Abortion

apple0154 said:
The point is abortion has been discussed for over forty years. The anti-abortionists have raised every conceivable argument and a few inconceivable ones. I can't think of anything in my lifetime that's been as thoroughly discussed as abortion. Along with it being a national topic every four years there's the demonstrations and the funding bitching that regularly occur. While polls vary on "no abortion" vs "anytime abortion" the majority of people favor women's rights with limited restrictions.
Click to expand...

The fact this has been debated for 40 years, since the SCOTUS ruling, indicates the issue has not been resolved satisfactorily, and we have not yet found a reasonable solution. Polls DO vary, there IS a wide range of opinion, and as I pointed out, the 'reasonable' solution must be somewhere between the two extremes. We can't get to the reasonable solution because too many people depend on this issue to politically divide the people. You see, for a political ideologue, this issue isn't about rights to life or privacy, it's about political power and how to gain more of it than your opponent.

There is no "majority of the people favor" here, we are sharply divided, almost evenly on both sides, and our views go from one extreme to the other. If there were a clear and concise majority viewpoint, the issue would have been resolved years ago. As it stands, pro-abortionists claim a majority is on their side, while pro-lifer's claim the majority supports their view, and the only people who ever get to stand on the soap box, are the extremists promoted by political ideologues. My argument is this: If you are one who favors abortion in any and all cases, with no restrictions or limit, you are no different than one who favors no abortion under any circumstance. You are the extreme. The reasonable solutions rests somewhere else, not in your personal viewpoint.

I've never argued that abortion should be completely banned and never allowed. My position, I believe, is in the middle.People should be allowed to obtain abortions up to a certain stage, but it shouldn't be easy or convenient. They should have to endure some degree of consternation over their choice, and the choice should be made early on, like the first trimester. I believe that every woman, no... every human, deserves the right to determine what happens to their body. That said, the woman made the choice when she decided to have sexual relations without adequate birth control. If she became pregnant as a result of that choice being removed from her, as in the case of rape, she should have the right to obtain an abortion. As you can see, my personal viewpoint is FAR from "cuz gawd said it wuz wrong!"

People are well aware of how science defines fetuses and they're also well aware of the type of life unwanted children suffer. Even many of the wanted children lack proper parental care and attention. Many young, single mothers live a life of poverty. People see the result, the reality. When that changes you'll have a better chance of changing people's minds.
Click to expand...

People AREN'T aware of how science defines living human organisms, we've been debating with you for two years about this. Most people who are familiar with basic biology, understand the fetus is a living human organism. When society decides to take another human life, the reasons should be compelling, not trivial. Because someone may possibly have a bad life or grow up poor, is not a compelling reason to kill them, in my opinion.

Here's a "reality" for you, every year in America, thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of women, will get abortions and suffer from overwhelming depression as a result. This may lead to drug addiction, alcoholism, self-destructive behavior, and suicide. They simply can't live with what they've done, and no one ever told them it would be like this. Society made the choice so easy and convenient, they didn't even have to consider the ramifications or consequences. At the very least, they should have been counseled beforehand, and made aware of the possibilities.

IF you know of someone in your life who has taken the life of another human being, next time you are around them, strike up a conversation about the person they killed, and see what happens. It doesn't matter if they were in the battlefields of war or drunk behind the wheel of a car, chances are, they don't want to talk about it. The reason being, it's a very hard thing to cope with. Once you've taken the life of another, it changes you as a person forever. This applies to those who have abortions as well. In order to cope with what they've done, they must either remain in denial or adopt some irrational viewpoint regarding when human life begins. As with any other act of guilt, they have to encourage others to make the same decisions they made, so they don't feel 'alone' in the action. It's okay they got an abortion, everybody's doing it, there's nothing wrong with it! But there IS something wrong with it, you know it, they know it, and everyone else knows it, that's why the debate rages on.
 
25 pages and not 1 conservative woman against abortion!
Take off your wife beaters rednecks and enter last century alabubba.
 
Dixie said:
The fact this has been debated for 40 years, since the SCOTUS ruling, indicates the issue has not been resolved satisfactorily, and we have not yet found a reasonable solution. Polls DO vary, there IS a wide range of opinion, and as I pointed out, the 'reasonable' solution must be somewhere between the two extremes. We can't get to the reasonable solution because too many people depend on this issue to politically divide the people. You see, for a political ideologue, this issue isn't about rights to life or privacy, it's about political power and how to gain more of it than your opponent.

There is no "majority of the people favor" here, we are sharply divided, almost evenly on both sides, and our views go from one extreme to the other. If there were a clear and concise majority viewpoint, the issue would have been resolved years ago. As it stands, pro-abortionists claim a majority is on their side, while pro-lifer's claim the majority supports their view, and the only people who ever get to stand on the soap box, are the extremists promoted by political ideologues. My argument is this: If you are one who favors abortion in any and all cases, with no restrictions or limit, you are no different than one who favors no abortion under any circumstance. You are the extreme. The reasonable solutions rests somewhere else, not in your personal viewpoint.

I've never argued that abortion should be completely banned and never allowed. My position, I believe, is in the middle.People should be allowed to obtain abortions up to a certain stage, but it shouldn't be easy or convenient. They should have to endure some degree of consternation over their choice, and the choice should be made early on, like the first trimester. I believe that every woman, no... every human, deserves the right to determine what happens to their body. That said, the woman made the choice when she decided to have sexual relations without adequate birth control. If she became pregnant as a result of that choice being removed from her, as in the case of rape, she should have the right to obtain an abortion. As you can see, my personal viewpoint is FAR from "cuz gawd said it wuz wrong!"
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with your view. If you believe a fetus is a human being then how do you justify the killing of that innocent human being due to how it was created? If a woman is drunk and has sex it can be considered rape as she was unable to make an informed decision. Is that a reason to kill an innocent human being? If racist is to do with race and sexist is the discrimination on the basis of sex would you be considered a parent-ist? Discrimination on the basis of who the parent is.

People AREN'T aware of how science defines living human organisms, we've been debating with you for two years about this. Most people who are familiar with basic biology, understand the fetus is a living human organism. When society decides to take another human life, the reasons should be compelling, not trivial. Because someone may possibly have a bad life or grow up poor, is not a compelling reason to kill them, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

People do understand how science classifies fetuses. From time immemorial people knew babies didn't just appear. Considering virtually every human being was a hunter or farmer they knew exactly how offspring came to be. (I'm sure hunters accidently killed a pregnant animal and upon butchering they discovered fetuses.) Maybe not the technical terms but they were aware of how it started and how it grew. The only thing that has changed is how science describes the process. The process, itself, has not changed and that's the bizarre thing about it all. It's like, "HEY! Look what we found!!" Yea, we know. Put sperm in a woman and the beginning of a process is a definite possibility but until there is a birth there is no baby.

Here's a "reality" for you, every year in America, thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of women, will get abortions and suffer from overwhelming depression as a result. This may lead to drug addiction, alcoholism, self-destructive behavior, and suicide. They simply can't live with what they've done, and no one ever told them it would be like this. Society made the choice so easy and convenient, they didn't even have to consider the ramifications or consequences. At the very least, they should have been counseled beforehand, and made aware of the possibilities.

IF you know of someone in your life who has taken the life of another human being, next time you are around them, strike up a conversation about the person they killed, and see what happens. It doesn't matter if they were in the battlefields of war or drunk behind the wheel of a car, chances are, they don't want to talk about it. The reason being, it's a very hard thing to cope with. Once you've taken the life of another, it changes you as a person forever. This applies to those who have abortions as well. In order to cope with what they've done, they must either remain in denial or adopt some irrational viewpoint regarding when human life begins. As with any other act of guilt, they have to encourage others to make the same decisions they made, so they don't feel 'alone' in the action. It's okay they got an abortion, everybody's doing it, there's nothing wrong with it! But there IS something wrong with it, you know it, they know it, and everyone else knows it, that's why the debate rages on.
Click to expand...

Of course some get depressed. Is it any wonder with some people waving posters with "Murderer" on them?

I thought I told you the story about a friend of mine who went through that.
"I realize now I could have looked after a child but I was young and afraid back then and people told me it would be best to have an abortion", she lamented. So, I took her for a drive. A drive to the poor side of town.

We passed young women pushing baby carriages with rusty wheels and torn tops dressed in clothing more suitable for rags in a workshop. Then we passed the obligatory 3 or 4 guys standing on the sidewalk outside the corner store hoping to sell a few drugs. Further along were a few pre-school kids playing in a water puddle at the edge of a park.

"Is this what you miss", I asked her, "because you would have been that young women we passed pushing the baby carriage. Or would you have wanted your child to be one of those who were playing in the mud puddle? Or maybe one of the guys there selling drugs? The only thing you did was spare you and a child from a life of hell. Is that a reason to feel guilty?"

It didn't take her long to snap out of the funky mood.

It's easy to look back on decisions from a different perspective. Once my friend got her education and good job and a nice aparment of course she could look after a child. But the odds of her pursuing an education and getting a good job and a nice apartment would have been stacked against her if she had bore a child. Statistics bear that out and like everything else it continues from generation to generation. Maybe 5 years from the time we took that drive she would have been sobbing over a son's or daughter's drug overdose or jail sentence for selling drugs.

That's the counselling the women require whom you mentioned. Talk to a mother who has buried her son after he was shot in a drug deal. Talk to a woman who has scrapped and scratched her way through life trying to make a living and her retirement isn't going to be any pik-nik either.

That's the reality. Want to change it? The first start is implementing social programs. Day care for single moms wanting to continue school. A babysitter or place to take her child on a Saturday night so she can go out and socialize with friends instead of being home alone, poor and depressed. Who the hell is going to voluntarily choose that life?
 
The Dude said:
25 pages and not 1 conservative woman against abortion!
Take off your wife beaters rednecks and enter last century alabubba.
Click to expand...

It's easy to tell the fetus is not the priimary concern for folks like Dixie. It's all about controlling women. If they really cared about abortion they would support social programs. They would do all they could to make child bearing a pleasurable event and not spout "take responsibility for your slutty lifestyle" comments. It's not difficult to see through people like Dixie.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
People AREN'T aware of how science defines living human organisms, we've been debating with you for two years about this. Most people who are familiar with basic biology, understand the fetus is a living human organism. When society decides to take another human life, the reasons should be compelling, not trivial. Because someone may possibly have a bad life or grow up poor, is not a compelling reason to kill them, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

And here's something to consider. It's not a matter of people not understanding how science defines organisms and human beings. It's a matter of people and scientists not understanding DNA. That's the problem.

Have you heard of Epigenetic? Here's a short video.




6:15 – 8:33 What makes cells different, behave differently, from one another when every cell has the same DNA? The mother’s blood carries signals (passes signals) to the fetus telling the fetus’ genes to turn on or off. I suggest you read that sentence again.

Considering a woman can directly affect the fetus’ DNA, it’s genes, to the degree she can influence everything from growth to disease to the mental state of the fetus…where do the words “independent”, “apart from” and “separate” fit in when describing a fetus? Considering the woman does have such direct influence on the fetus is it logical to say it’s “apart from” or that it’s “a part of” the woman?

14:15 – 14: 25 A diagram depicting rats that were brought up differently; differing nurture. Take note of the one in the lower, right hand corner. It's cute.

The point being the genes of the fetus can be directly affected by the mother. Turned on and off. Instructed on what to do. If that’s your definition of independent and separate, a human being, then we may as well define every cell of human material as a human being as they all have the same DNA. They all have the same genes. They can become hearts and livers and muscles and arms and legs and.....sounds like a human being....depending on the instructions given and look who can give the instructions! Whoda thunk it, huh? But jump on that DNA wagon even though it was only 10 short years ago scientists were telling women their biological children weren't their children.

Strip a woman of her rights based on DNA when DNA couldn't even determine a woman's child. And now we see a woman can turn on and off the genes of fetuses but, hey, a fetus is not part of a woman. It must work on WIFI. :rolleyes:

Yes, you and I have been discussing this nonsense for two years. You grabbed on to DNA like those in the past grabbed on to the idea the soul enters male fetuses before female fetuses. You grabbed on to DNA like those in the past grabbed on to the idea quickening was the soul moving in. (What is quickening? If anyone ever lived in a lower duplex and had tenants moving in upstairs I guess it's somewhat similar.) :rofl2: You grabbed on to DNA like those in the past grabbed on to the deal between the Pope and Napoleon of France in 1869 when Napoleon declared the Pope infallible in exchange for the Pope outlawing abortion so France would have young men to send to the slaughter of war.

The game or should I say the outright scam is over, Dix. More than 2,000 years of bullsh!t and you have the gall to refer to DNA, when it was only 10 years ago that it was used to unjustly take a woman's children away, to justify stripping women of their most basic right, that of reproduction.

You say the general population isn't aware of science? Fine, let's educate them. Let's let them know the lies and bullsh!t that has been passed down through history regarding abortion. Let's tell them about biological children being taken from their mother. Let's tell them that a woman can manipulate a fetus' genes to the extent a cell is to grow or not grow. Then let the population decide.

Sound like a fair deal? :D

On that note my cat is calling me. Siesta time.
 
apple0154 said:
Here's the problem with your view. If you believe a fetus is a human being then how do you justify the killing of that innocent human being due to how it was created? If a woman is drunk and has sex it can be considered rape as she was unable to make an informed decision. Is that a reason to kill an innocent human being? If racist is to do with race and sexist is the discrimination on the basis of sex would you be considered a parent-ist? Discrimination on the basis of who the parent is.
Click to expand...

I don't justify it. I personally believe it is wrong to ever terminate a human life. That's my personal belief, and how I would personally deal with such a situation if I were a woman who had been "raped" while having drunken 'consensual' sex. But I realize our civil society does not operate solely on what my personal morals and beliefs are, and we have to be tolerant of our neighbors, because that is important to a civil society. While I don't condone or support it, I can see why others might, and I believe they should have that right, it's a personal moral decision. So why don't I support all abortion? Well, because there is another human being involved, and I believe it has some degree of human rights as well. The further along in the process of development this life reaches, the more relevant I believe their rights as 'individuals' becomes. Therefore, a fetus of 8-month development would have more of an inherent "right to life" than say, a successfully fertilized cell reproduction in the beginning phases of life. I have arbitrarily made my determination on when this principle kicks in, at around the first trimester. After that point, I believe the fetus has developed to a point it should have "right to life" protected by the Constitution. Again, this is not to be confused with my PERSONAL view, or my PERSONAL regard for human life. This is my moral boundary for the society I want to live in, and what we should all be able to agree to, as reasonable and ethical human beings.

People do understand how science classifies fetuses. From time immemorial people knew babies didn't just appear. Considering virtually every human being was a hunter or farmer they knew exactly how offspring came to be. (I'm sure hunters accidently killed a pregnant animal and upon butchering they discovered fetuses.) Maybe not the technical terms but they were aware of how it started and how it grew. The only thing that has changed is how science describes the process. The process, itself, has not changed and that's the bizarre thing about it all. It's like, "HEY! Look what we found!!" Yea, we know. Put sperm in a woman and the beginning of a process is a definite possibility but until there is a birth there is no baby.
Click to expand...

You are such a fucking joke when it comes to this topic, I am not sure why I still respond. No... human beings don't "just appear" Apple! Their life process has to have a beginning point, where it all started from. That beginning point is conception. When the reproducing cells have succeeded in fertilization and a unique living organism begins to do what living organisms do, reproduce more cells. Is it a "human being" at that point? Well, it's certainly "human" and in the state of "being" so I would say, yes it is! Does it have any inherent characteristics of a person yet? No, the organism has to develop those things, but it will constantly be developing for as long as it's a living organism. We never stop developing, Apple. As we get older, we have hair in places we never had it before, our ears and nose get bigger, things are constantly changing with our body... this is a never-ending process. When you point to attributes of development and try to claim that is "proof" against it being a living human organism, you fail miserably. It needs nothing but time to develop all those things. Time, nutrition and environment, just like ANY living human organism.

Of course some get depressed. Is it any wonder with some people waving posters with "Murderer" on them?

I thought I told you the story about a friend of mine who went through that.
Click to expand...

You did, and I'll spare us repeating it yet again, because I think 98% of what you spout is nonsense that never happened, except inside your rather empty head. Like I said-- psychological test-- next time you around someone who has taken the life of another, whether through abortion, war, crime, or even in self defense, ask them directly about the person they killed. I'm betting they will not want to talk to you about it much, if at all. People have a very hard time with taking the life of another human being. This is why you are so hell-bent on redefining biology! In your mind, you HAVE to see the fetus as some inorganic non-living "clump" in order to justify what you advocate.

Have you ever taken another human life, Apple? Straight up question there, just tell me. I haven't, but I am very close to many who have, and the common factor is, they all have to live with what they did, and it's never easy. Some people actually have such a problem with it, they can never overcome it, and they will ultimately take their own life. I've personally known this to be the case, and it was over an abortion.


That's the counselling the women require whom you mentioned. Talk to a mother who has buried her son after he was shot in a drug deal. Talk to a woman who has scrapped and scratched her way through life trying to make a living and her retirement isn't going to be any pik-nik either.

That's the reality. Want to change it? The first start is implementing social programs. Day care for single moms wanting to continue school. A babysitter or place to take her child on a Saturday night so she can go out and socialize with friends instead of being home alone, poor and depressed. Who the hell is going to voluntarily choose that life?
Click to expand...

First start implementing social programs? What fucking universe are you living in? We've had social programs running hot and cold in this country for 70 years, we're $16 trillion in the hole because of our social programs, and you think we should "first start" with these? Man, you are a goofball of the highest order, and how the hell did we get off on ranting about poor people who need social programs? Are you a Margaret Sanger disciple who believes we need to have abortion to thin out the poor blacks in society?
 
Dixie said:
Does JPP have any conservative women posters who regularly post?
Click to expand...

the only one we have who posts at all that I can think of is Annie....meanwhile, the Dude is apparently ignorant of the millions of conservative women who are opposed to abortion......given all the other things he is ignorant of, this is not surprising......
 
Dixie said:
I don't justify it. I personally believe it is wrong to ever terminate a human life. That's my personal belief, and how I would personally deal with such a situation if I were a woman who had been "raped" while having drunken 'consensual' sex. But I realize our civil society does not operate solely on what my personal morals and beliefs are, and we have to be tolerant of our neighbors, because that is important to a civil society. While I don't condone or support it, I can see why others might, and I believe they should have that right, it's a personal moral decision. So why don't I support all abortion? Well, because there is another human being involved, and I believe it has some degree of human rights as well. The further along in the process of development this life reaches, the more relevant I believe their rights as 'individuals' becomes. Therefore, a fetus of 8-month development would have more of an inherent "right to life" than say, a successfully fertilized cell reproduction in the beginning phases of life. I have arbitrarily made my determination on when this principle kicks in, at around the first trimester. After that point, I believe the fetus has developed to a point it should have "right to life" protected by the Constitution. Again, this is not to be confused with my PERSONAL view, or my PERSONAL regard for human life. This is my moral boundary for the society I want to live in, and what we should all be able to agree to, as reasonable and ethical human beings.
Click to expand...

So, just to clarify you are against abortion but as a tolerant guy you would be OK if the abortion only took place during the first trimester. So, although it is a human being from conception it is not enough of a human being for you to feel the government should be involved in protecting it. Is that a fair summation?

Have you ever taken another human life, Apple? Straight up question there, just tell me. I haven't, but I am very close to many who have, and the common factor is, they all have to live with what they did, and it's never easy. Some people actually have such a problem with it, they can never overcome it, and they will ultimately take their own life. I've personally known this to be the case, and it was over an abortion.
Click to expand...

If abortion is taking a human life and agreeing with a girlfriend that an abortion is appropriate then I plead guilty. I shudder to imagine the type of life a child would have had if that decision had not been made. Single parent? No doubt. Poverty? Almost certain. Generally a destructive, degrading lifestyle? Again, I have little doubt considering the woman (my ex-girlfriend) would have gotten custody. I just want to add that while I later found out my Ex was, shall I say accommodating to other men, she had a body that would temp the gods. :whoa:

First start implementing social programs? What fucking universe are you living in? We've had social programs running hot and cold in this country for 70 years, we're $16 trillion in the hole because of our social programs, and you think we should "first start" with these? Man, you are a goofball of the highest order, and how the hell did we get off on ranting about poor people who need social programs? Are you a Margaret Sanger disciple who believes we need to have abortion to thin out the poor blacks in society?
Click to expand...

I should have known race would enter the conversation sooner or later. As for, “how the hell did we get off on ranting about poor people who need social programs” that’s primarily what abortion is all about. It’s called looking after the result of pregnancy, the child. It’s referred to as taking responsibility and not bringing a child into the world when one is unable to look after it properly. Whether it’s furnishing a child’s bedroom or having child care facilities so the mother can work and support the rest of her children these are things responsible people think about.

My daughter-in-law just had a baby. While she gets maternity leave it’s not anything comparable to her regular wages and she told me it costs $400/mth for formula and diapers. (Was it you who cried about professors getting a 5% cut in salary ($40,000/yr – 5 % = $2000/yr) due to ObamaCare and the cutting of hours?) $400/mth is $4800/yr. That’s a chunk of change considering my daughter-in-law’s salary has been cut almost 50%, as well.

How does the single parent get along? How does the unwanted child get along? What do you think happens when the baby cries on a Saturday night and mommy is already either pissed off or depressed she has no money and can’t go out with her friends? Do you give a damn? I doubt it.
 
Dixie said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Redneck infers poor WHITE, uneducated farmers and such from the regions you infer.
Click to expand...

So, only poor, white, uneducated farmers are rednecks? Wow, I bet there are less than 200 in Alabama. Most farmers I know, have college educations, degrees in agriculture, and while they aren't exactly "rich" they are far from the poorest in society, at least that's how it is here in Alabama. I also know there are an unusual number of black farmers and Hispanic farmers, it's not just for white men anymore.



Let's be clear, in 2013, the term "redneck" is used by bigots from the North to describe anyone living below the Mason-Dixon line, or anyone who votes Republican, or opposes gay rights. It is widely used as a put-down by people who's hearts are filled with hate and bigotry, because they believe it is derogatory and insulting.


Spare us all your revisionist bullshit, Dixie. Redneck is a slur, an insult that was directed a white folk of a particular class and occupation a century or so ago, and it was NOT created in the NORTH. Period. A matter of fact and history. My assessment of you stands.

If we are to believe what you say, then YOU are NOT physically "white".... also, given that in the past you have given us info such as belonging to some groups that note the history of the "confederacy", then it seems YOU are in some serious denial as to how that mindset screwed over and looked down upon the very lineage you profess here.
Click to expand...

I don't really care what you believe, it is not something I can control. You continue to illustrate how the mind of a total and complete bigot works. Here, you infer that an entire group of people held the same exact viewpoints or 'mindset' and you don't even flinch. It's as if it never registers in your brain, that we are ALL DIFFERENT! Recognizing and educating people about the history of the Confederacy, does not infer any particular belief or mindset. There were many people on the side of the Confederacy, who did not support the institution of slavery. General Robert E. Lee is the most noteworthy. But when you are a cowardly racist bigot such as yourself, these facts can't be mentioned, and we must brainwash everyone into believing the entire southern United States was beholden to a single mindset. Intellectual honesty has to be put on the back bench, so that we can promote a bigoted and racist viewpoint about "Rednecks."

More revisionist BS from the Dixie Dunce. Bottom line: Slavery was the cornerstone that supported the Southern states that became part of the "Confederacy", individuals non-withstanding. Fighting to perserve a State's "right" to institute slavery was WRONG. Period. No excuses, no justifications. Clowns like YOU, my Dixie dunce, are one brick shy of a load if you think your racial/ethnic lineage is overlooked by the mindsets that still find "pride" in the Confederacy and wave it's flag. You're a token to them, jackass...so long as you mouth their platitudes. And as anyone else on these boards who have read your drivel over the years, it's not what I believe, but what YOU have told us.


As for abortion....NO ONE IS ASKING YOU FOR THE MONEY, AND NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO STICK YOUR NOSE INTO THE BUSINESS OF A DOCTOR AND HIS PATIENT. Answer my questions honestly, and there might be a basis for dialogue. If not, then you'll just be blathering on the usual theocratic BS that our democratic gov't keeps voting down. Carry on.
Click to expand...

O' contraire! Much of the abortion debate centers around federal funding for abortions. It's not any of my business what a doctor and patient discuss, but when they become complicit in the taking of another human being's life, it's my business, just as it's everyone's business to stand up for the rights of those who can't speak for themselves. I don't need to answer your questions, they are rhetorical and irrelevant. Let's stop killing babies first, then we'll deal with whatever problem that creates.
Click to expand...

Newsflash, my Dixie Dunce....under this administration it has been DOCUMENTED time and again that NO FEDERAL FUNDING goes to abortion....that is if the dimwitted GOP gets it's head out of it's ass to actually read what's put in front of them. And of course you won't answer my questions, as your intellectual cowardice and basic ignorance prevents you. Blowhards like you wail about abortion, and then bitch and moan about a "welfare state" and social security...using a schizoid attitude to disconnect the two. Carry on.
 
apple0154 said:
So, just to clarify you are against abortion but as a tolerant guy you would be OK if the abortion only took place during the first trimester. So, although it is a human being from conception it is not enough of a human being for you to feel the government should be involved in protecting it. Is that a fair summation?
Click to expand...

You're getting closer, but still... nope. I am a tolerant guy who would be OK with other people having the option of abortion during the first trimester, I still oppose the option and think there are better alternatives to abortion in all circumstances. It's "enough" of a human from point of conception, it's genetic makeup doesn't change. It doesn't become "more human" as time goes by, it is human life from the point of conception. It isn't developed enough to have awareness or sentience, and hasn't fully developed a nervous system that feels pain, etc. It's still a human being, and human life, and all it needs is time to develop these things, but I can consciously tolerate someone else making the decision to end this life before it gains these attributes. Again, I don't agree with that option, I don't condone or support that option, and I believe there are always better options available, but this is a moral decision which has to be made by the individuals involved, and I respect that.

If abortion is taking a human life and agreeing with a girlfriend that an abortion is appropriate then I plead guilty.
Click to expand...

That's not the same thing, you didn't actually take the life of another human being. Your girlfriend made the decision, and she has to live with that.

I shudder to imagine the type of life a child would have had if that decision had not been made. Single parent? No doubt. Poverty? Almost certain. Generally a destructive, degrading lifestyle? Again, I have little doubt considering the woman (my ex-girlfriend) would have gotten custody. I just want to add that while I later found out my Ex was, shall I say accommodating to other men, she had a body that would temp the gods. :whoa:
Click to expand...

You're justifying the death of a human being on the basis of what kind of life it may have had. Does that fact not register with you? We don't kill people because they might be burdens or have a rough life! It's just not done in civilized societies, Apple! Why do you persist in thinking this is some kind of adequate excuse? Is this TRULY how you evaluate the value of a human's life? Why bother all this spending and things for poor people, we should just execute them and put them out of their misery, end this terrible awful life they have... right?

I should have known race would enter the conversation sooner or later. As for, “how the hell did we get off on ranting about poor people who need social programs” that’s primarily what abortion is all about. It’s called looking after the result of pregnancy, the child. It’s referred to as taking responsibility and not bringing a child into the world when one is unable to look after it properly. Whether it’s furnishing a child’s bedroom or having child care facilities so the mother can work and support the rest of her children these are things responsible people think about.
Click to expand...

You're just rambling a bunch of incoherent nonsense now. Abortion is about terminating human life, it has absolutely nothing to do with socioeconomics. Responsibility for these considerations needs to take place when the couple is contemplating sexual intercourse, because that's when the burden of this responsibility is created. Killing people because you simply don't want the responsibility you created, is not a solution to any problem.

How does the single parent get along? How does the unwanted child get along? What do you think happens when the baby cries on a Saturday night and mommy is already either pissed off or depressed she has no money and can’t go out with her friends? Do you give a damn? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I don't know... maybe we should follow YOUR philosophy and just let these stressed out moms kill their babies? Who are WE to tell them they have to stay home and take care of the rugrats while their friends are out partying? We shouldn't interfere with their "right" to party like that, we should pass a law that a woman has the right to murder her child up until it becomes a teenager and can somewhat care for itself.
 
I personally think Abortion is the Left's biggest flaw overall.

But after talking to the Right Wing and telling them they don't have to listen to their media and you CAN be a smart Conservative and getting spit in my face, I'm about to justify Abortion and stand with the Blacks and Gays on the grudge train. Because heaven forbid I disagree with Fox News on a point that specific lighters aren't anything at all like a fkin gun.
 
Dixie said:
You're getting closer, but still... nope. I am a tolerant guy who would be OK with other people having the option of abortion during the first trimester, I still oppose the option and think there are better alternatives to abortion in all circumstances. It's "enough" of a human from point of conception, it's genetic makeup doesn't change. It doesn't become "more human" as time goes by, it is human life from the point of conception. It isn't developed enough to have awareness or sentience, and hasn't fully developed a nervous system that feels pain, etc. It's still a human being, and human life, and all it needs is time to develop these things, but I can consciously tolerate someone else making the decision to end this life before it gains these attributes. Again, I don't agree with that option, I don't condone or support that option, and I believe there are always better options available, but this is a moral decision which has to be made by the individuals involved, and I respect that.
Click to expand...

So your main concern is not human life. It is the "degree" of human life. The "amount" of human life. The quantity. The measure. Pick a word. Human life, to you, has varying degrees of value. Otherwise, you would be equally against an abortion at six days or six weeks or six months.

You're justifying the death of a human being on the basis of what kind of life it may have had. Does that fact not register with you? We don't kill people because they might be burdens or have a rough life! It's just not done in civilized societies, Apple! Why do you persist in thinking this is some kind of adequate excuse? Is this TRULY how you evaluate the value of a human's life? Why bother all this spending and things for poor people, we should just execute them and put them out of their misery, end this terrible awful life they have... right?
Click to expand...

You raise a number of points. First, abortion is not killing a human being. It's preventing a potential/possible human being from unnecessary suffering. Is that civilized? Well, let me ask you a question. Let's say you and your hypothetical 10 year old son were captured by some drug smuggling folks in the jungles of South America and you witnessed them torturing a prisoner to the point of death. Real torture. Maybe the guy was an FBI agent and he was responsible for shooting one of the drug smuggling guy's girlfriend and they were going to make sure he suffered so they raped him and burned him and broke his arms and legs and....Now, they believe you are an agent, your son is a decoy and they're going to torture him tomorrow and make you watch before they kill you. If you had a way to kill your son quickly, maybe you had some pills they didn't find on you when you were captured, would you kill your son and spare him the torture?

Of course, as a society we do let people suffer. We don't torture them but we prevent anyone from helping them die. Is that civilized?

You're just rambling a bunch of incoherent nonsense now. Abortion is about terminating human life, it has absolutely nothing to do with socioeconomics. Responsibility for these considerations needs to take place when the couple is contemplating sexual intercourse, because that's when the burden of this responsibility is created. Killing people because you simply don't want the responsibility you created, is not a solution to any problem.
Click to expand...

You see, here is your disconnect. You talk about the couple not contemplating the consequences. You talk about the couple not wanting the responsibility. You're unable to grasp it's not about the couple. It's about the potential child. The couple simply give the child away or raise it in a hell-hole. The couple has options. The child does not and the more it's unwanted, the more it's abused and neglected, the greater the likelihood it will have a nasty life. You're using a child to punish adults. Think about it.

I don't know... maybe we should follow YOUR philosophy and just let these stressed out moms kill their babies? Who are WE to tell them they have to stay home and take care of the rugrats while their friends are out partying? We shouldn't interfere with their "right" to party like that, we should pass a law that a woman has the right to murder her child up until it becomes a teenager and can somewhat care for itself.
Click to expand...

Birth. You keep forgetting birth. Again, the primary concern is not the mom. Well, at best it's 50-50. It's the child that will suffer longer and more than the mom but you're either unable or unwilling to see that. If there were services where the mom could continue school, have some sort of social life in order to unwind/de-stress, things would be very different.

Have you ever seen that fridge magnet that reads, "When Mamma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy"? There's no more truer words. The purpose of social programs is for the child because it's the mother who looks after him/her but some people see it as rewarding the mother. They would rather the child suffer than the mother benefit because it always comes down to the same old thing and that's the perception someone might be getting something for nothing.
 
If the fanatical left would agree on a specific point where life begins, the abortion issue could easily be resolved.

With beliefs ranging from 12 weeks pregnant until 3 or more days after the infant is fully delivered and no liberal prepared to draw a line and say, here! This is where life begins.
Clarity is needed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top