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

[Vol8188]

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.

My issue with your stance is that you downplay the act which he does not appear to be doing. When you pretend it’s neither alive nor human and that gut bacteria is not a separate entity, the only possible reason for such absurd stances is to downplay the act.

 

[Septic]

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

No its not. There is a subset of people who will move mountains to have abortions for any reason outlawed, these are largely the same people who have never and will never exert an ounce of energy to make sure affordable healthcare is provided for them post birth.

 

[luthervol]

My issue with your stance is that you downplay the act which he does not appear to be doing. When you pretend it’s neither alive nor human and that gut bacteria is not a separate entity, the only possible reason for such absurd stances is to downplay the act.

I take the counter position to "it's murdering an innocent living human".
My desire for decades has been for society at large to do a better job of reducing the need for abortions.

 

[Vol8188]

I take the counter position to "it's murdering an innocent living human".
My desire for decades has been for society at large to do a better job of reducing the need for abortions.

If it’s neither alive nor human why would you care?

 

[Rickyvol77]

No its not. There is a subset of people who will move mountains to have abortions for any reason outlawed, these are largely the same people who have never and will never exert an ounce of energy to make sure affordable healthcare is provided for them post birth.

Those two things aren’t the same thing though. I can disagree with government program waste or healthcare proposals and still not be “against” kids who would’ve been aborted.

 

[creekdipper]

No.

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

Okay....

 

[creekdipper]

No its not. There is a subset of people who will move mountains to have abortions for any reason outlawed, these are largely the same people who have never and will never exert an ounce of energy to make sure affordable healthcare is provided for them post birth.

You've alleged this pretty emphatically in several different ways. Are you relying upon data, anecdotal evidence, or popular talking points?

My experience and observations lead me to reject your premise based upon the many real-life examples I've encountered.

 

[OHvol40]

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.

If someone is brain dead and their prognosis is zero chance of recovery, you’re ok with keeping them ventilated until they eventually become septic, have multi-system organ failure, or drown in their own fluids?

 

[Septic]

You've alleged this pretty emphatically in several different ways. Are you relying upon data, anecdotal evidence, or popular talking points?

My experience and observations lead me to reject your premise based upon the many real-life examples I've encountered.

The fact that we have unaffordable healthcare in this country and that it isn't limited to adults leads me to reject your rejection.

I'm not even making an argument for a healthcare system that's free - I just want people to stop virtue signaling with the abortion hate when they turn a blind eye to the welfare of post birth children.

This should be a pretty easy premise to follow.

 

[Septic]

If someone is brain dead and their prognosis is zero chance of recovery, you’re ok with keeping them ventilated until they eventually become septic, have multi-system organ failure, or drown in their own fluids?

Seems that's the case, as long as he doesn't have to pay for it (I presume.)

 

[Septic]

Those two things aren’t the same thing though. I can disagree with government program waste or healthcare proposals and still not be “against” kids who would’ve been aborted.

Pretending to care about the welfare of a fetus seems to stop at birth. If "you" put forth the same energy to care for the health of the children as you do for it in utero, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

But that's not the case.



It's funny because it's true.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Pretending to care about the welfare of a fetus seems to stop at birth. If "you" put forth the same energy to care for the health of the children as you do for it in utero, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

But that's not the case.

View attachment 447964

It's funny because it's true.

If you believe that the majority of pro life people don’t support children being taken care of properly or even would try to adopt if they could or were able, you are seriously mistaken.

Just like supporting someone for killing a baby because they “may” grow up to be poor is heinous

 

[Septic]

If you believe that the majority of pro life people don’t support children being taken care of properly or even would try to adopt if they could or were able, you are seriously mistaken.

Just like supporting someone for killing a baby because they “may” grow up to be poor is heinous

I believe they majority of pro life say they support the welfare of children, they may even want it. But the fact that it's generally the same people who fight against universal healthcare tells me they aren't putting their money where their mouth is.

Let me ask you this, would you trade an overturn of Roe v Wade if in doing so - the result was a 45% increase in the crime rate?

Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics

You don't have to answer here, you don't even have to agree with the results of the study. Be honest with yourself.

 

[Rickyvol77]

I believe they majority of pro life say they support the welfare of children, they may even want it. But the fact that it's generally the same people who fight against universal healthcare tells me they aren't putting their money where their mouth is.

Let me ask you this, would you trade an overturn of Roe v Wade if in doing so - the result was a 45% increase in the crime rate?

Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics

You don't have to answer here, but be honest with yourself.

That’s made up bs and projection as an excuse to kill predominantly poor black babies.

But to your answer if you believe that being against universal healthcare means you want babies to die. That’s ridiculous. Universal healthcare doesn’t fix anything and is a waste of resources

 

[Septic]

That’s made up bs and projection as an excuse to kill predominantly poor black babies.

But to your answer if you believe that being against universal healthcare means you want babies to die. That’s ridiculous. Universal healthcare doesn’t fix anything and is a waste of resources

I didn't say or suggest that not wanting universal healthcare meant you wanted "babies to die", I'm suggesting that if you don't want it you are at best indifferent to the childs well being beyond birth. Which is counter to the signals being screamed while in utero. I offered no commentary of the practicality of the costs associated with universal healthcare.

Talk is cheap.

You ought to look into the statistical analysis presented in the study, it doesn't speak to race at all. But there is a very strong correlation between abortion rates and crime rates. In both directions.

 

[luthervol]

If it’s neither alive nor human why would you care?

Because it is traumatic for the mother.
I'm looking for the utopia where every pregnancy is wanted, every wanted pregnancy goes full term, and every child is born into a loving family in a position to raise a child properly.

I know, I know.....but at least we should be making legitimate efforts to move in that direction.

 

[creekdipper]

The fact that we have unaffordable healthcare in this country and that it isn't limited to adults leads me to reject your rejection.

I'm not even making an argument for a healthcare system that's free - I just want people to stop virtue signaling with the abortion hate when they turn a blind eye to the welfare of post birth children.

This should be a pretty easy premise to follow.

You continue to make charges without providing data. What makes you think that most people who advocate against abortion do little or nothing to help mothers with necessities? You have leaped to making a diatribe about "universal health care" and making a lot of assumptions about pro-life people. Frankly, it seems that you are creating a straw person to attack in order to try to brand abortion opponents as being hypocrites and those who don't care about the babies or their families. All we've seen to back that up is liberal talking points.

It would be far easier to paint advocates of abortion as being selfish people who would prefer that these "burdens upon society" just go away. But that would be just as disingenuous as demonizing abortion opponents.

 

[Septic]

You continue to make charges without providing data. What makes you think that most people who advocate against abortion do little or nothing to help mothers with necessities? You have leaped to making a diatribe about "universal health care" and making a lot of assumptions about pro-life people. Frankly, it seems that you are creating a straw person to attack in order to try to brand abortion opponents as being hypocrites and those who don't care about the babies or their families. All we've seen to back that up is liberal talking points.

It would be far easier to paint advocates of abortion as being selfish people who would prefer that these "burdens upon society" just go away. But that would be just as disingenuous as demonizing abortion opponents.

Like I said, it's an easy premise to follow. Accept it or don't, that's up to you. In the mean time I'll keep looking for the Bible thumping crowds that picket Planned Parenthood to picket BCBS, Humana and UHC for charging the exorbitant rates that make healthcare for children completely unaffordable for the very ones who need to utilize the services of....



Planned Parenthood.

 

[creekdipper]

Like I said, it's an easy premise to follow. Accept it or don't, that's up to you. In the mean time I'll keep looking for the Bible thumping crowds that picket Planned Parenthood to picket BCBS, Humana and UHC for charging the exorbitant rates that make healthcare for children completely unaffordable for the very ones who need to utilize the services of....



Planned Parenthood.

Oh, you've certainly made it easy to follow the "premise" put forth...and your apparent biases that have led to that premise.

We'll just have to conclude that you have no actual data to back your narrative in the absence of any such data...and that no evidence will be forthcoming.

 

[EasternVol]

If you believe that the majority of pro life people don’t support children being taken care of properly or even would try to adopt if they could or were able, you are seriously mistaken.

Just like supporting someone for killing a baby because they “may” grow up to be poor is heinous

I'd like to see a Venn diagram of those who want to restrict or eliminate early term abortion and those who oppose (government) social welfare programs.

 

[creekdipper]

I'd like to see a Venn diagram of those who want to restrict or eliminate early term abortion and those who oppose social welfare programs.

So would I.

I mean, "oppose social wefare programs" involves a vast network of programs. Do you really think there exists a significant group of people who oppose all help, including public health clinics, private charities, faith-based organizations, housing shelters, food banks, clothes closets, job training, etc.?

I know a lot of pro-life people, and I've never met a single person who "opposed social welfare systems," even some that are overseen by the federal government. In fact, nearly all have been part of the broad social welfare network to some extent from financially supporting to staffing to leadership positions or multiple roles. And I have seen the fruits of those labors in some instances.

 

[Rickyvol77]

I'd like to see a Venn diagram of those who want to restrict or eliminate early term abortion and those who oppose social welfare programs.

That’s a broad and false idea though. I want truly needy people to get help they need to get out of their situations. Do I believe in pouring taxpayer money into KARM for example where a few people make millions of dollars while no one really gets that much help and they attract felons and sex offenders From other states who flock or get bus tickets to Knoxville for karm to use them once and toss them away? No. Does that make me “against social welfare services” of course not.

 

[RikidyBones]

"Well you don't want socialized healthcare so we should be allowed to kill babies" is such a dumb, incoherent argument.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

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.

Let me ax you a couple of questions. And I am not really taking a stand here... but you brought up a couple of the more interesting aspects that I think highlight the hypocrisy of even the pro life side. 1) If abortion is murder, why should exceptions be made in the case of rape or incest? Are not those babies innocent as well? You pointed to the 'moral high ground'. I for one claim no such thing, because all of this is between the killer and God; I just don't want to pay for it... in any circumstance. 2) You point to the raising of the 'unwanted' child. I think this highlights a fundamental problem with America in general in that it is a shirk of responsibility. If YOU made the baby, why should someone else raise it under ANY circumstance? That really is a catch 22 in that low income people create more babies than they can afford so we all end up paying for them regardless. So if you really want to start a firefight, why not start a mandatory sterilization program after abortion number 3? Those people obviously have no self control nor means to support the humans that their hormones continually produce. LOL This should be good.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

No its not. There is a subset of people who will move mountains to have abortions for any reason outlawed, these are largely the same people who have never and will never exert an ounce of energy to make sure affordable healthcare is provided for them post birth.

There are some no doubt, but to say it constitutes a majority of anti abortion folks is a stretch.