Who is the real extremist on abortion?

[canceled.2021.1]

I'm pro-choice, and I think Obama's opposition to the bill is pretty fucked up. The vast majority of pro-choicers agree, as evidenced by the fact that Obama was the only vote against the bill in an overwhelmingly Democratic Illinois Senate. His position is not mainstream. However, I would say that forcing women to have a probe rammed into their vagina before they can terminate a fetus the size of a grape is also fucked up. Wouldn't you agree?

I never agreed with those policies. They were misguided. Unfortunately, the GOP has the right position on many issues but can never articulate a coherent argument. They always trump argue using the faulty premises of the left.

Abortion argument is simple. When asked, the answer should be "I believe life begins at conception". Rinse. Wash. And repeat.

When the left retreats to its fallback of "what about rape, incest and alien abduction" the answer should be "great, we have found common ground and an area fr compromise. I will compromise on rape,incest an alien abduction ad you make it harder for abortions of convenience". That would smoke out the extremists on the left who want ZERO restrictions.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

???....how do you think they cause abortions?......send it an invitation to leave?......

I hear a coat hanger is the preferred weapon of choice yet nobody has ever told me why a woman would ram a coat hanger up her vagina. She couldn't find a stick?

 

[apple0154]

So it was government programs that kept you from killing your son?

That is the point you are making right?

Tell me, what government programs made it possible for you to not kill your son?

First of all no son killing is going on. No one has a son or daughter until there has been a birth. If you don't believe me try claiming a fetus as an dependent on your income tax. Try obtaining a SS number for a fetus.

The point I was trying to make is responsible people think through what bringing a child into the world entails and if they don't feel they can fulfill those obligations they stop the process that usually results in that happening. The strange thing is Conservatives/Repubs are big on responsibility but against folks who take responsibility when it comes to child birth. Conservatives/Repubs claim they're concerned about the welfare of the potential child but vote for candidates who oppose social policies to the degree that their idea of help is supplying a toilet brush to school aged children. Would you bring a child into the world knowing that current social policies could very well include your child cleaning "public" toilets, toilets used by hundreds of people, in return for necessary financial compensation? Would you even consider voting for a political party that considers anyone putting forward such an idea to be an esteemed member?

Perhaps the question should be, "Do you have any limits to the abuse and exploitation of children or do you believe children should be brought into the world regardless of the hunger and abuse and neglect and filth of the situation?"

 

[apple0154]

I never agreed with those policies. They were misguided. Unfortunately, the GOP has the right position on many issues but can never articulate a coherent argument. They always trump argue using the faulty premises of the left.

Abortion argument is simple. When asked, the answer should be "I believe life begins at conception". Rinse. Wash. And repeat.

When the left retreats to its fallback of "what about rape, incest and alien abduction" the answer should be "great, we have found common ground and an area fr compromise. I will compromise on rape,incest an alien abduction ad you make it harder for abortions of convenience". That would smoke out the extremists on the left who want ZERO restrictions.

"I will compromise on rape,incest and alien abduction and you make it harder for abortions of convenience".

But that blows the anti-abortionist argument out of the water. IF life begins at conception how can anyone justify killing a human being because of how it came into existence or because of the relationship of the father to the pregnant woman? Such a compromise would never stand due to the absurdity of it.

It's the same thing with problem pregnancies/injury to the woman. If uncontrolled diabetes means the woman may lose partial eye sight does that mean her eye sight is more important than the life of another human being? If uncontrolled high blood pressure causes severe kidney damage resulting in needed dialysis does a five-hour treatment three times a week justify killing an innocent human being, assuming fetuses are human beings? The vast majority of problem pregnancies are due to the faulty body of the woman. What possible logic can be used to justify the killing of an innocent human being due to the faulty body of another human being?

By classifying a fetus as a human being rather than it elevating the status of the fetus it would diminish the value of all human beings as it would mean some human beings are valued more than others. Then there will be cases involving twins or triplets. How many lives would a woman's life be worth? One for one? Two for one? Would fetuses be considered three fifths of a person?

The problem with the anti-abortionist argument is evident when thought through to it's conclusion. It demeans the value of life by saying the life of an innocent human being is not worth possible injury to a defective, pregnant woman. It means fetuses with known severe genetic defects due to inbreeding (incest) are either less human and disposable or they must be brought to term and live out their lives suffering from horrific deformaties. It means women must bear children brought about by a "peaceful" rape (whatever the hell that may be) or the life of an innocent human being hangs on a he-said/she-said scenario.

I occasionally hear the anti-abortionist argument that things can just go back to the day when abortion was illegal but times have changed. People have changed. People were more "compliant" back then whether due to societal norms or religious practices or a lack of world wide communication. The unwed woman in a small town is no longer alone, scorned, despised. Voices are heard. The taste of freedom has been sweet. There is universal outrage when anyone attempts to interfere in the sexual lives of others, from abortion to homosexuality.

Let the f%$k-fest begin!......Oops, got carried away there.

 

[christiefan915]

I'm back.

He's grateful he didn't grow up in poverty being subjected to/influenced by street gangs. He's grateful he didn't have to steal in order to eat properly. He's grateful he was born into a family that could afford doctors and dentists, when necessary. And, finally, he plans his family the same way.

Welcome back. How was your trip?

 

[j-mac]

"I will compromise on rape,incest and alien abduction and you make it harder for abortions of convenience".

But that blows the anti-abortionist argument out of the water. IF life begins at conception how can anyone justify killing a human being because of how it came into existence or because of the relationship of the father to the pregnant woman? Such a compromise would never stand due to the absurdity of it.

It's the same thing with problem pregnancies/injury to the woman. If uncontrolled diabetes means the woman may lose partial eye sight does that mean her eye sight is more important than the life of another human being? If uncontrolled high blood pressure causes severe kidney damage resulting in needed dialysis does a five-hour treatment three times a week justify killing an innocent human being, assuming fetuses are human beings? The vast majority of problem pregnancies are due to the faulty body of the woman. What possible logic can be used to justify the killing of an innocent human being due to the faulty body of another human being?

By classifying a fetus as a human being rather than it elevating the status of the fetus it would diminish the value of all human beings as it would mean some human beings are valued more than others. Then there will be cases involving twins or triplets. How many lives would a woman's life be worth? One for one? Two for one? Would fetuses be considered three fifths of a person?

The problem with the anti-abortionist argument is evident when thought through to it's conclusion. It demeans the value of life by saying the life of an innocent human being is not worth possible injury to a defective, pregnant woman. It means fetuses with known severe genetic defects due to inbreeding (incest) are either less human and disposable or they must be brought to term and live out their lives suffering from horrific deformaties. It means women must bear children brought about by a "peaceful" rape (whatever the hell that may be) or the life of an innocent human being hangs on a he-said/she-said scenario.

I occasionally hear the anti-abortionist argument that things can just go back to the day when abortion was illegal but times have changed. People have changed. People were more "compliant" back then whether due to societal norms or religious practices or a lack of world wide communication. The unwed woman in a small town is no longer alone, scorned, despised. Voices are heard. The taste of freedom has been sweet. There is universal outrage when anyone attempts to interfere in the sexual lives of others, from abortion to homosexuality.

Let the f%$k-fest begin!......Oops, got carried away there.

How far would you take that? 1st Trimester? 2nd? All the way to the birthing table? After birth?

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

(Update: ‘Journal of Medical Ethics’ stands by publication of ‘after-birth abortions’ article)


Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/eth...-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/

Do you agree with that?

 

[apple0154]

Welcome back. How was your trip?

Thanks! We had a terrific time! There was an illuminations on the water called "Reflections of a planet". Incredible! Along with the fire works there was a huge globe representing the earth and images were projected on it. Truly a masterpiece.

We took the meal plan so we were obliged to eat and eat and eat...... HA! I had Mickey waffles for breakfast almost every day.

I even brought my own maple syrup.

The weather was great. 90F every day.

Went on the Space Mountain ride. Not sure why. Felt like I was going to die! Wayyyy too old for that now.

We saw the Cirque du Soleil. Almost 10,000 people attended. It was both humorous and exciting. Those folks are in shape! HA!

Chatted with a security guy and he said there were 64,000 employees at Disney World and it encompassed 49 sq. miles. I'm sure I walked most of those miles.

Absolutely lovely vacation. The attractions, the amenities and, most important, the people were exceptional. It was our third time there and still new things to see.

The only down side was we missed our cats. They must have missed us as they both slept with us when we returned although the lady who came by had spoiled them with all kinds of food. Four different food dishes. They never had it so good. :lol:

 

[PostmodernProphet]

"I will compromise on rape,incest and alien abduction and you make it harder for abortions of convenience".

But that blows the anti-abortionist argument out of the water. IF life begins at conception how can anyone justify killing a human being because of how it came into existence or because of the relationship of the father to the pregnant woman? Such a compromise would never stand due to the absurdity of it.

we're thoughtless bastards who are willing to give up the lives of the 3% in a compromise to save the 97%.....that puts us one step up on the thoughtless bastards who want to kill 100%......

 

[canceled.2021.1]

"I will compromise on rape,incest and alien abduction and you make it harder for abortions of convenience".

But that blows the anti-abortionist argument out of the water. IF life begins at conception how can anyone justify killing a human being because of how it came into existence or because of the relationship of the father to the pregnant woman? Such a compromise would never stand due to the absurdity of it.

It's the same thing with problem pregnancies/injury to the woman. If uncontrolled diabetes means the woman may lose partial eye sight does that mean her eye sight is more important than the life of another human being? If uncontrolled high blood pressure causes severe kidney damage resulting in needed dialysis does a five-hour treatment three times a week justify killing an innocent human being, assuming fetuses are human beings? The vast majority of problem pregnancies are due to the faulty body of the woman. What possible logic can be used to justify the killing of an innocent human being due to the faulty body of another human being?

By classifying a fetus as a human being rather than it elevating the status of the fetus it would diminish the value of all human beings as it would mean some human beings are valued more than others. Then there will be cases involving twins or triplets. How many lives would a woman's life be worth? One for one? Two for one? Would fetuses be considered three fifths of a person?

The problem with the anti-abortionist argument is evident when thought through to it's conclusion. It demeans the value of life by saying the life of an innocent human being is not worth possible injury to a defective, pregnant woman. It means fetuses with known severe genetic defects due to inbreeding (incest) are either less human and disposable or they must be brought to term and live out their lives suffering from horrific deformaties. It means women must bear children brought about by a "peaceful" rape (whatever the hell that may be) or the life of an innocent human being hangs on a he-said/she-said scenario.

I occasionally hear the anti-abortionist argument that things can just go back to the day when abortion was illegal but times have changed. People have changed. People were more "compliant" back then whether due to societal norms or religious practices or a lack of world wide communication. The unwed woman in a small town is no longer alone, scorned, despised. Voices are heard. The taste of freedom has been sweet. There is universal outrage when anyone attempts to interfere in the sexual lives of others, from abortion to homosexuality.

Let the f%$k-fest begin!......Oops, got carried away there.

You actually prove my point. If the GOP would adopt my argument, they would crush the left wingers on this debate. It would expose the left for the extremists they are and save the 99.5% of abortions that aren't do to rape. I am willing to make that trade off

 

[CanceledB]

You actually prove my point. If the GOP would adopt my argument, they would crush the left wingers on this debate. It would expose the left for the extremists they are and save the 99.5% of abortions that aren't do to rape. I am willing to make that trade off

Dream on. Never happen. Too many sane people stand in the way.

 

[Airstrip One]

Actually, there is an easier way to crush the Left and end the Democratic Party.

Just legalize drugs.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Actually, there is an easier way to crush the Left and end the Democratic Party.

Just legalize drugs.

they would all get stoned and forget to vote......

 

[apple0154]

we're thoughtless bastards who are willing to give up the lives of the 3% in a compromise to save the 97%.....that puts us one step up on the thoughtless bastards who want to kill 100%......

It just shows how disingenuous the anti-abortionist argument is. Or how convoluted and illogical. Assuming a fetus is a human being it means killing an innocent human being due to the defective body of another but force others to be born into a life of neglect and abuse and hunger with inadequate support and have the gall to claim they're putting the interest of the fetus first.

It has to do with control of women/sex. It is and always has been from the beginning of time. Women were considered chattel and men know that, all things considered equal, they have no chance competing with a woman. Check out this video 3:00 to 3:10. Take 10 seconds to learn a valuable lesson.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

It just shows how disingenuous the anti-abortionist argument is. Or how convoluted and illogical. Assuming a fetus is a human being it means killing an innocent human being due to the defective body of another but force others to be born into a life of neglect and abuse and hunger with inadequate support and have the gall to claim they're putting the interest of the fetus first.

It has to do with control of women/sex. It is and always has been from the beginning of time. Women were considered chattel and men know that, all things considered equal, they have no chance competing with a woman. Check out this video 3:00 to 3:10. Take 10 seconds to learn a valuable lesson.

Funny you say you have respect for women yet call them defective. Actually it is douchebags like you who have no respect for women. You see you want to use them for your sexual desires but don't want the responsibility that comes along with it

 

[PostmodernProphet]

It has to do with control of women/sex. It is and always has been from the beginning of time.

if you really believe that you're a fucking idiot....

 

[apple0154]

You actually prove my point. If the GOP would adopt my argument, they would crush the left wingers on this debate. It would expose the left for the extremists they are and save the 99.5% of abortions that aren't do to rape. I am willing to make that trade off

Sure you are because you don't care. Regardless of the circumstances one is born into they are on their own. Like Romney saying he and Ann made their own fortune and it wasn't inherited. He forgets to say he had the opportunity to attend schools of his choice, meet prospective business partners, people with money and connections.....all due to his father's position as Governor.

Do you think a kid in the ghetto has the same opportunities? Of course, instead of a hand out we could always hand them a toilet brush. Maybe, if they're lucky, one day they'll meet the toilet bowl cleaner salesman.

People are well aware the Conservative/Repub concern over the fetus/future child is a scam and the more they argue against social programs the clearer the picture emerges. Let's hope they keep up the good work till voting day.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Sure you are because you don't care. Regardless of the circumstances one is born into they are on their own. Like Romney saying he and Ann made their own fortune and it wasn't inherited. He forgets to say he had the opportunity to attend schools of his choice, meet prospective business partners, people with money and connections.....all due to his father's position as Governor.

Do you think a kid in the ghetto has the same opportunities? Of course, instead of a hand out we could always hand them a toilet brush. Maybe, if they're lucky, one day they'll meet the toilet bowl cleaner salesman.

People are well aware the Conservative/Repub concern over the fetus/future child is a scam and the more they argue against social programs the clearer the picture emerges. Let's hope they keep up the good work till voting day.

Funny you bring up the kid in the ghetto. If that kid works hard, applies him or herself they can become successful.

You apparently think there is some sort of defect with them. They must not be as smart as you right?

 

[apple0154]

Funny you say you have respect for women yet call them defective. Actually it is douchebags like you who have no respect for women. You see you want to use them for your sexual desires but don't want the responsibility that comes along with it

The majority of problem pregnancies are due to the defective body of the woman. That's just a fact.

As for responsibility that's why abortion is legal. When contraceptives fail there is a solution. Bringing a child into the world to suffer is not taking responsibility. It is the most irresponsible action anyone can do.

And one more point. Although it may be difficult for you to understand having never experienced it women have sexual desires, as well. Yep, women actually wanting to have sex with a man. Honest. It's the truth. One day you may encounter such a gal but if you offer opinions on abortion you'll blow it. Avoid that subject and you might get lucky. Stranger things have happened.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The majority of problem pregnancies are due to the defective body of the woman. That's just a fact.

As for responsibility that's why abortion is legal. When contraceptives fail there is a solution. Bringing a child into the world to suffer is not taking responsibility. It is the most irresponsible action anyone can do.

And one more point. Although it may be difficult for you to understand having never experienced it women have sexual desires, as well. Yep, women actually wanting to have sex with a man. Honest. It's the truth. One day you may encounter such a gal but if you offer opinions on abortion you'll blow it. Avoid that subject and you might get lucky. Stranger things have happened.

So you think all women believe in killing babies? Funny, my wife is pro life and is the one who showed me the light on offering no exceptions. Sorta pokes a hole in your misconception.

EPIC FAIL!

 

[CanceledB]

The majority of problem pregnancies are due to the defective body of the woman. That's just a fact.

As for responsibility that's why abortion is legal. When contraceptives fail there is a solution. Bringing a child into the world to suffer is not taking responsibility. It is the most irresponsible action anyone can do.

And one more point. Although it may be difficult for you to understand having never experienced it women have sexual desires, as well. Yep, women actually wanting to have sex with a man. Honest. It's the truth. One day you may encounter such a gal but if you offer opinions on abortion you'll blow it. Avoid that subject and you might get lucky. Stranger things have happened.

Nice burn.