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

[Damocles]

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.

This paragraph dismisses the life itself or the reality that just before it draws its first breath it is as cognitive as it will be just after. The idea that air is the line is an extreme one.

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?

Again you come to an extreme, one that I noted was interesting. However, the idea that poverty equates to Taysaks disease and therefore we should kill a child that may be born into it is positively repulsive.

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.

Factually incorrect.

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?

Again this is a false dilemma. We've already stated that this is an extreme case and that it would fall in the "save a life" type of extreme category. You basically state that because some kids can have taysaks all abortions at that stage should be allowed. That's just a stupid extreme position based on ignoring what others actually have stated.

 

[Damocles]

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

An equally stupid comment from the other side would sound like this: "The pro-death crowd is more concerned with their own convenience than they are with human life."

 

[apple0154]

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.

There is a greater possibility an unemployed person with a university degree will come out of poverty compared to a high school dropout.

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?

Gangbangers have a place in society, however, forcing them to bear a child as a consequence results in the child suffering the consequences.

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?

The latter option. However (there's always a "however"), the decision is not mine to make for others, just for my progeny.

 

[Damocles]

There is a greater possibility an unemployed person with a university degree will come out of poverty compared to a high school dropout.

So you should force the high school dropout to have an abortion because it is "possible" the child "may" live in poverty? This is inanity.

Gangbangers have a place in society, however, forcing them to bear a child as a consequence results in the child suffering the consequences.

So, we should force them to have an abortion because it is "possible" they may suffer consequences?

The latter option. However (there's always a "however"), the decision is not mine to make for others, just for my progeny.

It isn't your decision at all.

 

[apple0154]

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.

The topic is concerning a potential child and I'm addressing that point.

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.

Suuure. How many men were sent to stay with an "aunt" when they got someone pregnant? Society has always put the blame on the woman.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The strange thing about Conservatives is they espouse responsibility, yet, when it comes to children they fall woefully inadequate. If they insist women bear children then it's their responsibility to ensure those children are properly cared for.

jumping in late here, but where do you get that moronic idea? did I hold a gun to the dumbass teenagers head and tell her to spread em?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Are you, stupid bitch? For all your talk, I seriously doubt if you have pot to piss in, or a window to throw it out of. Folks have always been watched.....how do you think McCarthy was able to come up with his allegations of dirt in the 50's? The problem comes when you step on toes or become so flagrant as to warrant being made an example of, you insignificant flea. Try something. Try anything. I dare you. The fact that you said so, just gave you up. If they weren't watching you, they are now. LOL>

the sad thing about you is, you actually support the government big brother shit. why? what do you have against freedom and being left alone to live your life?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

jumping in late here, but where do you get that moronic idea? did I hold a gun to the dumbass teenagers head and tell her to spread em?

Ah. And here is exactly what DH was talking about. Thanks for the example.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Aborting a fetus is taking personal responsibility.

no it's not. it doesn't matter how you want to slice that shit, abortion is avoiding responsibility for not taking precautions beforehand.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

Once again, this is where you fail; because you want to attribute this to EVERY abortion, as a justification.
It's not as black and white, as you continue to try and make it.

I now have read where you feel it's ok to kill a child, if it's discovered to have a defect that you have determined will affect it's quality of life.
You suck.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

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

what a load of shit. see my above post. did i control the dumbasses that decided to have sex before they were ready for the possible consequences? and darla, fuck off. I see nothing of what you typed that makes a lick of sense.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.



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



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

Why is it that you want to throw "maybe's" into someone elses presentation; but refuse to allow them into your own?

 

[apple0154]

This paragraph dismisses the life itself or the reality that just before it draws its first breath it is as cognitive as it will be just after. The idea that air is the line is an extreme one.

Again you come to an extreme, one that I noted was interesting. However, the idea that poverty equates to Taysaks disease and therefore we should kill a child that may be born into it is positively repulsive.

I wasn't equating poverty to Tay-sachs disease and I doubt women wait until the 8th month to abort due to poverty.

Factually incorrect.

What's incorrect?

Again this is a false dilemma. We've already stated that this is an extreme case and that it would fall in the "save a life" type of extreme category. You basically state that because some kids can have taysaks all abortions at that stage should be allowed. That's just a stupid extreme position based on ignoring what others actually have stated.

Extreme? Are there not politicians saying abortion should be prohibited even in cases of rape/incest? Some folks are continually trying to chip away at abortion so it's important to fight to maintain the current laws. Who can say with any certainty late term abortions would be allowed should Tay-sachs be discovered?

We have to remember there are strange folks out there. Some who believe it's the "will of God" for a child to be born with such debilitating illnesses and on that point considering certain abortion clinics are obliged to show videos of fetuses to those who apply for an abortion I think those who decide to bear an ill child should be required to visit a hospital specializing in children with genetic defects. Let them first hand experience the suffering.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

what a load of shit. see my above post. did i control the dumbasses that decided to have sex before they were ready for the possible consequences? and darla, fuck off. I see nothing of what you typed that makes a lick of sense.

"did I hold a gun to the dumbass teenagers head and tell her to spread em? "

This isn't really a great thing to say when you are trying to convince people you don't resent women and want to control them.

You should try something like this:

"A child is not the consequence of a woman's behavior. It is the consequence of a COUPLE's behavior."

At least it will give you some kind of cover...or else someone might mistake you for a woman-hating creep who says things like the dumb bitch spread her legs the dumb bitch can pay the price about a teenaged girl.

You know, that kind of thing can give the wrong impression. Just my opinion. I'm surreeee those feelings of resentment don't apply to you.

 

[apple0154]

So you should force the high school dropout to have an abortion because it is "possible" the child "may" live in poverty? This is inanity.

Where have I once mentioned force? Get a grip, Damo.

So, we should force them to have an abortion because it is "possible" they may suffer consequences?

See above.

It isn't your decision at all.

Husbands and wives usually make decisions together. Sorry to hear that's not your reality.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

"did I hold a gun to the dumbass teenagers head and tell her to spread em? "

This isn't really a great thing to say when you are trying to convince people you don't resent women and want to control them.

You should try something like this:

"A child is not the consequence of a woman's behavior. It is the consequence of a COUPLE's behavior."

At least it will give you some kind of cover...or else someone might mistake you for a woman-hating creep who says things like the dumb bitch spread her legs the dumb bitch can pay the price about a teenaged girl.

You know, that kind of thing can give the wrong impression. Just my opinion. I'm surreeee those feelings of resentment don't apply to you.

your opinion is too focused on your hatred of misogynists which leads you to assume all too much because you can't tell the difference between teenager and teenagers. 'spread her legs' was used because that's usually how it works. Teenagers was used because it takes two to tango. I'm all for making the dumbassed oversexed boy contribute to being responsible also, but you couldn't see that past your man hating glasses.

 

[apple0154]

jumping in late here, but where do you get that moronic idea? did I hold a gun to the dumbass teenagers head and tell her to spread em?

No but why do you think you have a right to interfere later?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No but why do you think you have a right to interfere later?

interfere in what and what right are you talking about?

 

[apple0154]

Once again, this is where you fail; because you want to attribute this to EVERY abortion, as a justification.
It's not as black and white, as you continue to try and make it.

But it is black and white. People who do not want a child are the last people who should be forced to bear one. It's that simple.

I now have read where you feel it's ok to kill a child, if it's discovered to have a defect that you have determined will affect it's quality of life.
You suck.

I know you don't care about others so your post is no surprise

 

[apple0154]

Why is it that you want to throw "maybe's" into someone elses presentation; but refuse to allow them into your own?

Please be more specific.