We Finance Barbarism

I have a heart. I also have a soul. ANd a brain. I don't believe that I have the right to tell a woman that she must carry a fetus to term. You believe you do. Do you also think that we should continue to not provide services for said woman to raise a child? Or do you also want to cut Welfare as well?
 
zitothebrave said:
I have a heart. I also have a soul. ANd a brain. I don't believe that I have the right to tell a woman that she must carry a fetus to term. You believe you do. Do you also think that we should continue to not provide services for said woman to raise a child? Or do you also want to cut Welfare as well?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you do.

You do not value the life of the child in womb over the woman's liberty to have that life taken.

I am for various entities assisting/providing services to mother and child: hospital/medical assistance, the mother herself and family providing, local community assistance, churches and charities, and there's a role for government in that as well.
 
I don't view that fetus as being equivalent to myself. I know you find that callous. But I don't particuarly care. Unless you're willing to allocate enough funds to raise a child until they're like 16 then you really cannot IMO force a woman to carry a child to term. Which would be allocating billions if not trillions of dollars to force women to raise children they don't want.
 
Money is absolutely a big part of it. It's not the only thing. But if you're not willing to foot the bill for it, then you shouldn't have a say in it, IMO.
 
We have a say in all manner of things we don't individually foot the entire bill for. That seems a cop-out to me. We are providing aren't we, free contraceptives? Aren't we mandating that insurance plans include them? Or am I mixed up on that? So, we are providing the means for the overwhelming number of those seeking an abortion to have not gotten pregnant. That ought to count for something. And again, I'm all for all spheres to be involved in promoting and helping sustain life.
 
But most of things cannot ruin someone's life. WE have some studies that show a correlation (I know doesn't equal causation) between Abortion and crime rates. I cye.an point to a number of reasons it's not a bad idea.

I get why you're against it, we don't see even remotely eye to eye. I at least attempt to have sincere discussion, you don't.
 
zitothebrave said:
But most of things cannot ruin someone's life. WE have some studies that show a correlation (I know doesn't equal causation) between Abortion and crime rates. I cye.an point to a number of reasons it's not a bad idea.

I get why you're against it, we don't see even remotely eye to eye. I at least attempt to have sincere discussion, you don't.
Click to expand...

So what is it that we just had?
 
"We are a culturally diverse country with a large and spread out population with a historical love of individual freedom. I think it is worth thinking about how other cultures and nations handle this issue, yet not naively think we are talking apples to apples.'
 
sturg33 said:
Zito has already proven how hypocritical he is with his laughable positions... No reason to take him seriously
Click to expand...

Like the person who wants to limit the government as much as possible, but also believes that abortion should be illegal. Despite the proper state's rights folk stance that each state should decide. Granted I'm sure you'll flip flop in your response to this because you've already changed course on this a half dozen times in the past few years anyway.
 
BedellBrave said:
So what is it that we just had?
Click to expand...

Don't kid yourself Bedell, that wasn't gonna last before you brought up some snarky infanticide comment of some sort as you always do. Rather than discussing the issue you want to demonize the issue, and that's fine, it's your right, but I'm not gonna partake in that debate.
 
zitothebrave said:
Like the person who wants to limit the government as much as possible, but also believes that abortion should be illegal. Despite the proper state's rights folk stance that each state should decide. Granted I'm sure you'll flip flop in your response to this because you've already changed course on this a half dozen times in the past few years anyway.
Click to expand...

Do what now?

Yeah, I generally believe in laws that protect people's rights to life.

Having said all that, it shouldn't be a federal law. It should be left to the states, like murder is (which abortion is)
 
sturg33 said:
Do what now?

Yeah, I generally believe in laws that protect people's rights to life.

Having said all that, it shouldn't be a federal law. It should be left to the states, like murder is (which abortion is)
Click to expand...

But it's not murder

"the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another"

It's only murder if it's illegal. That's the rub. And who's to say that fetus is human? If a woman has a miscarriage should she be charged with involuntary manslaughter? I could keep going on here but I think you can follow where I'm going.
 
zitothebrave said:
But it's not murder

"the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another"

It's only murder if it's illegal. That's the rub. And who's to say that fetus is human? If a woman has a miscarriage should she be charged with involuntary manslaughter? I could keep going on here but I think you can follow where I'm going.
Click to expand...

Yes... you're going down a very weak technicality argument.

Since the majority of the left is unwilling to determine when the living being inside the womb is in fact "living" (just typing that out seems ridiculous), I'd say it's fair for me to say it's living from the get go.
 
sturg33 said:
Yes... you're going down a very weak technicality argument.

Since the majority of the left is unwilling to determine when the living being inside the womb is in fact "living" (just typing that out seems ridiculous), I'd say it's fair for me to say it's living from the get go.
Click to expand...

It is living, but it's entirely dependent upon it's mother for existence. Once outside the womb there are ways to raise the child. Inside the womb there are none. To me it's perfectly fine first trimester, second it requires more thought and care (and you've gone 3 months, how have you not noticed anything yet), and third it should be 100% illegal unless the mothers physical health is really in danger (read she'll die)
 
zitothebrave said:
It is living, but it's entirely dependent upon it's mother for existence. Once outside the womb there are ways to raise the child. Inside the womb there are none. To me it's perfectly fine first trimester, second it requires more thought and care (and you've gone 3 months, how have you not noticed anything yet), and third it should be 100% illegal unless the mothers physical health is really in danger (read she'll die)
Click to expand...

Isn't it dependent on the mother in the third trimester?
 
sturg33 said:
Isn't it dependent on the mother in the third trimester?
Click to expand...

3rd trimester is weeks 28 to birth, we've had Premature babies survive after 21 weeks of gestation. After some point in the second trimester, the child would be able to survive outside of the womb even if extreme medical care is needed. Before week 22 there's basically a 0% chance of any real survival.
 
57Brave said:
"We are a culturally diverse country with a large and spread out population with a historical love of individual freedom. I think it is worth thinking about how other cultures and nations handle this issue, yet not naively think we are talking apples to apples.'
Click to expand...

How to handle what problem exactly? The weapons of the abortionists? Might not be a bad idea to tax the crap out of D&C equipment, saline solutions, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top