User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 12:48:17 PM EDT
[#1]
If euthenasia were illegal, what would we do with all the elderly, disabled, and mentally challenged?
the point being, how you treat the most vulnerable in your society speaks volumes about your society. There is no person more vulnerable to the whims of man (and woman) than an unborn child. Who do you want to be? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 12:59:06 PM EDT
[#2]
The amount of hopium and copium and ignorance and pro-forced birth fairy dust in abortion threads makes my tiny brain hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 1:13:16 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Techsan02: The amount of hopium and copium and ignorance and pro-forced birth fairy dust in abortion threads makes my tiny brain hurt. Are you saying that you think it is ok to kill inconvenient people? It's not a new or unique position. It's not even an illogical or unwarranted one if you want to be ultimately pragmatic. If we want to go down that road, let's go far enough to make it really work for the country or at least the people burdened by the inconvenient people. Let's start the list. We have: Unwanted babies Elderly unable to care for themselves. Anybody handicapped enough to not be able to care for themselves Insane Homeless Welfare recipients Felons |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 1:17:01 PM EDT
[#4]
Teach them the 12 points of the scout law
Teach them the western classics Teach them from the king James bible Teach them world religions Teach them arts, math, science, fiscal responsibilities, warfare, and other life skills Shield them from people who hate them or these things till they achieve adult responsibility, even from their neighbors or family if necessary You could do worse I think |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 1:17:40 PM EDT
[#5]
The US needs a jannissary corps.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 1:25:54 PM EDT
[#6]
The title of this thread reveals the logical fallacy that fetuses are "just tissue. they are living human beings. Abortion just normalizes the killing of unwanted human beings. Killing of unwanted human beings is also a core principle of the Nazi's. Abortion is one of the more successful propaganda campaigns ever. The same pro abortion cult keeps moving the bar with the ultimate goal of putting people in the basket of deplorables on the list
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 1:44:10 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: I’ve already stated my position. Have you forgotten? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. That's not an answer. What's the threshold? Like I said, name your contribution. Something. Anything. What are you actively doing? How are you actively helping? Good vibes and happy thoughts. Naturally. Is that not enough to be able to voice an opinion? You can absolutely have and voice an opinion. You just get relegated to the company of those who constantly complain but aren’t willing to get off their asses and actually contribute. You care as long as you know someone else is having to bear the load but walk away as soon as you’re actually able to anything of substance to assist. Nothing but hot air. The red hen cares not a fig for your opinion if you’re unwilling to actually help. Well, we all have our focus areas. I'm not doing much to cure cancer either. Are you busy telling doctors how, when, and where to cure cancer or arguing the ethics of curing cancer? Or telling them that if they aren’t putting their lives on the line to cure cancer, they’re committing murder? For this not being a focus area of yours, you’re certainly focusing on it a lot. But only to tell others what to do and how to do it. Not to actually do anything yourself. I'm just a dude on the internet. You don't know what I'm involved in or aren't, and it doesn't matter in the slightest. Same as I don't know you or what you're involved in, and that also doesn't matter. I've made my arguments based on right and wrong, not an appeal to authority or based on how many volunteer hours I have with the local orphanage. You started by engaging on the merits, then quickly switched to a credential measuring contest. I can only interpret that to mean that you've exhausted any rational arguments you might have had. Not at all. You don’t accept my arguments as rational, nor do I accept your arguments as rational. And I don’t give any credence or respect whatsoever to someone who is willing to put other people’s bodies, time, talent, and treasure on the line for their own personal morals, but isn’t willing to invest any of their own beyond what is legally obligated (taxes). Slacktivists are hypocrites, and hypocrites are morally bankrupt and have no place lecturing others on morality. “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” -James 1:22 As I said, you don't know me or what I do with my life. Nor do I need to give you a resume. All I've seen from your posts in this thread is that the foster care system is terrible and some kids are difficult to adopt out. The implication being that those kids should have been killed as fetuses instead. That's not a reasonable argument and I already explained why. Did you make another argument that I missed? You read into my narratives what you wanted to see, what gave you something to argue against, but I did not state nor imply what you took from it. The foster system is terrible, and some kids are difficult, even impossible to adopt out. Which is why each and every person vehemently arguing in favor of banning abortion should be ready and willing to step up to meet the needs of the children they’re insisting be brought into this world. You already know their parents aren’t going to meet their needs, because they’re willing to terminate them before they’re even born. Don’t demand from other that which you are unwilling to do. There aren’t enough case workers and foster homes and CASAs and adoptive parents for the children in the system right now, much less the millions more you want to add. Notice, that doesn’t mean “KILL THE BABIES!!!” like you seem to want to infer. It means put your money where your mouth is and get involved. Don’t expect people to think you relevant if all you ever do is talk about what everyone else should be doing. You don’t need to give me a resume, but without one, you’re just another hypocrite. Yet, when I ask you if you would support an abortion ban, you refuse to answer. If you support keeping abortion legal, then yes, you are advocating for the killing of those unwanted children. So, do you? I’ve already stated my position. Have you forgotten? I guess I must have overlooked it among all of the concern and hand-wringing about the masses of unwanted pre-adolescent foster kids there will be if mothers are unable to kill their unborn children on demand. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 1:51:42 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: “Be more responsible!” is ivory tower logic if you really, truly believe it will work. And while it’s comfortable to sit in the ivory tower and dictate, it doesn’t offer solutions that work in the real world. If people are concerned about murdering the babies, they should be equally concerned with what happens to those children after they’re born. The birth canal isn’t a finish line. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. It allows you to Scarlet O’Hara your way through the consequences of eliminating abortion, namely the birth of a bunch of children who will get Safe Haven’d (who takes care of them?) or neglected and abused and potentially trafficked, eventually coming into contact with the child welfare system (who takes care of them?). If you don’t think about that, if you aren’t actively involved in improving that, you’re voluntolding others to carry the weight of your morality. Others get to carry that burden while you sit on your laurels handing out thoughts and prayers to the people left to deal with the consequences. It is bizarre that telling people to be responsible for their actions and at the same time to not use murdering their unborn child as a means of being responsible for it, is a controversial position. "You should be responsible for your actions. You should not murder children" "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you doing to help take care of the children of these irresponsible people? You can't tell them to not murder their child if you're not willing to be responsible if they birth it". This does not look like a good position. eta: I realize that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible or smart about anything they do. It, then, becomes (again) what is the least bad answer. Some say killing the baby is the least bad answer. Maybe it is (not so much for the kid) . If we want to use that logic, killing the irresponsible adults along with the fetus would solve a lot more societal problems. “Be more responsible!” is ivory tower logic if you really, truly believe it will work. And while it’s comfortable to sit in the ivory tower and dictate, it doesn’t offer solutions that work in the real world. If people are concerned about murdering the babies, they should be equally concerned with what happens to those children after they’re born. The birth canal isn’t a finish line. Maybe not a finish line, but theybirth canal sure is a dead end for those killed before drawing a breath. I agree with you that the foster and adoption system is bad and needs work. I agree with you that people should volunteer their time, money, and effort to help children and families who need it. But surely the first step is not killing children in the first place. Maybe those kids do well, maybe they do badly. But they can't do anything at all if they are dead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 2:20:10 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: It does when you’re talking about adding potentially millions of children to the DFCS roster without a plan to address who’s going to take care of those children. It won’t. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 2:56:42 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Are you saying that you think it is ok to kill inconvenient people? It's not a new or unique position. It's not even an illogical or unwarranted one if you want to be ultimately pragmatic. If we want to go down that road, let's go far enough to make it really work for the country or at least the people burdened by the inconvenient people. Let's start the list. We have: Unwanted babies Elderly unable to care for themselves. Anybody handicapped enough to not be able to care for themselves Insane Homeless Welfare recipients Felons Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By Techsan02: The amount of hopium and copium and ignorance and pro-forced birth fairy dust in abortion threads makes my tiny brain hurt. Are you saying that you think it is ok to kill inconvenient people? It's not a new or unique position. It's not even an illogical or unwarranted one if you want to be ultimately pragmatic. If we want to go down that road, let's go far enough to make it really work for the country or at least the people burdened by the inconvenient people. Let's start the list. We have: Unwanted babies Elderly unable to care for themselves. Anybody handicapped enough to not be able to care for themselves Insane Homeless Welfare recipients Felons Add illegals to your list |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 3:05:19 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: “Be more responsible!” is ivory tower logic if you really, truly believe it will work. And while it’s comfortable to sit in the ivory tower and dictate, it doesn’t offer solutions that work in the real world. If people are concerned about murdering the babies, they should be equally concerned with what happens to those children after they’re born. The birth canal isn’t a finish line. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. It allows you to Scarlet O’Hara your way through the consequences of eliminating abortion, namely the birth of a bunch of children who will get Safe Haven’d (who takes care of them?) or neglected and abused and potentially trafficked, eventually coming into contact with the child welfare system (who takes care of them?). If you don’t think about that, if you aren’t actively involved in improving that, you’re voluntolding others to carry the weight of your morality. Others get to carry that burden while you sit on your laurels handing out thoughts and prayers to the people left to deal with the consequences. It is bizarre that telling people to be responsible for their actions and at the same time to not use murdering their unborn child as a means of being responsible for it, is a controversial position. "You should be responsible for your actions. You should not murder children" "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you doing to help take care of the children of these irresponsible people? You can't tell them to not murder their child if you're not willing to be responsible if they birth it". This does not look like a good position. eta: I realize that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible or smart about anything they do. It, then, becomes (again) what is the least bad answer. Some say killing the baby is the least bad answer. Maybe it is (not so much for the kid) . If we want to use that logic, killing the irresponsible adults along with the fetus would solve a lot more societal problems. “Be more responsible!” is ivory tower logic if you really, truly believe it will work. And while it’s comfortable to sit in the ivory tower and dictate, it doesn’t offer solutions that work in the real world. If people are concerned about murdering the babies, they should be equally concerned with what happens to those children after they’re born. The birth canal isn’t a finish line. It 100% is the finish line for the 'pro forced birth' crowd. The 'ghetto goblin' that they demanded birth their baby? Well now that ghetto goblin has a disgusting, unruly, undisciplined crotchfruit leeching off muh tax money. A VAST majority of pro forced birthers instantly stop caring (and turn into saying vile, un-Christian things about the child/mother) the moment the umbilical cord is cut. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 4:12:01 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Techsan02: It 100% is the finish line for the 'pro forced birth' crowd. The 'ghetto goblin' that they demanded birth their baby? Well now that ghetto goblin has a disgusting, unruly, undisciplined crotchfruit leeching off muh tax money. A VAST majority of pro forced birthers instantly stop caring (and turn into saying vile, un-Christian things about the child/mother) the moment the umbilical cord is cut. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Techsan02: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. It allows you to Scarlet O’Hara your way through the consequences of eliminating abortion, namely the birth of a bunch of children who will get Safe Haven’d (who takes care of them?) or neglected and abused and potentially trafficked, eventually coming into contact with the child welfare system (who takes care of them?). If you don’t think about that, if you aren’t actively involved in improving that, you’re voluntolding others to carry the weight of your morality. Others get to carry that burden while you sit on your laurels handing out thoughts and prayers to the people left to deal with the consequences. It is bizarre that telling people to be responsible for their actions and at the same time to not use murdering their unborn child as a means of being responsible for it, is a controversial position. "You should be responsible for your actions. You should not murder children" "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you doing to help take care of the children of these irresponsible people? You can't tell them to not murder their child if you're not willing to be responsible if they birth it". This does not look like a good position. eta: I realize that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible or smart about anything they do. It, then, becomes (again) what is the least bad answer. Some say killing the baby is the least bad answer. Maybe it is (not so much for the kid) . If we want to use that logic, killing the irresponsible adults along with the fetus would solve a lot more societal problems. “Be more responsible!” is ivory tower logic if you really, truly believe it will work. And while it’s comfortable to sit in the ivory tower and dictate, it doesn’t offer solutions that work in the real world. If people are concerned about murdering the babies, they should be equally concerned with what happens to those children after they’re born. The birth canal isn’t a finish line. It 100% is the finish line for the 'pro forced birth' crowd. The 'ghetto goblin' that they demanded birth their baby? Well now that ghetto goblin has a disgusting, unruly, undisciplined crotchfruit leeching off muh tax money. A VAST majority of pro forced birthers instantly stop caring (and turn into saying vile, un-Christian things about the child/mother) the moment the umbilical cord is cut. Why stop at birth if your goal is to legalize the killing of ghetto goblin crotchfruit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 4:19:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: KaerMorhenResident]
[#13]
What's ironic is that most of the lives saved by the GOP's efforts to prevent abortions will go on to grow into adults that support candidates who push the abolition of Christian faith and promote abortions.
We would need to abolish univesal suffrage to offset the influx of parasites that would be the direct result of a 100% abortion ban. Again, good Christian women of the type you'd want to have dozens of children are not out there getting abortions. So, what's the negative? More parasites. How do you counter that negative whlle staying within the teachings of Jesus Christ? You abolish universal suffrage and switch to a merit suffrage system. There ya go, you just counterd the negative trade off and now you can be in line with God's intent. 100% Ban on Abortion. 100% Ban on Universal Suffrage. Problem solved, problem staying solved. Abortion is a sin, but restricting who votes is not a sin. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 4:45:08 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Techsan02: Add illegals to your list Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Techsan02: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By Techsan02: The amount of hopium and copium and ignorance and pro-forced birth fairy dust in abortion threads makes my tiny brain hurt. Are you saying that you think it is ok to kill inconvenient people? It's not a new or unique position. It's not even an illogical or unwarranted one if you want to be ultimately pragmatic. If we want to go down that road, let's go far enough to make it really work for the country or at least the people burdened by the inconvenient people. Let's start the list. We have: Unwanted babies Elderly unable to care for themselves. Anybody handicapped enough to not be able to care for themselves Insane Homeless Welfare recipients Felons Add illegals to your list That's why I hate making lists. I always forget someone. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 4:48:03 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Why stop at birth if your goal is to legalize the killing of ghetto goblin crotchfruit? I know, right? It is only logical to not stop at birth. Killing is killing. Some people have convinced themselves it's ok to kill them behind a curtain (in the womb) but for some reason, not OK once they're out and really are a complete and utter inconvenience. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 4:57:09 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KaerMorhenResident: What's ironic is that most of the lives saved by the GOP's efforts to prevent abortions will go on to grow into adults that support candidates who push the abolition of Christian faith and promote abortions. We would need to abolish univesal suffrage to offset the influx of parasites that would be the direct result of a 100% abortion ban. Again, good Christian women of the type you'd want to have dozens of children are not out there getting abortions. So, what's the negative? More parasites. How do you counter that negative whlle staying within the teachings of Jesus Christ? You abolish universal suffrage and switch to a merit suffrage system. There ya go, you just counterd the negative trade off and now you can be in line with God's intent. 100% Ban on Abortion. 100% Ban on Universal Suffrage. Problem solved, problem staying solved. Abortion is a sin, but restricting who votes is not a sin. How can you tell the future political persuasions of someone not yet born? Plenty of good people come from crappy parents and vice versa. And even if you could know with certainty what any one individual's future holds, does that justify condemning them to death over fear of their future actions? Abolitionists in the 1840's and 50's were met with similar arguments about why slaves couldn't possibly be freed yet, and how much of a cultural drain it would be, and how they were really better off being slaves anyway. That argument was wrong then, just like it's wrong now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 4:57:38 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Maybe not a finish line, but theybirth canal sure is a dead end for those killed before drawing a breath. I agree with you that the foster and adoption system is bad and needs work. I agree with you that people should volunteer their time, money, and effort to help children and families who need it. But surely the first step is not killing children in the first place. Maybe those kids do well, maybe they do badly. But they can't do anything at all if they are dead. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. It allows you to Scarlet O’Hara your way through the consequences of eliminating abortion, namely the birth of a bunch of children who will get Safe Haven’d (who takes care of them?) or neglected and abused and potentially trafficked, eventually coming into contact with the child welfare system (who takes care of them?). If you don’t think about that, if you aren’t actively involved in improving that, you’re voluntolding others to carry the weight of your morality. Others get to carry that burden while you sit on your laurels handing out thoughts and prayers to the people left to deal with the consequences. It is bizarre that telling people to be responsible for their actions and at the same time to not use murdering their unborn child as a means of being responsible for it, is a controversial position. "You should be responsible for your actions. You should not murder children" "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you doing to help take care of the children of these irresponsible people? You can't tell them to not murder their child if you're not willing to be responsible if they birth it". This does not look like a good position. eta: I realize that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible or smart about anything they do. It, then, becomes (again) what is the least bad answer. Some say killing the baby is the least bad answer. Maybe it is (not so much for the kid) . If we want to use that logic, killing the irresponsible adults along with the fetus would solve a lot more societal problems. “Be more responsible!” is ivory tower logic if you really, truly believe it will work. And while it’s comfortable to sit in the ivory tower and dictate, it doesn’t offer solutions that work in the real world. If people are concerned about murdering the babies, they should be equally concerned with what happens to those children after they’re born. The birth canal isn’t a finish line. Maybe not a finish line, but theybirth canal sure is a dead end for those killed before drawing a breath. I agree with you that the foster and adoption system is bad and needs work. I agree with you that people should volunteer their time, money, and effort to help children and families who need it. But surely the first step is not killing children in the first place. Maybe those kids do well, maybe they do badly. But they can't do anything at all if they are dead. I would say that the first step is changing attitudes surrounding abortion as a viable birth control option. Outreach to women considering abortion to help them see the alternatives. Perhaps require adoption counseling at all abortion providers. Plan B available OTC is a great thing (although I know some people fuss that it still counts as abortion). Without a change in attitude, a change in the law is meaningless. The first step isn’t not killing the children. It’s creating an environment where that doesn’t seem like a preferred option. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 5:01:30 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: I would say that the first step is changing attitudes surrounding abortion as a viable birth control option. Outreach to women considering abortion to help them see the alternatives. Perhaps require adoption counseling at all abortion providers. Plan B available OTC is a great thing (although I know some people fuss that it still counts as abortion). Without a change in attitude, a change in the law is meaningless. The first step isn’t not killing the children. It’s creating an environment where that doesn’t seem like a preferred option. 100% |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 5:18:08 PM EDT
[#19]
One solution is to eliminate welfare, and instead offer a universal basic income with one caveat, you need to be chemically castrated to receive it.
This should curtail the need for abortion, the births of unwanted children, and humanely cull the human heard of its most useless over time. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 5:25:28 PM EDT
[#20]
In think if some of these people realized how most abortions are performed, they’d have a much different opinion.
I investigated a clinic, one doctor involved and my best witnesses turned out to be employees, even those that were self described ‘pro-choice’. He also sold the ‘by products’ overseas, several which we had intercepted. In this case though, no local or state prosecutors would touch it. But pitched it to the feds, and the irs got indictments for tax evasion. He tried to open another clinic when he got out of prison, but no one would finance him. I heard he went to go work in another clinic, but I think he committed suicide in a bathtub or something. |
|
|
UT, USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 5:42:13 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KaerMorhenResident: Again, good Christian women of the type you'd want to have dozens of children are not out there getting abortions. LOL of course they are. In massive numbers. And justifying it because "their situation was different" and then 2 weeks later they're right back in the anti abortion picket lines in front of the clinic that gave them the abortion in the first place. The forced birth crowd are the biggest damn hypocrites in the planet. Forcing birth while cutting SNAP and education benefits for the kids. The second they're out of the womb, they're on their own. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 5:47:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Robertpistol]
[#22]
Maybe it's less about abortion and more about the culture being degenerate today?
I'm not a holy roller or anything like that, or against partying etc, but the people put up on pedestals by the media are practically all whores and degenerates like rappers and tatted up basketball players who double as criminals in many many cases between games. The Kardashian show's main viewer base was pre-teen girls and teenage girls. They were being taught by the TV that being a whore and having sex with multiple different men every day is normal. As far as Black culture goes, the music studio execs give 99% of the contracts to rappers who go on about murdering people every day. It's the music execs who give them a platform and not someone with actual singing ability. Same with the Kar-Trashian show, it was TV execs in the background who gave the green light to that over something better, then blanketed the airwaves with ads for it. If we didn't have the woke/liberal controlled TV / Entertainment perverting each generation more and more then abortion wouldn't be as common as it is today to begin with. |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 5:56:56 PM EDT
[#23]
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that damn near anything you did with them that wasn't illegal, would be better than being killed.
And, for those who disagree, if your life is so bad, why are you still around? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 5:57:53 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ClangClang: LOL of course they are. In massive numbers. And justifying it because "their situation was different" and then 2 weeks later they're right back in the anti abortion picket lines in front of the clinic that gave them the abortion in the first place. The forced birth crowd are the biggest damn hypocrites in the planet. Forcing birth while cutting SNAP and education benefits for the kids. The second they're out of the womb, they're on their own. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ClangClang: Originally Posted By KaerMorhenResident: Again, good Christian women of the type you'd want to have dozens of children are not out there getting abortions. LOL of course they are. In massive numbers. And justifying it because "their situation was different" and then 2 weeks later they're right back in the anti abortion picket lines in front of the clinic that gave them the abortion in the first place. The forced birth crowd are the biggest damn hypocrites in the planet. Forcing birth while cutting SNAP and education benefits for the kids. The second they're out of the womb, they're on their own. It is HORRIBLE, I tell you. Horrible to expect people to be responsible for their actions and decisions. And if they cannot, death is obviously the best choice. But, again, not the death of the responsible party. The death of the only innocent person is the most convenient. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 6:16:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Naamah]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: It is HORRIBLE, I tell you. Horrible to expect people to be responsible for their actions and decisions. And if they cannot, death is obviously the best choice. But, again, not the death of the responsible party. The death of the only innocent person is the most convenient. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By ClangClang: Originally Posted By KaerMorhenResident: Again, good Christian women of the type you'd want to have dozens of children are not out there getting abortions. LOL of course they are. In massive numbers. And justifying it because "their situation was different" and then 2 weeks later they're right back in the anti abortion picket lines in front of the clinic that gave them the abortion in the first place. The forced birth crowd are the biggest damn hypocrites in the planet. Forcing birth while cutting SNAP and education benefits for the kids. The second they're out of the womb, they're on their own. It is HORRIBLE, I tell you. Horrible to expect people to be responsible for their actions and decisions. And if they cannot, death is obviously the best choice. But, again, not the death of the responsible party. The death of the only innocent person is the most convenient. Unfortunately, the “be responsible” crowd doesn’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea that the ones who should “be responsible” aren’t the ones on the hook when they aren’t. The kids pay the price and the social workers and foster parents clean up the mess left behind. Without personal accountability, there is no responsibility. You can talk until you’re blue in the face about how people should “be responsible”, but who suffers when they aren’t? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 7:06:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: crux]
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Unfortunately, the “be responsible” crowd doesn’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea that the ones who should “be responsible” aren’t the ones on the hook when they aren’t. The kids pay the price and the social workers and foster parents clean up the mess left behind. Without personal accountability, there is no responsibility. You can talk until you’re blue in the face about how people should “be responsible”, but who suffers when they aren’t? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Unfortunately, the “be responsible” crowd doesn’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea that the ones who should “be responsible” aren’t the ones on the hook when they aren’t. The kids pay the price and the social workers and foster parents clean up the mess left behind. Without personal accountability, there is no responsibility. You can talk until you’re blue in the face about how people should “be responsible”, but who suffers when they aren’t? In a non-welfare liberalism society, success or failure is up to the parents and child. They would know from early on no one from the government is coming to bail you out. And as for the child, voluntary aid societies exist and used to be more prevalent before people made government their god. Originally Posted By ClangClang: LOL of course they are. In massive numbers. And justifying it because "their situation was different" and then 2 weeks later they're right back in the anti abortion picket lines in front of the clinic that gave them the abortion in the first place. The forced birth crowd are the biggest damn hypocrites in the planet. Forcing birth while cutting SNAP and education benefits for the kids. The second they're out of the womb, they're on their own. Only in a society that rejects the commands of Jesus |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 7:24:09 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crux: In a non-welfare liberalism society, success or failure is up to the parents and child. They would know from early on no one from the government is coming to bail you out. And as for the child, voluntary aid societies exist and used to be more prevalent before people made government their god. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crux: Originally Posted By Naamah: Unfortunately, the “be responsible” crowd doesn’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea that the ones who should “be responsible” aren’t the ones on the hook when they aren’t. The kids pay the price and the social workers and foster parents clean up the mess left behind. Without personal accountability, there is no responsibility. You can talk until you’re blue in the face about how people should “be responsible”, but who suffers when they aren’t? In a non-welfare liberalism society, success or failure is up to the parents and child. They would know from early on no one from the government is coming to bail you out. And as for the child, voluntary aid societies exist and used to be more prevalent before people made government their god. And in that sort of a system, children died of starvation, neglect, and abuse. That’s not a better death than abortion, and it’s arguably worse. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 7:30:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: I would say that the first step is changing attitudes surrounding abortion as a viable birth control option. Outreach to women considering abortion to help them see the alternatives. Perhaps require adoption counseling at all abortion providers. Plan B available OTC is a great thing (although I know some people fuss that it still counts as abortion). Without a change in attitude, a change in the law is meaningless. The first step isn’t not killing the children. It’s creating an environment where that doesn’t seem like a preferred option. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. It allows you to Scarlet O’Hara your way through the consequences of eliminating abortion, namely the birth of a bunch of children who will get Safe Haven’d (who takes care of them?) or neglected and abused and potentially trafficked, eventually coming into contact with the child welfare system (who takes care of them?). If you don’t think about that, if you aren’t actively involved in improving that, you’re voluntolding others to carry the weight of your morality. Others get to carry that burden while you sit on your laurels handing out thoughts and prayers to the people left to deal with the consequences. It is bizarre that telling people to be responsible for their actions and at the same time to not use murdering their unborn child as a means of being responsible for it, is a controversial position. "You should be responsible for your actions. You should not murder children" "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you doing to help take care of the children of these irresponsible people? You can't tell them to not murder their child if you're not willing to be responsible if they birth it". This does not look like a good position. eta: I realize that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible or smart about anything they do. It, then, becomes (again) what is the least bad answer. Some say killing the baby is the least bad answer. Maybe it is (not so much for the kid) . If we want to use that logic, killing the irresponsible adults along with the fetus would solve a lot more societal problems. “Be more responsible!” is ivory tower logic if you really, truly believe it will work. And while it’s comfortable to sit in the ivory tower and dictate, it doesn’t offer solutions that work in the real world. If people are concerned about murdering the babies, they should be equally concerned with what happens to those children after they’re born. The birth canal isn’t a finish line. Maybe not a finish line, but theybirth canal sure is a dead end for those killed before drawing a breath. I agree with you that the foster and adoption system is bad and needs work. I agree with you that people should volunteer their time, money, and effort to help children and families who need it. But surely the first step is not killing children in the first place. Maybe those kids do well, maybe they do badly. But they can't do anything at all if they are dead. I would say that the first step is changing attitudes surrounding abortion as a viable birth control option. Outreach to women considering abortion to help them see the alternatives. Perhaps require adoption counseling at all abortion providers. Plan B available OTC is a great thing (although I know some people fuss that it still counts as abortion). Without a change in attitude, a change in the law is meaningless. The first step isn’t not killing the children. It’s creating an environment where that doesn’t seem like a preferred option. Weren't you the one who said that convincing people to be more sexually responsible was a lost cause because certain groups of people are incapable of thinking things through and only act in the moment? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 7:38:30 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Spaceboy: I guess we can stop importing third worlders for one Yep. Abort and Import is a horrible population policy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 7:40:59 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Why stop at birth if your goal is to legalize the killing of ghetto goblin crotchfruit? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Techsan02: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. It allows you to Scarlet O’Hara your way through the consequences of eliminating abortion, namely the birth of a bunch of children who will get Safe Haven’d (who takes care of them?) or neglected and abused and potentially trafficked, eventually coming into contact with the child welfare system (who takes care of them?). If you don’t think about that, if you aren’t actively involved in improving that, you’re voluntolding others to carry the weight of your morality. Others get to carry that burden while you sit on your laurels handing out thoughts and prayers to the people left to deal with the consequences. It is bizarre that telling people to be responsible for their actions and at the same time to not use murdering their unborn child as a means of being responsible for it, is a controversial position. "You should be responsible for your actions. You should not murder children" "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you doing to help take care of the children of these irresponsible people? You can't tell them to not murder their child if you're not willing to be responsible if they birth it". This does not look like a good position. eta: I realize that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible or smart about anything they do. It, then, becomes (again) what is the least bad answer. Some say killing the baby is the least bad answer. Maybe it is (not so much for the kid) . If we want to use that logic, killing the irresponsible adults along with the fetus would solve a lot more societal problems. “Be more responsible!” is ivory tower logic if you really, truly believe it will work. And while it’s comfortable to sit in the ivory tower and dictate, it doesn’t offer solutions that work in the real world. If people are concerned about murdering the babies, they should be equally concerned with what happens to those children after they’re born. The birth canal isn’t a finish line. It 100% is the finish line for the 'pro forced birth' crowd. The 'ghetto goblin' that they demanded birth their baby? Well now that ghetto goblin has a disgusting, unruly, undisciplined crotchfruit leeching off muh tax money. A VAST majority of pro forced birthers instantly stop caring (and turn into saying vile, un-Christian things about the child/mother) the moment the umbilical cord is cut. Why stop at birth if your goal is to legalize the killing of ghetto goblin crotchfruit? Don’t even need to get to birth. Pass out abortion pills like candy. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 7:42:06 PM EDT
[#31]
The mines
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 8:30:42 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Techsan02: Don’t even need to get to birth. Pass out abortion pills like candy. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Techsan02: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Techsan02: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. It allows you to Scarlet O’Hara your way through the consequences of eliminating abortion, namely the birth of a bunch of children who will get Safe Haven’d (who takes care of them?) or neglected and abused and potentially trafficked, eventually coming into contact with the child welfare system (who takes care of them?). If you don’t think about that, if you aren’t actively involved in improving that, you’re voluntolding others to carry the weight of your morality. Others get to carry that burden while you sit on your laurels handing out thoughts and prayers to the people left to deal with the consequences. It is bizarre that telling people to be responsible for their actions and at the same time to not use murdering their unborn child as a means of being responsible for it, is a controversial position. "You should be responsible for your actions. You should not murder children" "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you doing to help take care of the children of these irresponsible people? You can't tell them to not murder their child if you're not willing to be responsible if they birth it". This does not look like a good position. eta: I realize that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible or smart about anything they do. It, then, becomes (again) what is the least bad answer. Some say killing the baby is the least bad answer. Maybe it is (not so much for the kid) . If we want to use that logic, killing the irresponsible adults along with the fetus would solve a lot more societal problems. “Be more responsible!” is ivory tower logic if you really, truly believe it will work. And while it’s comfortable to sit in the ivory tower and dictate, it doesn’t offer solutions that work in the real world. If people are concerned about murdering the babies, they should be equally concerned with what happens to those children after they’re born. The birth canal isn’t a finish line. It 100% is the finish line for the 'pro forced birth' crowd. The 'ghetto goblin' that they demanded birth their baby? Well now that ghetto goblin has a disgusting, unruly, undisciplined crotchfruit leeching off muh tax money. A VAST majority of pro forced birthers instantly stop caring (and turn into saying vile, un-Christian things about the child/mother) the moment the umbilical cord is cut. Why stop at birth if your goal is to legalize the killing of ghetto goblin crotchfruit? Don’t even need to get to birth. Pass out abortion pills like candy. Why not after as well? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 9:00:49 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Weren't you the one who said that convincing people to be more sexually responsible was a lost cause because certain groups of people are incapable of thinking things through and only act in the moment? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. It allows you to Scarlet O’Hara your way through the consequences of eliminating abortion, namely the birth of a bunch of children who will get Safe Haven’d (who takes care of them?) or neglected and abused and potentially trafficked, eventually coming into contact with the child welfare system (who takes care of them?). If you don’t think about that, if you aren’t actively involved in improving that, you’re voluntolding others to carry the weight of your morality. Others get to carry that burden while you sit on your laurels handing out thoughts and prayers to the people left to deal with the consequences. It is bizarre that telling people to be responsible for their actions and at the same time to not use murdering their unborn child as a means of being responsible for it, is a controversial position. "You should be responsible for your actions. You should not murder children" "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you doing to help take care of the children of these irresponsible people? You can't tell them to not murder their child if you're not willing to be responsible if they birth it". This does not look like a good position. eta: I realize that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible or smart about anything they do. It, then, becomes (again) what is the least bad answer. Some say killing the baby is the least bad answer. Maybe it is (not so much for the kid) . If we want to use that logic, killing the irresponsible adults along with the fetus would solve a lot more societal problems. “Be more responsible!” is ivory tower logic if you really, truly believe it will work. And while it’s comfortable to sit in the ivory tower and dictate, it doesn’t offer solutions that work in the real world. If people are concerned about murdering the babies, they should be equally concerned with what happens to those children after they’re born. The birth canal isn’t a finish line. Maybe not a finish line, but theybirth canal sure is a dead end for those killed before drawing a breath. I agree with you that the foster and adoption system is bad and needs work. I agree with you that people should volunteer their time, money, and effort to help children and families who need it. But surely the first step is not killing children in the first place. Maybe those kids do well, maybe they do badly. But they can't do anything at all if they are dead. I would say that the first step is changing attitudes surrounding abortion as a viable birth control option. Outreach to women considering abortion to help them see the alternatives. Perhaps require adoption counseling at all abortion providers. Plan B available OTC is a great thing (although I know some people fuss that it still counts as abortion). Without a change in attitude, a change in the law is meaningless. The first step isn’t not killing the children. It’s creating an environment where that doesn’t seem like a preferred option. Weren't you the one who said that convincing people to be more sexually responsible was a lost cause because certain groups of people are incapable of thinking things through and only act in the moment? You’ll not convince them to be more sexually responsible, but you might be able to convince them not to have abortions if you can lay out other reasonable alternatives when they are facing the decision of what to do after the fact. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 9:34:24 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: You’ll not convince them to be more sexually responsible, but you might be able to convince them not to have abortions if you can lay out other reasonable alternatives when they are facing the decision of what to do after the fact. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. It allows you to Scarlet O’Hara your way through the consequences of eliminating abortion, namely the birth of a bunch of children who will get Safe Haven’d (who takes care of them?) or neglected and abused and potentially trafficked, eventually coming into contact with the child welfare system (who takes care of them?). If you don’t think about that, if you aren’t actively involved in improving that, you’re voluntolding others to carry the weight of your morality. Others get to carry that burden while you sit on your laurels handing out thoughts and prayers to the people left to deal with the consequences. It is bizarre that telling people to be responsible for their actions and at the same time to not use murdering their unborn child as a means of being responsible for it, is a controversial position. "You should be responsible for your actions. You should not murder children" "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you doing to help take care of the children of these irresponsible people? You can't tell them to not murder their child if you're not willing to be responsible if they birth it". This does not look like a good position. eta: I realize that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible or smart about anything they do. It, then, becomes (again) what is the least bad answer. Some say killing the baby is the least bad answer. Maybe it is (not so much for the kid) . If we want to use that logic, killing the irresponsible adults along with the fetus would solve a lot more societal problems. “Be more responsible!” is ivory tower logic if you really, truly believe it will work. And while it’s comfortable to sit in the ivory tower and dictate, it doesn’t offer solutions that work in the real world. If people are concerned about murdering the babies, they should be equally concerned with what happens to those children after they’re born. The birth canal isn’t a finish line. Maybe not a finish line, but theybirth canal sure is a dead end for those killed before drawing a breath. I agree with you that the foster and adoption system is bad and needs work. I agree with you that people should volunteer their time, money, and effort to help children and families who need it. But surely the first step is not killing children in the first place. Maybe those kids do well, maybe they do badly. But they can't do anything at all if they are dead. I would say that the first step is changing attitudes surrounding abortion as a viable birth control option. Outreach to women considering abortion to help them see the alternatives. Perhaps require adoption counseling at all abortion providers. Plan B available OTC is a great thing (although I know some people fuss that it still counts as abortion). Without a change in attitude, a change in the law is meaningless. The first step isn’t not killing the children. It’s creating an environment where that doesn’t seem like a preferred option. Weren't you the one who said that convincing people to be more sexually responsible was a lost cause because certain groups of people are incapable of thinking things through and only act in the moment? You’ll not convince them to be more sexually responsible, but you might be able to convince them not to have abortions if you can lay out other reasonable alternatives when they are facing the decision of what to do after the fact. So the people who can't be bothered to use a condom will remember to go out and buy plan B every time? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 9:57:58 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: So the people who can't be bothered to use a condom will remember to go out and buy plan B every time? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. It allows you to Scarlet O’Hara your way through the consequences of eliminating abortion, namely the birth of a bunch of children who will get Safe Haven’d (who takes care of them?) or neglected and abused and potentially trafficked, eventually coming into contact with the child welfare system (who takes care of them?). If you don’t think about that, if you aren’t actively involved in improving that, you’re voluntolding others to carry the weight of your morality. Others get to carry that burden while you sit on your laurels handing out thoughts and prayers to the people left to deal with the consequences. It is bizarre that telling people to be responsible for their actions and at the same time to not use murdering their unborn child as a means of being responsible for it, is a controversial position. "You should be responsible for your actions. You should not murder children" "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you doing to help take care of the children of these irresponsible people? You can't tell them to not murder their child if you're not willing to be responsible if they birth it". This does not look like a good position. eta: I realize that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible or smart about anything they do. It, then, becomes (again) what is the least bad answer. Some say killing the baby is the least bad answer. Maybe it is (not so much for the kid) . If we want to use that logic, killing the irresponsible adults along with the fetus would solve a lot more societal problems. “Be more responsible!” is ivory tower logic if you really, truly believe it will work. And while it’s comfortable to sit in the ivory tower and dictate, it doesn’t offer solutions that work in the real world. If people are concerned about murdering the babies, they should be equally concerned with what happens to those children after they’re born. The birth canal isn’t a finish line. Maybe not a finish line, but theybirth canal sure is a dead end for those killed before drawing a breath. I agree with you that the foster and adoption system is bad and needs work. I agree with you that people should volunteer their time, money, and effort to help children and families who need it. But surely the first step is not killing children in the first place. Maybe those kids do well, maybe they do badly. But they can't do anything at all if they are dead. I would say that the first step is changing attitudes surrounding abortion as a viable birth control option. Outreach to women considering abortion to help them see the alternatives. Perhaps require adoption counseling at all abortion providers. Plan B available OTC is a great thing (although I know some people fuss that it still counts as abortion). Without a change in attitude, a change in the law is meaningless. The first step isn’t not killing the children. It’s creating an environment where that doesn’t seem like a preferred option. Weren't you the one who said that convincing people to be more sexually responsible was a lost cause because certain groups of people are incapable of thinking things through and only act in the moment? You’ll not convince them to be more sexually responsible, but you might be able to convince them not to have abortions if you can lay out other reasonable alternatives when they are facing the decision of what to do after the fact. So the people who can't be bothered to use a condom will remember to go out and buy plan B every time? Sometimes, they do. Sometimes, they don’t. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 10:20:27 PM EDT
[#36]
Back in the day we as a society would let the private sector provide services and resources to people who made bad decisions for the sake of the child's welfare. Of course this approach would be managed by religious orgs that would have limited resources and incentive to correct the bad behaviors that caused the situation to begin with.
Nowadays? The .gov will just continue to mortgage my great grand childrens'' futures in order to buy votes from bad decision makers. Thus incentivising the bad behaviors, indoctrinating the poor child nto the folds of welfare slavery and government dependency. Perpetuating the problem indefinitely. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 10:27:52 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Sometimes, they do. Sometimes, they don’t. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. It allows you to Scarlet O’Hara your way through the consequences of eliminating abortion, namely the birth of a bunch of children who will get Safe Haven’d (who takes care of them?) or neglected and abused and potentially trafficked, eventually coming into contact with the child welfare system (who takes care of them?). If you don’t think about that, if you aren’t actively involved in improving that, you’re voluntolding others to carry the weight of your morality. Others get to carry that burden while you sit on your laurels handing out thoughts and prayers to the people left to deal with the consequences. It is bizarre that telling people to be responsible for their actions and at the same time to not use murdering their unborn child as a means of being responsible for it, is a controversial position. "You should be responsible for your actions. You should not murder children" "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you doing to help take care of the children of these irresponsible people? You can't tell them to not murder their child if you're not willing to be responsible if they birth it". This does not look like a good position. eta: I realize that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible or smart about anything they do. It, then, becomes (again) what is the least bad answer. Some say killing the baby is the least bad answer. Maybe it is (not so much for the kid) . If we want to use that logic, killing the irresponsible adults along with the fetus would solve a lot more societal problems. “Be more responsible!” is ivory tower logic if you really, truly believe it will work. And while it’s comfortable to sit in the ivory tower and dictate, it doesn’t offer solutions that work in the real world. If people are concerned about murdering the babies, they should be equally concerned with what happens to those children after they’re born. The birth canal isn’t a finish line. Maybe not a finish line, but theybirth canal sure is a dead end for those killed before drawing a breath. I agree with you that the foster and adoption system is bad and needs work. I agree with you that people should volunteer their time, money, and effort to help children and families who need it. But surely the first step is not killing children in the first place. Maybe those kids do well, maybe they do badly. But they can't do anything at all if they are dead. I would say that the first step is changing attitudes surrounding abortion as a viable birth control option. Outreach to women considering abortion to help them see the alternatives. Perhaps require adoption counseling at all abortion providers. Plan B available OTC is a great thing (although I know some people fuss that it still counts as abortion). Without a change in attitude, a change in the law is meaningless. The first step isn’t not killing the children. It’s creating an environment where that doesn’t seem like a preferred option. Weren't you the one who said that convincing people to be more sexually responsible was a lost cause because certain groups of people are incapable of thinking things through and only act in the moment? You’ll not convince them to be more sexually responsible, but you might be able to convince them not to have abortions if you can lay out other reasonable alternatives when they are facing the decision of what to do after the fact. So the people who can't be bothered to use a condom will remember to go out and buy plan B every time? Sometimes, they do. Sometimes, they don’t. And they say pro-lifers are the ones with the hopium. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 10:29:01 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Why not after as well? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Techsan02: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Techsan02: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. It allows you to Scarlet O’Hara your way through the consequences of eliminating abortion, namely the birth of a bunch of children who will get Safe Haven’d (who takes care of them?) or neglected and abused and potentially trafficked, eventually coming into contact with the child welfare system (who takes care of them?). If you don’t think about that, if you aren’t actively involved in improving that, you’re voluntolding others to carry the weight of your morality. Others get to carry that burden while you sit on your laurels handing out thoughts and prayers to the people left to deal with the consequences. It is bizarre that telling people to be responsible for their actions and at the same time to not use murdering their unborn child as a means of being responsible for it, is a controversial position. "You should be responsible for your actions. You should not murder children" "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you doing to help take care of the children of these irresponsible people? You can't tell them to not murder their child if you're not willing to be responsible if they birth it". This does not look like a good position. eta: I realize that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible or smart about anything they do. It, then, becomes (again) what is the least bad answer. Some say killing the baby is the least bad answer. Maybe it is (not so much for the kid) . If we want to use that logic, killing the irresponsible adults along with the fetus would solve a lot more societal problems. “Be more responsible!” is ivory tower logic if you really, truly believe it will work. And while it’s comfortable to sit in the ivory tower and dictate, it doesn’t offer solutions that work in the real world. If people are concerned about murdering the babies, they should be equally concerned with what happens to those children after they’re born. The birth canal isn’t a finish line. It 100% is the finish line for the 'pro forced birth' crowd. The 'ghetto goblin' that they demanded birth their baby? Well now that ghetto goblin has a disgusting, unruly, undisciplined crotchfruit leeching off muh tax money. A VAST majority of pro forced birthers instantly stop caring (and turn into saying vile, un-Christian things about the child/mother) the moment the umbilical cord is cut. Why stop at birth if your goal is to legalize the killing of ghetto goblin crotchfruit? Don’t even need to get to birth. Pass out abortion pills like candy. Why not after as well? For the ones you don’t take and support and raise? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 10:43:23 PM EDT
[#39]
Originally Posted By HKocher: Since abortion seems to be the topic of the day, let me pose this question. I think most of us can agree that abortion is disgusting and abstinence or contraception is preferable, but this thread is about reality, not your personal morals. Quick googling informs me that there are 500k - 1,500k abortions a year in the US, while there are 50k - 100k adoptions in the US per year. Feel free to correct my numbers. We can also agree that the adoption process in the US needs reform, but we’re still talking about at best, a surplus of 400k unwanted babies. So what do we do with these children? Force them on the parent(s) that didn’t want them? Force them on pro-lifers? Cheap labor? Child super soldiers? Put them in prison or mental institutions where they will inevitable end up? FWIW, I’ve known many families that adopted, and in almost all of those cases, the child was serious messed up for life due to lack of love and affection in the infant stage. Your argument really lacks reality. Most people will live with the fact it wasn't the sex they wanted and be good parents. A lot of dickwads will pay the child support than choose to be a murderer. My first wife murdered our child rather the have her vanity challenged. We divorced because I could not stay married to the murderer of my child. More people are wanting to adopt than mothers are willing to give the child up for adoption. My BIL spent most of his youth being shuffled from one foster home to another but preferred that to being raised on a stinking reservation with perpetually drunk parents. The Constitution gives us all the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The fine print makes no exceptions. You are willing to betray that right just as any slaveowner ever did. Such a failure to be true to those values is what is tearing our society apart. You are not on the side of freedom. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 11:19:35 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Techsan02: For the ones you don’t take and support and raise? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Techsan02: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Techsan02: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Techsan02: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. It allows you to Scarlet O’Hara your way through the consequences of eliminating abortion, namely the birth of a bunch of children who will get Safe Haven’d (who takes care of them?) or neglected and abused and potentially trafficked, eventually coming into contact with the child welfare system (who takes care of them?). If you don’t think about that, if you aren’t actively involved in improving that, you’re voluntolding others to carry the weight of your morality. Others get to carry that burden while you sit on your laurels handing out thoughts and prayers to the people left to deal with the consequences. It is bizarre that telling people to be responsible for their actions and at the same time to not use murdering their unborn child as a means of being responsible for it, is a controversial position. "You should be responsible for your actions. You should not murder children" "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you doing to help take care of the children of these irresponsible people? You can't tell them to not murder their child if you're not willing to be responsible if they birth it". This does not look like a good position. eta: I realize that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible or smart about anything they do. It, then, becomes (again) what is the least bad answer. Some say killing the baby is the least bad answer. Maybe it is (not so much for the kid) . If we want to use that logic, killing the irresponsible adults along with the fetus would solve a lot more societal problems. “Be more responsible!” is ivory tower logic if you really, truly believe it will work. And while it’s comfortable to sit in the ivory tower and dictate, it doesn’t offer solutions that work in the real world. If people are concerned about murdering the babies, they should be equally concerned with what happens to those children after they’re born. The birth canal isn’t a finish line. It 100% is the finish line for the 'pro forced birth' crowd. The 'ghetto goblin' that they demanded birth their baby? Well now that ghetto goblin has a disgusting, unruly, undisciplined crotchfruit leeching off muh tax money. A VAST majority of pro forced birthers instantly stop caring (and turn into saying vile, un-Christian things about the child/mother) the moment the umbilical cord is cut. Why stop at birth if your goal is to legalize the killing of ghetto goblin crotchfruit? Don’t even need to get to birth. Pass out abortion pills like candy. Why not after as well? For the ones you don’t take and support and raise? More evasion. Can you answer the question? Assuming we agree that it is, why is it wrong to kill a born child of ghetto goblins? Or for then to kill their own children? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 5:52:48 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: And they say pro-lifers are the ones with the hopium. How much interaction have you had with these women? |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:36:24 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: How much interaction have you had with these women? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: And they say pro-lifers are the ones with the hopium. How much interaction have you had with these women? Women who have abortions recreationally now, but would have to find alternatives if abortion was illegal? Hard to say, it doesn't come up in conversation much. But I do know plenty who have managed(at least according to them) to never have one, even with some surprise pregnancies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:45:12 PM EDT
[#43]
Originally Posted By HKocher: Since abortion seems to be the topic of the day, let me pose this question. I think most of us can agree that abortion is disgusting and abstinence or contraception is preferable, but this thread is about reality, not your personal morals. Quick googling informs me that there are 500k - 1,500k abortions a year in the US, while there are 50k - 100k adoptions in the US per year. Feel free to correct my numbers. We can also agree that the adoption process in the US needs reform, but we’re still talking about at best, a surplus of 400k unwanted babies. So what do we do with these children? Force them on the parent(s) that didn’t want them? Force them on pro-lifers? Cheap labor? Child super soldiers? Put them in prison or mental institutions where they will inevitable end up? FWIW, I’ve known many families that adopted, and in almost all of those cases, the child was serious messed up for life due to lack of love and affection in the infant stage. I’m not going to argue for or against abortion, but you are presuming that women will behave the same way if abortion were in fact outlawed, and that the unwanted pregnancy rate would stay the same. What I think would happen is they would be much more attentive to contraception and that unwanted pregnancy rates would drop dramatically. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:50:24 PM EDT
[#44]
If abortion is 100% banned in the US today, what do we do with all the unwanted children idk.. maybe stop creating them? do you commit crimes? no - because there are consequences when fucking without protection or marriage has consequences maybe people will think a little more before and stop expecting the state to kill their offspring for them. |
|
|
|
MD, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 5:34:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Skyler2000]
[#45]
Liberals get abortions; conservatives don't. Banning abortions creates more liberals. Do the math.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 6:30:17 PM EDT
[#46]
Skimming through this thread I came to a realization that, in hindsight, is unsurprising. Pro-baby-murder folks fretting over unwanted kids sound exactly like socialists fretting over how people will starve in a free market. The market will sort itself out naturally and reconnecting actions and consequences instead of taking the evil way out will greatly improve the country culturally and socially and handle the few remaining unwanted children just fine.
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:31:40 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MkTwain: If euthenasia were illegal, what would we do with all the elderly, disabled, and mentally challenged? the point being, how you treat the most vulnerable in your society speaks volumes about your society. There is no person more vulnerable to the whims of man (and woman) than an unborn child. Who do you want to be? @MkTwain If you could, would you have aborted the following people. Karl Marx Fredrick Engels Lennin Trotsky Stalin Mao If not, explain why. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:35:08 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Are you saying that you think it is ok to kill inconvenient people? It's not a new or unique position. It's not even an illogical or unwarranted one if you want to be ultimately pragmatic. If we want to go down that road, let's go far enough to make it really work for the country or at least the people burdened by the inconvenient people. Let's start the list. We have: Unwanted babies Elderly unable to care for themselves. Anybody handicapped enough to not be able to care for themselves Insane Homeless Welfare recipients Felons This is the all “argument” your side, “if you allow this, it will be just like the Reich”. Unless your will to adopt, deal with the massive tax burden, increase in crime and then deal with the impact of them voting us into slavery until the country implodes, or has a plan around/put/that’s avoids it, please share. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:50:34 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 6SJ7GT: The title of this thread reveals the logical fallacy that fetuses are "just tissue. they are living human beings. Abortion just normalizes the killing of unwanted human beings. Killing of unwanted human beings is also a core principle of the Nazi's. Abortion is one of the more successful propaganda campaigns ever. The same pro abortion cult keeps moving the bar with the ultimate goal of putting people in the basket of deplorables on the list That same cult relies on those same unwanted people to vote them into power and to give them enough power for them to be able to put us in says list..So you will understand if my concern for them is lacking. These people gladly make life needlessly difficult,miserables, costly, burdensome, dangerous, and unfree via how they vote. Funny how we are told time and time again that we “owe them” something but yet they have no obligation to not make life worse for everyone else around why again? |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:52:26 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Techsan02: Add illegals to your list @Techsan02 lol, your joking, right? Ever notice those who adore illegals never live amongst them? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
