The Modern Hitlers Children...................revisited

[Cancel 2016.2]

And? A fetus is not yet a child. It is under construction. We bestow rights upon children not fetuses. If not, abortion would be illegal, now wouldn't it?
Roe V. Wade, is still the law of the land. Much to your chagrin.

Wrong. Whether or not we bestow rights on the child in its fetal stage is not relevant to whether it is still a child. One is a LEGAL issue, the other an issue of SCIENCE.

We arbitrarily define when someone is entitled to 'rights'. We do not do so based on science.

An infant is 'under construction'. As is a toddler, adolescent, and teenager. Attempts to dehumanize the child are done solely so pro-abortionists can FEEL better about their position. Much to your chagrin.

 

[DamnYankee]

Poet, how does it make you feel that Planned Parenthood targets blacks?

 

[Damocles]

Certainly not, if none is there.

Yah. I'm with you there, I can't make you feel empathy when you have none. I get that.

 

[apple0154]

Is it, however, progeny? And at what point is it not "okay" to just kill them on a whim? And if you do kill your progeny on a whim how is it "taking responsibility" as he claimed?

You deliberately ignore the premise.

This shows you have an incapacity for empathy, it is a simple exercise. Imagine it from a different point of view. Would it ever be okay to kill them if you believed it was a child? Don't be lazy, don't be simple. You know where this is going and you don't want to give "them" credibility.

The reality is if you believed, as often those who are against abortion do, that it is a child you are killing (especially at later stages of pregnancy) then there really is no reason good enough to do it other than to save a life.

You're missing the point, Damo. Whether it's a child at that time or will become a child both anti-abortionists and pro-choicers acknowledge a birth may very well take place. That is the situation with which both should be dealing. What will be the ultimate best for the child.

Suppose one knew, for a certainty, if they bore a child that child would be captured as a young adult during a war and severely tortured for 10 years at which time the "child" would die. Would it be morally responsible to bring that child into the world?

It appears the incapacity for empathy rests with you. If a person knows they will not make a decent parent why would they subject their progeny to a situation like that? All one has to do is take a look at the world. How do we treat our ill and poor? How do we treat those young people who grew up in the ghetto and turned to crime? How do we treat those who have limited education due to having left a dysfunctional home at an early age?

If one knows they will not be a good parent, for whatever reason, it is the height if irresponsibility to bring offspring into the world. Do they correct the situation, prevent a later birth from taking place, or allow a process to continue which may very well result in a birth and subjecting their offspring to a life of misery?

People like to talk about convenience or whim when discussing abortion. Perhaps it's time to accurately refer to it as having empathy and taking responsibility.

 

[apple0154]

You keep repeating this mantra of yours, like it's truth in it's entirety.
How do you know that the child will be neglected, won't be looked after properly; because you seem to have the belief that it absolutely has to be one way or the other and that's where you fail.

I have explained this before. If two people are career-minded and want to devote their lives to their profession or if they're overly hedonistic and know they will not make good parents they take responsibility and do not bring a child into the world.

The fail is your inability to understand the obvious.

 

[Damocles]

You're missing the point, Damo. Whether it's a child at that time or will become a child both anti-abortionists and pro-choicers acknowledge a birth may very well take place. That is the situation with which both should be dealing. What will be the ultimate best for the child.

Suppose one knew, for a certainty, if they bore a child that child would be captured as a young adult during a war and severely tortured for 10 years at which time the "child" would die. Would it be morally responsible to bring that child into the world?

It appears the incapacity for empathy rests with you. If a person knows they will not make a decent parent why would they subject their progeny to a situation like that? All one has to do is take a look at the world. How do we treat our ill and poor? How do we treat those young people who grew up in the ghetto and turned to crime? How do we treat those who have limited education due to having left a dysfunctional home at an early age?

If one knows they will not be a good parent, for whatever reason, it is the height if irresponsibility to bring offspring into the world. Do they correct the situation, prevent a later birth from taking place, or allow a process to continue which may very well result in a birth and subjecting their offspring to a life of misery?

People like to talk about convenience or whim when discussing abortion. Perhaps it's time to accurately refer to it as having empathy and taking responsibility.

There is almost no circumstance where the "ultimate best" for the child will be their execution. While you brought up an interesting scenario with a painful short life, it is an extreme case.

You've argued previously that if the parent is poor it is reason enough, what if they "aren't wanted" you've said. That is no reason to execute a "child"...

The question I asked (If you believed it was truly a child what circumstance would it be "okay"?) is because that is quite literally what a "pro-lifer" will see. You are killing a child for convenience, not for the child's sake, not to save a life, just because you find that life inconvenient. The "child" pays the ultimate price.

 

[DamnYankee]

Apple keeps trying to justify his position of kill all babies that may inconvenience someone by bringing up extreme examples of what might happen in the future. By his logic, he should kill himself.

 

[apple0154]

That's a valid turning point, basic cognition begins right around that period. I can understand why they chose that cutoff point. Apple, however, has expressed an opinion that right up until the moment they take their first breath of air it is something we can kill without regard for the life it represents.

I have never expressed nor implied a disregard for what the fetus represents. If anything, quite the contrary. It symbolizes a process that will most likely lead to a birth of a child which is an extremely important event. My point is I believe the option should be available up to the moment it takes it's first breath. The reason being it's too late after that point regardless of circumstances.

Again, I come back to Tay-sacks disease. Is it morally preferable to allow a 4 or 6 month old baby to live and go through the stages of that disease?

Let's suppose an expectant mother has a pre-natal test done at seven or eight months pregnant and it's discovered the baby has Tay-sacks. The mother has no choice but to continue the pregnancy only to look forward to watching her child progress through the disease and die before it's old enough to attend school.

Let's talk about empathy. How would that woman feel knowing she is condemned to continue the process that will lead to a birth and the child that will result will suffer for the next 4 or 5 years and ultimately die. What belief system could possibly justify that?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're missing the point, Damo. Whether it's a child at that time or will become a child both anti-abortionists and pro-choicers acknowledge a birth may very well take place. That is the situation with which both should be dealing. What will be the ultimate best for the child.

So we should decide on whether the child should be allowed to be born based on the potential situation it might face?

Suppose one knew, for a certainty, if they bore a child that child would be captured as a young adult during a war and severely tortured for 10 years at which time the "child" would die. Would it be morally responsible to bring that child into the world?

By that logic we should force abortion on all pregnant women who are currently living in poverty. Right? By your standards it would be morally wrong to let those kids be born into such a harsh environment.

Or if we 'knew' kids would likely be killed by gang violence, lets just kill them now and not make them go through it.... right?

It appears the incapacity for empathy rests with you. If a person knows they will not make a decent parent why would they subject their progeny to a situation like that? All one has to do is take a look at the world. How do we treat our ill and poor? How do we treat those young people who grew up in the ghetto and turned to crime? How do we treat those who have limited education due to having left a dysfunctional home at an early age?

If a person knows they would not make a good parent, then the DECENT thing to do would be to make sure you didn't GET pregnant (or get someone else pregnant)

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I have explained this before. If two people are career-minded and want to devote their lives to their profession or if they're overly hedonistic and know they will not make good parents they take responsibility and do not bring a child into the world.

The fail is your inability to understand the obvious.

Quite funny how you continue saying 'take responsibility' when in fact an abortion is JUST the opposite. It is AVOIDING responsibility. The RESPONSIBLE thing to do would be AVOID getting pregnant in the first place OR accepting the consequences of ones actions for failing to do so.

 

[apple0154]

There is almost no circumstance where the "ultimate best" for the child will be their execution. While you brought up an interesting scenario with a painful short life, it is an extreme case.

You've argued previously that if the parent is poor it is reason enough, what if they "aren't wanted" you've said. That is no reason to execute a "child"...

The question I asked (If you believed it was truly a child what circumstance would it be "okay"?) is because that is quite literally what a "pro-lifer" will see. You are killing a child for convenience, not for the child's sake, not to save a life, just because you find that life inconvenient. The "child" pays the ultimate price.

Hypothetical question: Let's say we're spirits and are asked if we want to be born into physical form, however, we can't choose our destination. Would you prefer to be born in Somalia, today, in a refugee camp or hope your prospective parents aborted?

 

[apple0154]

So we should decide on whether the child should be allowed to be born based on the potential situation it might face?

We should decide if we allow a process to continue which would lead to the birth of a child based on the potential situation it might face.

By that logic we should force abortion on all pregnant women who are currently living in poverty. Right? By your standards it would be morally wrong to let those kids be born into such a harsh environment.

Not necessarily. Their poverty may be temporary or they may be exceptional parents. The other side of the coin is we give aid to countries that prohibit birth control. There needs to be a change in policy. While the living do require aid we definitely don't want to encourage further people born into poverty.

Or if we 'knew' kids would likely be killed by gang violence, lets just kill them now and not make them go through it.... right?

Not quite. The idea is to stop the process that would lead to a child being born with that future.

If a person knows they would not make a good parent, then the DECENT thing to do would be to make sure you didn't GET pregnant (or get someone else pregnant)

While that certainly makes sense it doesn't make sense to allow the process to continue if it can be stopped.

 

[apple0154]

Quite funny how you continue saying 'take responsibility' when in fact an abortion is JUST the opposite. It is AVOIDING responsibility. The RESPONSIBLE thing to do would be AVOID getting pregnant in the first place OR accepting the consequences of ones actions for failing to do so.

Here's where you're missing the point. The concern should be about the possible birth of a child, not about the pregnant woman. A child is not a "consequence" although that's how society, in the past, looked at it regarding a woman's behavior. The strange thing is society looked at children as being so special, yet, frowned upon single mothers. Society always blacklisted "bastards", yet, told us how God created children.

It doesn't take great analytical powers to see the hypocrisy.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

We should decide if we allow a process to continue which would lead to the birth of a child based on the potential situation it might face.

Not necessarily. Their poverty may be temporary or they may be exceptional parents. The other side of the coin is we give aid to countries that prohibit birth control. There needs to be a change in policy. While the living do require aid we definitely don't want to encourage further people born into poverty.

Your two 'points' above contradict each other. You first say we should decide based on the POTENTIAL situation the child might face only to turn around and proclaim that the situation they might face COULD be temporary.

Not quite. The idea is to stop the process that would lead to a child being born with that future.

LMAO... so we should kill the gangbangers? Or are we back to the kill the child for the future they MIGHT POTENTIALLY have to face?

While that certainly makes sense it doesn't make sense to allow the process to continue if it can be stopped.

So you advocate killing the child for convenience sake or the sake of preventing the child from POTENTIALLY facing what YOU have decided is too tough a life?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here's where you're missing the point. The concern should be about the possible birth of a child, not about the pregnant woman.

I have not missed your point... nor have I missed the fact that you keep changing your point. I would love to see what Darla has to think about your above post.

A child is not a "consequence" although that's how society, in the past, looked at it regarding a woman's behavior.

A child is not the consequence of a woman's behavior. It is the consequence of a COUPLE's behavior. You CHOOSE to have sex or not. You CHOOSE to use protection or not.

 

[Bonestorm]

Quite funny how you continue saying 'take responsibility' when in fact an abortion is JUST the opposite. It is AVOIDING responsibility. The RESPONSIBLE thing to do would be AVOID getting pregnant in the first place OR accepting the consequences of ones actions for failing to do so.

Here's the rub of all this nonsense. The anti-abortion crowd is more concerned with regulating female sexuality than with "protecting life."

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here's the rub of all this nonsense. The anti-abortion crowd is more concerned with regulating female sexuality than with "protecting life."

LMAO... no dearest little hack... the PRO LIFE crowd is all about protecting the life of the child. Period.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I have not missed your point... nor have I missed the fact that you keep changing your point. I would love to see what Darla has to think about your above post.



A child is not the consequence of a woman's behavior. It is the consequence of a COUPLE's behavior. You CHOOSE to have sex or not. You CHOOSE to use protection or not.

You're not going to see what Darla has to say about any of this. Didn't we agree not to discuss this subject? Or am I confusing you with another rabidly anti-choice righty I like? Oh, that's right! There are no other rabidly anti-choice righties that I like!

I'm pretty sure we said that to each other in PM the last fight we had over this. I'm not breaking that. It leads nowhere good. I think our agreement has worked out very well.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're not going to see what Darla has to say about any of this. Didn't we agree not to discuss this subject? Or am I confusing you with another rabidly anti-choice righty I like? Oh, that's right! There are no other rabidly anti-choice righties that I like!

I'm pretty sure we said that to each other in PM the last fight we had over this. I'm not breaking that. It leads nowhere good. I think our agreement has worked out very well.

I agree WE should not discuss it, my curiosity was rather on what your thoughts on APPLE's comments were. The "The concern should be about the possible birth of a child, not about the pregnant woman."

That is a different topic all together and would be between the two of you.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I agree WE should not discuss it, my curiosity was rather on what your thoughts on APPLE's comments were. The "The concern should be about the possible birth of a child, not about the pregnant woman."

That is a different topic all together and would be between the two of you.

LOL Shit stirrer!

It's an interesting comment and I have no idea what he means by it.