 years, as sadly "trap" pregnancies are a very real thing.
Don't want ot get a girl pregnant? Wrap that junk up son. Or get a vasectomy, and laugh and laugh and laugh the first time the trap is "sprung".
jamesk1973 wrote: All the more reason to opt for adoption as opposed to abortion.
It seems there is a demand.
The state of orphanages and foster systems the world over would seem to disagree with you.
streamdragon wrote: Don't want ot get a girl pregnant? Wrap that junk up son. Or get a vasectomy, and laugh and laugh and laugh the first time the trap is "sprung".
.
So your solutions are use a not always reliable, highly able to be tampered with method or have surgery. Got it.
the fashionable ultra left outrage at me being "anti choice" despite me never saying I opposed abortions, and despite me being pro choice, is indicative of your mental capabilities.
the left version of the rights "tea party" is you, and people like you.
god forbid men have a say in the fate of children they father... god forbid the mother and father have a civil, mutual discussion weather to abort or not.
d-usa wrote: None of it will stop the fact that people are forcing you to have sex in the first place...
"Personal Responsibility" only applies to the homeless and the uninsured ill, it appears.
I agree that it's not fair that if you get a woman pregnant, and want to keep the child and she does not, you have little say. Any remedy for this injustice is worse than the original injustice, however. I'm sure many a young woman, upon discovering that she was destined to bleed from her vagina monthly for the vast percentage of her life also thought that was pretty unfair deal.
streamdragon wrote: Don't want ot get a girl pregnant? Wrap that junk up son. Or get a vasectomy, and laugh and laugh and laugh the first time the trap is "sprung".
.
So your solutions are use a not always reliable, highly able to be tampered with method or have surgery. Got it.
Or, ya know, don't have sex. I mean, it's not like people are forcing you into it.
At least I hope not. Show us on the Spess Mahreen where the mean lady touched you.
it was supposed to be a joke referencing all the Rs who put their foots in the mouth regarding rape during the last election cycle. Probably should have made it more obvious.
Or, ya know, don't have sex. I mean, it's not like people are forcing you into it.
I'm sure plenty of people on the right would love to see a lefty toss out this answer. I'm not one of them. It's a thoughtless answer at the very least.
@Ouze - I'm not talking about absolving responsibility at all. I'd just like for male reproductive rights to exist at all since were so adamant about protecting those of the female.
Or, ya know, don't have sex. I mean, it's not like people are forcing you into it.
I'm sure plenty of people on the right would love to see a lefty toss out this answer. I'm not one of them. It's a thoughtless answer at the very least.
@Ouze - I'm not talking about absolving responsibility at all. I'd just like for male reproductive rights to exist at all since were so adamant about protecting those of the female.
You do have the exact same rights as a woman, you can talk to your physician and decide what medical procedures you do or do not want done on you. You can decide what medications you want to take or what surgeries you want performed on you. You are 100% equal in rights to women. Both men and women have the right to make medical decisions for themselves.
Nothing you do should take away another person's right to decide what they happens to their own body. You should never have a legal right that forces another person to lose their rights to their own bodies.
Here is something you can try: keep a stack of Medical Power of Attorney forms in your pocket. Next time you want to feth somebody make sure that you sit them down before you stick it in and explain to them that you would like for them to sign away their right to make their own healthcare decisions and give you the legal right to determine what medical procedures they are allowed to have or what medications they are allowed to take. Ask them to give you medical ownership of their bodies so that you can feth them. See how many of them will spread their legs for you.
Or, ya know, don't have sex. I mean, it's not like people are forcing you into it.
I'm sure plenty of people on the right would love to see a lefty toss out this answer. I'm not one of them. It's a thoughtless answer at the very least.
@Ouze - I'm not talking about absolving responsibility at all. I'd just like for male reproductive rights to exist at all since were so adamant about protecting those of the female.
You do have the exact same rights as a woman, you can talk to your physician and decide what medical procedures you do or do not want done on you. You can decide what medications you want to take or what surgeries you want performed on you. You are 100% equal in rights to women. Both men and women have the right to make medical decisions for themselves.
Nothing you do should take away another person's right to decide what they happens to their own body. You should never have a legal right that forces another person to lose their rights to their own bodies.
Here is something you can try: keep a stack of Medical Power of Attorney forms in your pocket. Next time you want to feth somebody make sure that you sit them down before you stick it in and explain to them that you would like for them to sign away their right to make their own healthcare decisions and give you the legal right to determine what medical procedures they are allowed to have or what medications they are allowed to take. Ask them to give you medical ownership of their bodies so that you can feth them. See how many of them will spread their legs for you.
We will have to agree to disagree that those rights are equal.
d-usa wrote: Do you have less medical autonomy over your body than a woman has over her body?
Nope. But because of that you have fewer reproductive rights.
If a woman chooses not to abort a baby a man doesn't want, he should be able to legally absolve himself of parental responsibility. I think there should be a timeframe in which one has to make that decision. Make it the same amount of time a woman is legally allowed to have elective reproductive surgery.
cincydooley wrote: I think men should have some recourse if they'd prefer to abort and the woman doesn't want to so they're not on the hook for 18 years, as sadly "trap" pregnancies are a very real thing.
Don't want ot get a girl pregnant? Wrap that junk up son. Or get a vasectomy, and laugh and laugh and laugh the first time the trap is "sprung".
jamesk1973 wrote: All the more reason to opt for adoption as opposed to abortion.
It seems there is a demand.
The state of orphanages and foster systems the world over would seem to disagree with you.
There are a ton of hoops to jump through if you want to adopt, and rightly so, but this discourages a lot of people from adopting.
streamdragon wrote: Don't want ot get a girl pregnant? Wrap that junk up son. Or get a vasectomy, and laugh and laugh and laugh the first time the trap is "sprung".
.
So your solutions are use a not always reliable, highly able to be tampered with method or have surgery. Got it.
Or, ya know, don't have sex. I mean, it's not like people are forcing you into it.
I agree wrapping it is a stupid way try to prevent pregnancy, it is made to help prevent STDs though so it's a nice thought. Nothing wrong with the pill or Implanon unless she has an adverse effect to it, more reliable than condoms while less extreme than a vasectomy. Probably about as successful as the vasectomy would have been anyways. Though that's if you're not just sleeping around everywhere.
cincydooley wrote: If a woman chooses not to abort a baby a man doesn't want, he should be able to legally absolve himself of parental responsibility.
I'm not unsympathetic to this point of view, even though I don't quite agree with it. I ultimately think that agreeing to have sex with someone means both parties are potentially exposing themselves to a 19 year commitment regardless of contraception.
cincydooley wrote: If a woman chooses not to abort a baby a man doesn't want, he should be able to legally absolve himself of parental responsibility.
I'm not unsympathetic to this point of view, even though I don't quite agree with it.
While that may be the 'fairest' of solution, the social repercussion would only be that more women would be driven to abort against their own initial will, or that monoparental families would become overall poorer.
Sometimes, 'fair' and 'good' aren't exactly the same.
cincydooley wrote: If a woman chooses not to abort a baby a man doesn't want, he should be able to legally absolve himself of parental responsibility.
I'm not unsympathetic to this point of view, even though I don't quite agree with it. I ultimately think that agreeing to have sex with someone means both parties are potentially exposing themselves to a 19 year commitment regardless of contraception.
Now I'll be candid here and say I'm playing devils advocate bit. My real viewpoints on reproduction are far more draconian
Why not go one step further and make it free for everyone?
To slow down the passing of defective genes?
It's a well known violation of rule one to accuse someone of trolling, so I will instead say that your stance that people who disagree with you are genetically defective and should be weeded out of society via eugenics is surely something you actually believe, and totally an OK place for us to continue this thread! In fact, this whole thread was a good place to allow for an vibrant discussion of ideas that were respected by all involved in a honest and reasonable way and not at all predicated on a completely inane premise!
Why not go one step further and make it free for everyone?
To slow down the passing of defective genes?
It's a well known violation of rule one to accuse someone of trolling, so I will instead say that your stance that people who disagree with you are genetically defective and should be weeded out of society via eugenics is surely something you actually believe, and totally an OK place for us to continue this thread! In fact, this whole thread was a good place to allow for an vibrant discussion of ideas that were respected by all involved in a honest and reasonable way and not at all predicated on a completely inane premise!
I'm surprised he hasn't pitched the idea that guns are a good thing for Democrats because Republicans will be the ones that own them and accidentally shoot themselves with them...
Why not go one step further and make it free for everyone?
To slow down the passing of defective genes?
It's a well known violation of rule one to accuse someone of trolling, so I will instead say that your stance that people who disagree with you are genetically defective and should be weeded out of society via eugenics is surely something you actually believe, and totally an OK place for us to continue this thread! In fact, this whole thread was a good place to allow for an vibrant discussion of ideas that were respected by all involved in a honest and reasonable way and not at all predicated on a completely inane premise!
I don't have the numbers but I am willing to make the sweeping generalization that more liberals than conservatives obtain abortions.
If that premise is followed fewer children will be born to liberal parents.
Thus fewer innocents will be exposed to liberal ideals.
Given a couple more generations the hippie liberals will be bred out.
jamesk1973 wrote: Thus fewer innocents will be exposed to liberal ideals.
Given a couple more generations the hippie liberals will be bred out.
You do realize that liberal ideas aren't genetic, right? And that people will be exposed to them as soon as they leave their sheltered lives with their conservative family and see the rest of the world?
jamesk1973 wrote: Thus fewer innocents will be exposed to liberal ideals.
Given a couple more generations the hippie liberals will be bred out.
You do realize that liberal ideas aren't genetic, right? And that people will be exposed to them as soon as they leave their sheltered lives with their conservative family and see the rest of the world?
I know. It's environmental. Like choosing to be gay.
jamesk1973 wrote: Thus fewer innocents will be exposed to liberal ideals.
Given a couple more generations the hippie liberals will be bred out.
You do realize that liberal ideas aren't genetic, right? And that people will be exposed to them as soon as they leave their sheltered lives with their conservative family and see the rest of the world?
I know. It's environmental. Like choosing to be gay.
I don't feel we should be killing potential human beings and most of you feel we should.
I thought the discussion concerning the rights of a male to absolve themselves of parental responsibility if the female decided to keep the baby against he male's wishes was interesting while it lasted.
Most of your pro-abortion types will get all up in arms over racism, bigotry, wealth inequality,mental illness, gun control, and death penalty.
But when it comes to abortions feth those kids. Vacuum their asses right out and cast them into the medical waste pail. It's not like they are a human being.
You sure killed whatever potential there was to be one.
I don't feel we should be killing potential human beings and most of you feel we should.
I don't. I still feel you don't get the difference between a troll pissing match and a debate.
I thought the discussion concerning the rights of a male to absolve themselves of parental responsibility if the female decided to keep the baby against he male's wishes was interesting while it lasted.
So, basically, the whole 0.2 seconds it took for everyone to realize how bad that idea is?
Most of your pro-abortion types will get all up in arms over racism, bigotry, wealth inequality,mental illness, gun control, and death penalty.
But when it comes to abortions feth those kids. Vacuum their asses right out and cast them into the medical waste pail. It's not like they are a human being.
Thereby equating ''having an intelligent debate'' with ''agreeing with my position''.
First of all I want to ask if taking away someone's free will (in regards with the law) isnt morally questionable either? Since it is choosing between the mother or the 'potential', as you call it. It is a difficult subject, but it should be a personal choice first and foremost. But is it the human life that you actually value or just the idea that it is objectionable? Concerned about its/his/her fate afterwards?
Our morals will shift further towards acceptance regarding abortion. The same applies to gay marriage, its a personal choice. Some people might not like it, but it does not concern their lives in the slightest. But we live in a democracy. Enough people believe that it should be a right, but at the same time it isnt forced on anyone.
I don't feel we should be killing potential human beings and most of you feel we should.
You want to save it until its head crowns out of the vagina, until that point life is valuable.
Once the feet leave the vagina they become a drain on society and it is better to let them lazy babies die to reduce the welfare burden on our society instead of providing for them.
This. Abortion interferes with our liberal plot to throw all of the excess babies into deathmatch arenas where they will fight to the death with an interesting mixture of chainsaws, flaming swords, and grenades. Murdering children before they're born is much less fun, so ban abortion!
Abortion is bad. That's why the vast majority of people that are pro-choice are not actually pro-abortion.
Provide the incentives to actually have the child and raise it instead of passing unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law while also legislating away all benefits and programs to help these parents raise their child. Keep it pro-choice, and give these women all the help that they need so that they will choose life. Care as much about an actual living breathing human child once it is born as you pretend to care about while it is still a sack of cells.
Abortion: Keep it legal, keep it safe, provide all the resources they need to make it more rare.
I'm all for birthing licenses and forced depo implants.
Eugenics baby!
Automatically Appended Next Post: As to abortion: I just want the law to be consistent. If you can kill it and not be charged thorough abortion, the drunk driver that hit you and aborted your fetus shouldn't able to be prosecuted for it either.
