[marcozombie]

Originally Posted by Murph1329

Another stance that's just as radical as killing babies during partial birth abortions would be to just sterilize a good portion of our society. At least this way there wouldn't be any blood on anyone's hands.

...mmm government santioned sterilization......mmm....big government

Not very conservative-sounding to me.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by marcozombie

No, B is pretty much what they have been trying to do since abortion became a private, protected, medical procedure. Proposed anti-abortion legislation in the last couple of years has taken off. So yes, most conservatives have no problem at all with government releaving you of your personal responsibility to not procreate if you choose not to.

My second statement states that I believe those conservatives are unprincipled. Although if we believe it is the governments job to dabble into areas of morality, it it not far fetched that abortion should pop up.

[custar]

Originally Posted by marcozombie

...mmm government santioned sterilization......mmm....big government

Not very conservative-sounding to me.

To play devil's advocate, a simple sterilization procedure is a one-time hit compared with eighteen years of providing financial support for a child whose parent(s) do not (or cannot not) support the child effectively.

BTW, neither is really a conservative ideal.

custar

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by FreeEnterprise

Obama said he doesn't want his daughters "punished with a baby"...

Notice how everybody ignored this because they don't want to acknowledge Obama's radicalism?

[Murph1329]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Notice how everybody ignored this because they don't want to acknowledge Obama's radicalism?

i still hear crickets

where is marcozombie?


it's not like obama's daughters aren't mentally, physically, or financially unable to raise a child....the abortion would be for 100% selfish reasons. The main purpose being to dodge responsibility. And he wants the tax payer to pay for it HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHHA

[chodeyg]

Zomg radicalism. All because he doesn't think a baby should be considered a consequence.

Edit murph you're a sad dude, talking about crickets after less than 20 minutes? Desperate much?

[Murph1329]

Originally Posted by chodeyg

Zomg radicalism. All because he doesn't think a baby should be considered a consequence.

Edit murph you're a sad dude, talking about crickets after less than 20 minutes? Desperate much?

then he's an idiot

nature invented sex so species can reproduce...that's why it exists, so it's definitly the primary consequence of it. It's not to feel pleasure. Pleasure exists so you keep having sex to reproduce more and more.

consequence
1.
the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring

[Treghc]

Originally Posted by Murph1329

then he's an idiot

nature invented sex so species can reproduce...that's why it exists, so it's definitly the primary consequence of it. It's not to feel pleasure. Pleasure exists so you keep having sex to reproduce more and more.

consequence
1.
the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring

Nature invented parasites to feed from us and often lead us to death. Should we stop providing medicine to those infected?

Nature invented trees to stand tall and reach the most sunlight possible while others found shelter in its tall branches. Should we stop cutting them down to build houses?

Everything we have and everything we do is built off an understanding of nature and that understanding allows us to manipulate it.

If we have two women, A and B, and A remains abstinent while B has an abortion, what's the difference in the end result? Neither one allowed life. The output is the exact same between the two.

What if woman B were 45 years old in a stable family with two kids and was told was unable to birth any more children, yet still became pregnant? You would force her, a woman already caring for and providing for two children to risk her entire life as well as the health of her child she now carries? The chance of health issues for both mother and child are rather significant and you'd rather risk both their lives plus the well being of two already born children? You'd rather risk an entire family's structure than simply act as if she had never been pregnant to begin with?

Leave the decision available. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. If you don't agree with those who do agree with them, then don't marry/date them. Not a hard thing to grasp...

[custar]

Originally Posted by Treghc

Nature invented parasites to feed from us and often lead us to death. Should we stop providing medicine to those infected?

Really? That's the reason nature (Nature?) invented parasites? How inconsiderate of nature.

Originally Posted by Treghc

What if woman B were 45 years old in a stable family with two kids and was told was unable to birth any more children, yet still became pregnant? You would force her, a woman already caring for and providing for two children to risk her entire life as well as the health of her child she now carries? The chance of health issues for both mother and child are rather significant and you'd rather risk both their lives plus the well being of two already born children? You'd rather risk an entire family's structure than simply act as if she had never been pregnant to begin with?

What is this called again? Appeal to emotion? So it is okay for the forty-five year old woman to have a partial birth abortion of a perfectly healthy baby that is not engendering her health and could be delivered without complications for her? See, we can "what if" this 'til the cows come home.

The issue is when human life begins.

custar

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by custar

Really? That's the reason nature (Nature?) invented parasites? How inconsiderate of nature.

swing and a miss

[TurkeyButt]

Originally Posted by Treghc

Nature invented parasites to feed from us and often lead us to death. Should we stop providing medicine to those infected?

Nature invented trees to stand tall and reach the most sunlight possible while others found shelter in its tall branches. Should we stop cutting them down to build houses?

Everything we have and everything we do is built off an understanding of nature and that understanding allows us to manipulate it.

If we have two women, A and B, and A remains abstinent while B has an abortion, what's the difference in the end result? Neither one allowed life. The output is the exact same between the two.

What if woman B were 45 years old in a stable family with two kids and was told was unable to birth any more children, yet still became pregnant? You would force her, a woman already caring for and providing for two children to risk her entire life as well as the health of her child she now carries? The chance of health issues for both mother and child are rather significant and you'd rather risk both their lives plus the well being of two already born children? You'd rather risk an entire family's structure than simply act as if she had never been pregnant to begin with?

Leave the decision available. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. If you don't agree with those who do agree with them, then don't marry/date them. Not a hard thing to grasp...

Since when does nature have the capacity to invent anything? Doesn't invention require thought?

As far as your A and B scenario goes, the end result is not the same. B's output is murder or the taking of a life. That is a negative and in no way equals someone who abstains. It's a choice that has ramifications physically and mentally.

[Treghc]

Originally Posted by TurkeyButt

Since when does nature have the capacity to invent anything? Doesn't invention require thought?

It was a play on his own words.

Nature doesn't invent anything. It simply comes to be from what works best.

As far as your A and B scenario goes, the end result is not the same. B's output is murder or the taking of a life. That is a negative and in no way equals someone who abstains. It's a choice that has ramifications physically and mentally.

Oh really? A kid not being born is a kid not being born. Simple as that. The world feels no difference. Sure, there can be emotional trauma, but if the girl is willing to do it in the first place, you can be assured she will either be just fine or never make the decision to do it again. What's the problem with that?

Originally Posted by custar

What is this called again? Appeal to emotion? So it is okay for the forty-five year old woman to have a partial birth abortion of a perfectly healthy baby that is not engendering her health and could be delivered without complications for her? See, we can "what if" this 'til the cows come home.

It is not a "what if," but rather a real situation that has occurred and will continue to occur for many women. Go ahead and look up some statistic of birth defects and physical health issues for women over 40 and the children they bare. The chance of a child being born with down syndrome in a woman aged around 45 is around 1 in 30. Chance of miscarriage is near 50% at that age as well. Heart problems, kidney problems, physical disfigurement and more are all drastically increased in possibility with an aging mother.

The vast majority of women over the age of 40 already have children anyways (mostly due to this knowledge), especially if married. So my scenario is not merely a "what if" because it still happens quite often. I'd rather let that family decide what to do rather than force them to risk the health of a future child and/or the mother that could lead to much more serious physical and mental ramifications than choosing to not have the baby.

[FreeEnterprise]

Originally Posted by FreeEnterprise

Obama said he doesn't want his daughters "punished with a baby"...

I hope Obama is never "punished" with a grandchild...





It is also hysterical, that Obama's BROTHER lives in a hut, Obama is worth well over 10 million, and his brother has to ask a conservative to fund his sons hospital procedure, because Obama doesn't help his own brother. Typical liberal, give things away that aren't yours and then when it comes time to help your family let someone else do it... Because liberals love to spend OTHER peoples money.


So the next time you hear Obama utter his favorite scripture "we are our brother's keeper" remember, he is a hypocrite, and won't even help HIS OWN BROTHER...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...obama-brother/

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Treghc

It was a play on his own words.

Nature doesn't invent anything. It simply comes to be from what works best.



Oh really? A kid not being born is a kid not being born. Simple as that. The world feels no difference. Sure, there can be emotional trauma, but if the girl is willing to do it in the first place, you can be assured she will either be just fine or never make the decision to do it again. What's the problem with that?



It is not a "what if," but rather a real situation that has occurred and will continue to occur for many women. Go ahead and look up some statistic of birth defects and physical health issues for women over 40 and the children they bare. The chance of a child being born with down syndrome in a woman aged around 45 is around 1 in 30. Chance of miscarriage is near 50% at that age as well. Heart problems, kidney problems, physical disfigurement and more are all drastically increased in possibility with an aging mother.

The vast majority of women over the age of 40 already have children anyways (mostly due to this knowledge), especially if married. So my scenario is not merely a "what if" because it still happens quite often. I'd rather let that family decide what to do rather than force them to risk the health of a future child and/or the mother that could lead to much more serious physical and mental ramifications than choosing to not have the baby.

This isn't very humane by our standards, but they should allow the child to be born first then euthanized if it displays things like autism or trisomy 21.

[Treghc]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

This isn't very humane by our standards, but they should allow the child to be born first then euthanized if it displays things like autism or trisomy 21.

And what about the risk for the woman?

I know you're a family person and strive to see every child brought up by their biological parents. A condition such as pregnancy at the age of 40 and up can severely increase the odds of physical damage and even death for the mother. It's worth risking the life of a vital family member? (Just inquiring, per usual... I know you didn't directly say you were against my point, but I'm pushing the conversation )

Gotta say I do agree with your statement though.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Treghc

And what about the risk for the woman?

I know you're a family person and strive to see every child brought up by their biological parents. A condition such as pregnancy at the age of 40 and up can severely increase the odds of physical damage and even death for the mother. It's worth risking the life of a vital family member? (Just inquiring, per usual... I know you didn't directly say you were against my point, but I'm pushing the conversation )

Gotta say I do agree with your statement though.

I don't know. Its hard to answer having not been in that situation. I had a friend who was pregnant and went through pre eclampsia, however you spell it, which would have killed them both so she had no choice. Anyway, I think those instances are best left for the family to decide. Although I will say that the next generation ought to always come first. If we value life that is.

[Treghc]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

I don't know. Its hard to answer having not been in that situation. I had a friend who was pregnant and went through pre eclampsia, however you spell it, which would have killed them both so she had no choice. Anyway, I think those instances are best left for the family to decide. Although I will say that the next generation ought to always come first. If we value life that is.

I believe that the vast majority of those who have the procedure done people follow your last statement already. It seems like the "pro-life" people attempt to paint those who want the ability to choose as heartless individuals incapable of emotion. The reality is there is no real difference between the people on both sides when it comes to emotional attachment.

Any woman or girl who is contemplating having the procedure done knows it is her child; her own family. They mostly make their decisions based off what they think the future would hold for them. I'd much rather have a planned child that has financial backing and family support than to have an early or unplanned child raised in a household not ready. I want future generations to be productive in advancing even more future generations.

It is best left for the family to decide.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Treghc

I believe that the vast majority of those who have the procedure done people follow your last statement already. It seems like the "pro-life" people attempt to paint those who want the ability to choose as heartless individuals incapable of emotion. The reality is there is no real difference between the people on both sides when it comes to emotional attachment.

Any woman or girl who is contemplating having the procedure done knows it is her child; her own family. They mostly make their decisions based off what they think the future would hold for them. I'd much rather have a planned child that has financial backing and family support than to have an early or unplanned child raised in a household not ready. I want future generations to be productive in advancing even more future generations.

It is best left for the family to decide.

Pro life vs pro choice comes down to s difference in morality that cannot be argued. An emotional thing as you've said. I think that there are times when abortion is logical and necessary, but I do not think it is open to interpretation either. The question is ultimately one of culture. Depending on what you are and what you are surrounded in, the answer will vary and perhaps that is the most logical conclusion. Translated into practical terms, let states decide for themselves through the predominant culture.

[Murph1329]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Pro life vs pro choice comes down to s difference in morality that cannot be argued. An emotional thing as you've said. I think that there are times when abortion is logical and necessary, but I do not think it is open to interpretation either. The question is ultimately one of culture. Depending on what you are and what you are surrounded in, the answer will vary and perhaps that is the most logical conclusion. Translated into practical terms, let states decide for themselves through the predominant culture.

i agree. I'm all for abortions if the mother's life, defined as: if she delievers the baby she'll die, is on the line.

Too many abortions in the US happen for 100% selfish reasons. The "i have 2 kids already and don't want another one" or "i have 2 boys and i want a girl" people that can easily support the baby make me sick. They're horrible people that should rot in hell.

If these types of people are so stupid that they can't figure out how to use a condom, which you can get for free, then maybe we should just serialize them.

[chodeyg]

I agree that it would be nice to prevent abortions from being used as birth control, but considering how TRAP laws have been used to try to regulate it out of existence I wouldn't trust restrictions on abortions.

[marcozombie]

Originally Posted by Murph1329

i agree. I'm all for abortions if the mother's life, defined as: if she delievers the baby she'll die, is on the line.

Too many abortions in the US happen for 100% selfish reasons. The "i have 2 kids already and don't want another one" or "i have 2 boys and i want a girl" people that can easily support the baby make me sick. They're horrible people that should rot in hell.

If these types of people are so stupid that they can't figure out how to use a condom, which you can get for free, then maybe we should just serialize them.

So again, you are all for expanding the saftey net yes? Take care of all those children that otherwise would have been aborted yes?