I've hesitated to post this thread, but someone has to speak out.

[deezvols]

You're conflating my point in order to justify your position, please stop. I've not made the argument that it's "OK to kill them", this is a position you've ginned up for me that you clearly feel supports a presupposition that you're right and I'm wrong.

The moral high ground perpetuated by the anti-abortion crowd rings hollow when the care about the welfare of the child seems to largely cease immediately after birth. This is the entirety of my point, stop trying to make up an argument for me because I've pointed out something that's inconvenient for you to rationalize.

You’ve proven that your incoherent ramblings will continue regardless. Enjoy your fantasy land. I’ll lump you in with other prominent trolls in the forum and stop feeding the trolls.

 

[Septic]

Do you believe you're morally obligated to care for anyone who you do not believe should be put down? I imagine neither of us support putting down the homeless or mentally ill, yet neither of us are taking them in off the streets. Because you seem to have a different standard when it comes to abortion.

I also imagine if the parties were seeking compromise the right would gladly increase increased spending to lower the cost of adoption in return for increased restrictions no abortions.

What do you think my "standard" for acceptable abortion is?

Here, let me help so you don't have to guess or invent a position for me. I believe it's a matter of a private decision between a woman and her physician prior to 20 weeks. I do not support abortion past that save for rape, incest or mothers life.

That position however doesn't preclude me from pointing out that the "under no circumstances" crowd doesn't hold a moral high ground. When they put the same energy into caring for the unwanted children post birth, then they'll have earned the right to lecture.

 

[Septic]

You’ve proven that your incoherent ramblings will continue regardless. Enjoy your fantasy land. I’ll lump you in with other prominent trolls in the forum and stop feeding the trolls.

LOL, you do that.

I'm not going to let you gin up arguments and define my beliefs - best for you to just move along, light work.

 

[Vol8188]

That position however doesn't preclude me from pointing out that the "under no circumstances" crowd doesn't hold a moral high ground. When they put the same energy into caring for the unwanted children post birth, then they'll have earned the right to lecture.

Sure it doesn't preclude you from pointing that out. But it's not relevant either. Once again, you do not support putting the homeless down; but you're also not taking them in off the street. So it seems hypocritical to judge the right for not wanting abortions to occur while also not adopting all the babies or paying for all the needs of every baby.

How is that not hypocritical of you?

 

[Septic]

Sure it doesn't preclude you from pointing that out. But it's not relevant either. Once again, you do not support putting the homeless down; but you're also not taking them in off the street. So it seems hypocritical to judge the right for not wanting abortions to occur while also not adopting all the babies or paying for all the needs of every baby.

How is that not hypocritical of you?

I'm trying to figure out how you've come to the conclusion that me believing that abortion before sentience (20 weeks) is the same as murdering people who don't have a home who've already achieved sapience.

You're equivocating vastly different circumstances, to be hypocritical - we'd need to be contrasting and comparing like circumstances.

 

[Rickyvol77]

You're conflating different circumstances, there's a difference and distinction between an unconscious person and a undeveloped fetus. I simply asked if a zygote was sentient.

If people felt as strongly about the welfare of unwanted children outside of the womb as they do about the unborn fetus still in it, there wouldn't be a problem. Instead, the same groups of people who rail against the immorality of abortion largely disappear when it's time to help prop these unwanted kids up.

Forgive me if I'm not impressed by the moral high ground you and your ilk claim to hold.

That’s a liberal false equivalency talking to suggest people who are pro life “don’t care” about children outside the womb.

 

[Vol8188]

I'm trying to figure out how you've come to the conclusion that me believing that abortion before sentience (20 weeks) is the same as murdering people who don't have a home who've already achieved sapience.

You're equivocating vastly different circumstances, to be hypocritical - we'd need to be contrasting and comparing like circumstances.

The basis is the same.

“If you oppose abortion you must financially support them”

“If you oppose euthanizing the homeless you must financially support them”

Both are poor arguments.

The women who have abortions beyond 20 weeks, should I be obligated to pay for their child’s upkeep if it’s in an area that does not allow an abortion after 20 weeks?

 

[deezvols]

LOL, you do that.

I'm not going to let you gin up arguments and define my beliefs - best for you to just move along, light work.

Projection seems to be your strong suit

 

[C-south]

What do you think my "standard" for acceptable abortion is?

Here, let me help so you don't have to guess or invent a position for me. I believe it's a matter of a private decision between a woman and her physician prior to 20 weeks. I do not support abortion past that save for rape, incest or mothers life.

That position however doesn't preclude me from pointing out that the "under no circumstances" crowd doesn't hold a moral high ground. When they put the same energy into caring for the unwanted children post birth, then they'll have earned the right to lecture.

Adopted 2 and working on a 3rd.

 

[85SugarVol]

I wouldn't say plenty, as only an occasional case or two comes to light over the years. And even those have been even more rare since the reinstatement of the death penalty. And I would agree those are too many, but would not agree the answer is do away with the death penalty, but to remedy the possibility of sentencing someone who is innocent in capital cases.

My mind can be changed on this. I have a pretty healthy distrust of our legal/justice system. I sure as heck am not interested in getting tangled up in it.

Short of HD video, I’m not sure how.

 

[85SugarVol]

???? What's this "subject to" all about? Born humans will still be subject to being executed, too. Just not by the state, just as that same state would no longer condone abortions.

If your point is that both will still take place under different auspices and by different agencies, that much seens to be agreed upon by everyone. Illegal activities still go on despite laws prohibiting them. Is that your point?

No.

There can be no State sponsored execution, if the State is not legally allowed to execute.

 

[Septic]

The basis is the same.

“If you oppose abortion you must financially support them”

“If you oppose euthanizing the homeless you must financially support them”

Both are poor arguments.

The women who have abortions beyond 20 weeks, should I be obligated to pay for their child’s upkeep if it’s in an area that does not allow an abortion after 20 weeks?

It's not the same for the reasons I outlined; fortunately - no one has made those arguments.

All I'm saying is that if you're not willing to fight with the same energy for the welfare of a born child, you lose the right to lecture others about the welfare of the unborn child.

Creating strawmen about the homeless isn't a winning move.

 

[Septic]

Projection seems to be your strong suit

And misrepresenting others either intentionally or unintentionally, seems to be yours.

 

[deezvols]

And misrepresenting others either intentionally or unintentionally, seems to be yours.

Thanks for proving my point further

 

[Vol8188]

It's not the same for the reasons I outlined; fortunately - no one has made those arguments.

All I'm saying is that if you're not willing to fight with the same energy for the welfare of a born child, you lose the right to lecture others about the welfare of the unborn child.

Creating strawmen about the homeless isn't a winning move.

No two comparisons are ever 100% the same. But the principal still remains.

If you’re not willing to financially provide for another human, can you still oppose their abortion/euthanasia?

You seem to have a double standard. You claim to oppose abortion after 20 weeks. How many kids have you adopted? Or does that standard not apply to you

Also important to note that you mentioning exceptions for rape/incest after 20 weeks is nonsensical. We live in a world full of IUDs and morning after pills. Why would anyone need any abortion after 20 weeks due to rape or incest

 

[Septic]

No two comparisons are ever 100% the same. But the principal still remains.

If you’re not willing to financially provide for another human, can you still oppose their abortion/euthanasia?

You seem to have a double standard. You claim to oppose abortion after 20 weeks. How many kids have you adopted? Or does that standard not apply to you

Also important to note that you mentioning exceptions for rape/incest after 20 weeks is nonsensical. We live in a world full of IUDs and morning after pills. Why would anyone need any abortion after 20 weeks due to rape or incest

I haven't adopted any kids, but I'm not the one complaining about abortion or lecturing others on the morality of it either - that's you.

So, what specifically am I being hypocritical about?

Sorry, you don't get to strawman and then accuse me of hypocrisy when I don't play in the sandbox you've created.

 

[Septic]

Thanks for proving my point further

 

[luthervol]

My point is sentience can’t be used as an argument for it “not being murder” when no one in their right mind would suggest killing unconscious people or those in a coma the same way we kill babies.
Abortion is a terrible excuse for immature people to avoid the consequences of their actions.
“My body my choice”? Your choice was sex….. live with it.

Sure it can. A person in a coma or unconscious has already achieved personhood by having lived through a period of sentience.
A zygote is absolutely nowhere near the point of a sentient human.

 

[luthervol]

No joke but most of the leftoids I know in-person are A-OK with euthanizing/pulling the plug on people in vegetative states. It's heinous but at least they're consistent in their disdain for human life.

How long should a person in a vegetative state be kept alive, and more importantly, at whose expense?

 

[luthervol]

Honeslty, I think that’s fair for the most part. I would support a line closer to a heartbeat, but accept there’s gray area.

My issue was more with the other posters pretending it’s not alive, and it’s not human.

lol....
So you accept "I'm not sure, I suppose it would depend on your definition of alive and human."
I accept that also.
So look at that.......we agree.
We just obviously have different definitions of alive and human.
Which was sort of the point of our whole debate from the beginning.

 

[Vol8188]

lol....
So you accept "I'm not sure, I suppose it would depend on your definition of alive and human."
I accept that also.
So look at that.......we agree.
We just obviously have different definitions of alive and human.
Which was sort of the point of our whole debate from the beginning.

That part isn’t even debatable. Obviously alive. Obviously human.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

But unborn humans will still be subject to abortion.

Right. And even though murder is illegal, you are still subjected to it if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. As an aside.... 153 so far this year in Chicago. Way to go Beetlejuice!

 

[luthervol]

Sure. I would agree it’s not sentient. Do we agree it is both alive and human?

I'm not sure, I suppose it would depend on your definition of alive and human.

beyond that - I'm not sure that makes much different though, sentience is where I draw the line. I abhor abortion, but my feeling shouldn't get in the way of a healthcare decision between a woman and her physician.

Honeslty, I think that’s fair for the most part. I would support a line closer to a heartbeat, but accept there’s gray area.

My issue was more with the other posters pretending it’s not alive, and it’s not human.

lol....
So you accept "I'm not sure, I suppose it would depend on your definition of alive and human."
I accept that also.
So look at that.......we agree.
We just obviously have different definitions of alive and human.
Which was sort of the point of our whole debate from the beginning.

That part isn’t even debatable. Obviously alive. Obviously human.

What am I missing here?

 

[Vol8188]

What am I missing here?

That’s not the part I was proclaiming to be fair.

 

[luthervol]

That’s not the part I was proclaiming to be fair.

That's fine. My views and positions on abortion are pretty much the exact same as Septic's, so I guess you view them as fair for the most part.