Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 64
  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    48
    Reputation
    37
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    Guys in MGTOW act like they never heard of disabilities, mental illnesses, handicaps, or illnesses. Everyone wasnít born normal. Some of us was born with genetic abnormalities

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    48
    Reputation
    37
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    Quote Originally Posted by Faramir View Post
    Yes, with planning and hard work, most things (although not all things, obviously) are possible.

    I suspect that with research and planning, you could find a way to live for cheap in a rural or small town area, away from the people you speak of.

    But most people don't want to plan nor do they want to work hard/smart.
    It is easier for me financially to take combat courses and physically train myself to fight. I did that already.
    It cost me around $10,000.

    In order for me to move, it would cost me around $2,000,000. That includes being retrained for another career, buying a house, establishment of a new relationship with a specialist who treats my rare medical disabilities ( Iím basically mentally retarded but can function like a normal adult when it comes to working a job and defending myself, I canít socialize like a regular person, because I have zero
    patience with damn near all people I meet and Iím conformational)

    I know you guys canít understand what I go through because only a handful of people on this planet have this kind of genetic disorder.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    48
    Reputation
    37
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    The only people who understand me are some scientists and law enforcement officials who specialize in forensic psychology

  4. #44
    Senior Member DocDJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    115
    Reputation
    294
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    I think abortion is one of the greatest stains on humanity. I appreciate that strict abortion laws can have huge effects with the increase in back street abortionists.
    I recognise that a lot of women believe it to be their right to choose but - and i say this respectfully - once a sperm and egg combine and sit themselves as one (conception if you want to call it that) the woman's body now harbours a life that is separate to her own. That life may be wholly reliant upon the woman for its survival but a separate life all the same.

    A life that doesn't get to choose if it lives or dies. At a moral level it deserves some rights.

    I am not entirely against pro choice however. i think if a woman has been raped she should be free to choose, or if the baby is found to be in some way disabled and the mother choose to abort out of an act of love.

    I also appreciate that to implement pro-life legislation can be easier said than done.

    But aborting a child due to something like failed contraception is obscene.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    3,701
    Reputation
    11257
    Type
    Ghosted by law and order.

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    Quote Originally Posted by DocDJ View Post
    I think abortion is one of the greatest stains on humanity. I appreciate that strict abortion laws can have huge effects with the increase in back street abortionists.
    I recognise that a lot of women believe it to be their right to choose but - and i say this respectfully - once a sperm and egg combine and sit themselves as one (conception if you want to call it that) the woman's body now harbours a life that is separate to her own. That life may be wholly reliant upon the woman for its survival but a separate life all the same.

    A life that doesn't get to choose if it lives or dies. At a moral level it deserves some rights.

    I am not entirely against pro choice however. i think if a woman has been raped she should be free to choose, or if the baby is found to be in some way disabled and the mother choose to abort out of an act of love.

    I also appreciate that to implement pro-life legislation can be easier said than done.

    But aborting a child due to something like failed contraception is obscene.
    Using lefty logic, why would a white supremist like myself be against abortion when it's mostly blacks that are aborted at Planned Parenthood? Especially knowing that Planned Parenthood's roots go back to Margret Sanger, eugenics, and the eradication of blacks from society, the same people lefties support and get their ideology from.

    There's nothing that isn't hypocritical and slanderous in everything they say and do! Not a damn thing!
    Freedom is what people are willing to die for and what governments are willing to kill for.--- (Andrew Wilkow; Sirius-XM, the patriot channel 125)

  6. #46

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    Quote Originally Posted by Insurgency View Post
    I believe in forced population control by preventing births. Optimal solution would be forced sterilization on people who are proven to be unfit parents.
    A couple of things about this.

    1) I'm fine with preventing births, although I would call it birth control. That should not and does not have to mean abortion. Women have plenty of options. They don't use them because "responsibility is women's kryptonite." But maybe they shouldn't be so coddled by the government anymore.

    2) If you want a public welfare system (as I'm pretty sure you do, I believe that you admitted that you use it), you have to have a growing population to pay for it. This can be seen in the problem with social security. Over the decades, more people have been drawing upon social security than are paying for it. Projections are that it will have problems making its payments to beneficiaries/recipients in the mid 2030s. This problem will ultimately impact all welfare programs.

    So, you have a huge inherent conflict in your public policy desires. I wonder if you realize it.

    Oh and also....the best way to limit population growth is to quit funding it through govt welfare.

  7. #47
    Administrator Unboxxed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,032
    Reputation
    12905
    Type
    enigmatic

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    The 62 million figure for abortion since 1973 Roe v. Wade (currently over 63 million), a number that everybody seems to source from the Guttmacher Institute, is, as a reminder, for the USA only.

    Here is a real-time abortion counter, based on the most current statistics* for the number of abortions in the US & the number of abortions Worldwide:

    Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973

    * The abortions in the counters on this site were historically almost all ďsurgical abortionsĒ.

    This USA number from Guttmacher represents only the surgical abortions. It does not include chemical abortions, the ones caused not by surgical intervention but by taking abortifacients. By the way, some contraceptives are actually abortifacients:

    In order to make abortion-causing methods more palatable in societies that still widely rejected abortion, and to circumvent laws designed to prohibit abortion, the promoters of birth control realized that they had to blur the line between conception-preventing (contraceptive) and early abortion-causing (abortifacient) actions. They did this by changing the definition of ďconceptionĒ from fertilization (union of sperm and ovum) to implantation. Under the new definition of ďconception,Ē if a device or drug ― such as an IUD or hormonal contraception ― prevents implantation, then no abortion takes place.

    https://www.hli.org/resources/what-are-abortifacients/
    The number of chemical abortions in the USA that you may see referenced online, IF you do, is approx 250 million since Roe v. Wade. The few times I've seen this number, it's sourced to the Pharmacists for Life International. Currently, their home page states this:

    308,000,000 estimated deaths since Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton
    Estimated killed by all means: chemical, mechanical and surgical abortion since 1973


    You may see surgical abortions and chemical abortions spoken of together as medically-induced abortions or just medical abortions, although I see only the 63 million figure is given when this happens. Websites always quote the lower Guttmacher number.

    So, we can talk about 308 million abortions in the USA since 1973 Roe v. Wade. Fun fact: According to the US Census population clock, the USA has 333 million people.



    Further, the total of all of the deaths of USA combatants in all of the wars that the USA has participated in since 1775 to Present is less than 1.4 million (numbers vary when comparing online sources, always between 1.3 and 1.4 million. I rounded up to 1.4 million).

    The next time a woman or a pro-choice person in the USA throws war deaths in your face, tell them:

    1.4 million American war deaths since 1775, a span of 246 years.

    308 million American abortions since 1973, a span of 48 years, averaging 6.4 million per year.
    The two most important days in your life are the day you were born and the day you find out why. - Mark Twain

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.
    - Henry David Thoreau

    There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

    Suitable for bookmarking: www.fakehatecrimes.org and www.breitbart.com/tag/hate-crime-hoax

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    48
    Reputation
    37
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    Quote Originally Posted by Faramir View Post
    A couple of things about this.

    1) I'm fine with preventing births, although I would call it birth control. That should not and does not have to mean abortion. Women have plenty of options. They don't use them because "responsibility is women's kryptonite." But maybe they shouldn't be so coddled by the government anymore.

    2) If you want a public welfare system (as I'm pretty sure you do, I believe that you admitted that you use it), you have to have a growing population to pay for it. This can be seen in the problem with social security. Over the decades, more people have been drawing upon social security than are paying for it. Projections are that it will have problems making its payments to beneficiaries/recipients in the mid 2030s. This problem will ultimately impact all welfare programs.

    So, you have a huge inherent conflict in your public policy desires. I wonder if you realize it.

    Oh and also....the best way to limit population growth is to quit funding it through govt welfare.
    I am about as toxic as the feminists you guys canít stand, but at the same time, I have feminism. Iím not liked by guys in MGTOW, because of my vindictive arrogance, and feminists see me as a threat. I donít value other humans unless those humans do something that benefits me. Thatís why I donít encourage abortions. The less people, the better for me

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    3,701
    Reputation
    11257
    Type
    Ghosted by law and order.

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    As a man, without a pussy (attached or in tow) I'm not guilty, directly or indirectly, for the single largest holocaust to stain mankind.

    Let them stand before their maker with the torn and dismembered bodies they so proudly endorse, practice and sanctify.

    I have my own problems to answer for and my own shortcomings to be held accountable for with abortion being the least of my worries!

    Abortion is just another reason, among many different reasons, to throw women away like spoiled trash stinking up the neighborhood.

    Reason is a man's attribute in life, use it wisely and never sparingly!
    Freedom is what people are willing to die for and what governments are willing to kill for.--- (Andrew Wilkow; Sirius-XM, the patriot channel 125)

  10. #50
    Senior Member DocDJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    115
    Reputation
    294
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    Quote Originally Posted by mgtower View Post
    Using lefty logic, why would a white supremist like myself be against abortion when it's mostly blacks that are aborted at Planned Parenthood? Especially knowing that Planned Parenthood's roots go back to Margret Sanger, eugenics, and the eradication of blacks from society, the same people lefties support and get their ideology from.

    There's nothing that isn't hypocritical and slanderous in everything they say and do! Not a damn thing!
    That's actually the one piece of solace i take - those who abort kill their own kind. Purify the genetic pools i suppose. Make for a more spiritual populace - i delude myself.

  11. #51
    Senior Member DocDJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    115
    Reputation
    294
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    Quote Originally Posted by mgtower View Post
    As a man, without a pussy (attached or in tow) I'm not guilty, directly or indirectly, for the single largest holocaust to stain mankind.

    Let them stand before their maker with the torn and dismembered bodies they so proudly endorse, practice and sanctify.

    I have my own problems to answer for and my own shortcomings to be held accountable for with abortion being the least of my worries!

    Abortion is just another reason, among many different reasons, to throw women away like spoiled trash stinking up the neighborhood.

    Reason is a man's attribute in life, use it wisely and never sparingly!
    As a kid i went to Catholic Schools so there is a bit of indoctrination. it isnt God who judges - for those who abort it is the aborted who they will stand before.

  12. #52

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    With respect to the debate on abortion, the issues run very deep into social beliefs, theology, and understanding the construction of our laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by DocDJ View Post
    once a sperm and egg combine and sit themselves as one (conception if you want to call it that) the woman's body now harbours a life that is separate to her own. That life may be wholly reliant upon the woman for its survival but a separate life all the same. A life that doesn't get to choose if it lives or dies. At a moral level it deserves some rights.
    .

    Is all life deserving of the right to live?

    We (Humanity) live and eat at the expense of the life of millions of plants and animals.

    We use chemicals and other means to kill pests and protect our food crops and live-stocks.

    We use anti-biotics because we prioritise our own well-being above that of infecting bacteria. A simple hand wash and billions of bacteria are wiped out. Clearly humanity does not accord all life as equally deserving of the right to live.

    What then? Are we to draw an arbitrary line and say it is only human life that is deserving of some rights?

    What makes humanity so special as to qualify for this? Are we going to attribute it to some higher divine order?

    Human history is soaked in numerous bloodshed of religious wars, or wars over resources, and in the mass killing and slaughtering of other competing human tribes for land, and in the death penalties for breeching man-made laws which are aimed at protecting the peace and security of other humans in the tribe.

    We prioritise our own well-being enough to kill off competing organisms (from micro-organisms up to and including other human tribes) which threaten our food, our health, our dogma/religious beliefs, our property, our land, our peace and security.

    For our human tribe/society to enjoy peace and security, we have drawn up arbitrary man-made laws in order to protect other members in our tribe from harm and those breaking them will be subjected to penalties, ranging from fines to jail and some including the death penalty.

    .

    This then are the central roots of the abortion debate:

    1) Firstly, when does a fertilised egg become a member of society to be granted the protection of our man-made laws?

    When it is a ball of cells? When it has a heartbeat? When it has a brain? When it is born?

    Do we rely on Philosophers or Medical practitioners for this answer?

    Any answer is likely to become outdated as Technology is advancing so rapidly that artificial wombs are a thing - perhaps in future, implanting fertilised IVF eggs into a womb would seem like deliberate murder of zygotes due to the high risks of miscarriage, not to mention even natural pregnancies have failure rates.

    2) Secondly, different human societies have different man-made laws and social norms/beliefs/Theology valuing life and assigning protection for their own members.

    This can easily be seen with countries that have differing values to human life and to man-made laws/rights granted to members of their society (eg. some countries have the death penalty, while others do not). Because the construction of those man-made laws comes from a different set of social beliefs/norms/theologies, for different societies the laws regarding abortion would naturally differ.

    At the end of the day, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to pretend that there is a one-size-fits-all answer or solution to the abortion debate. If we look at ourselves, we have only come this far because we prioritise our own well-being above that of other organisms, including other humans and other human societies. As such, I find it extremely arbitrary and pointless as no one can claim to be qualified enough to have a moral high ground to stand on.
    Last edited by johnsmith79; September 14, 2021 at 6:57 AM. Reason: formatting

  13. #53
    Senior Member DocDJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    115
    Reputation
    294
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    Johnsmith79,

    At one level - i guess philosophically some might argue that all life has a right to life. But we do place differing value on these different types of life. Perhaps that is a different argument.

    In terms of human life - you make good points as to when does a human life have rights. In my view all human life is equal and if we are to have a point where that life has rights it is at the point of conception. But because women usually discover some weeks later that they may in fact be pregnant we are way past that cut off for it to have any practical meaning.

    For us to be able to have a debate about abortion whether we are pro life or pro choice can only happen because our mothers chose to keep us. So to decide a life has no right to that life has no moral ground upon which to stand on.

    I hope I am making sense - to deny a child a right to life undermines the argument as to whether or not it is right to deny life - for we can only have the debate because we ourselves were not denied that right.

  14. #54

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    Quote Originally Posted by DocDJ View Post
    I hope I am making sense - to deny a child a right to life undermines the argument as to whether or not it is right to deny life - for we can only have the debate because we ourselves were not denied that right.
    Respectfully Doc, that argument is a logical fallacy as: (i) there is no choice given to the child (a child cannot decide to be born or not to be born) and (ii) this assumes that all children should be automatically be grateful for their life, any life, even if theirs is full of suffering and a fate worse than death.
    Those born into a life of permanent handicapped suffering due to irresponsible mothers (see fetal alcohol syndrome from mothers who knowingly drink while pregnant, Down's Syndrome children from ageing women gambling on her last few eggs, etc), those cases would swing compellingly for abortion rather than against abortion.

    .

    Quote Originally Posted by DocDJ View Post
    At one level - i guess philosophically some might argue that all life has a right to life. But we do place differing value on these different types of life. Perhaps that is a different argument.
    On what basis other than 'might-makes-right', do we draw a 'right-to-life' value distinction between human life and other forms of life?
    It seemingly boils down to 'might-makes-right' and the fact that we have the 'might' and therefore can prioritise our own selfish benefits ('rights') before that of other organisms.

    Once we lose our 'might', we would be in no position to discuss any 'right-to-life' - for example if hypothetically, some intergalactic aliens determine that Earth needed to be razed to make way for an intergalactic highway, we would have as much of a right to life as the thriving colonies of billions of bacteria that we so casually purge from a simple hand-wash.

    I would contend that rather than a moral 'right-to-life', our society has laws which punish the taking of life only because society requires a certain degree of functional co-operation and conflict suppression between its members in order to maintain certain levels of productivity.

    Make no mistake, countries were founded on the taking of land and resources by the mass-slaughter and killing of other humans. Our society's history is bathed in blood and our society STILL wholeheartedly takes human life from other societies/countries in a 'might-makes-right' manner - we've regularly sent troops and drones halfway around the world and have no qualms bombing other humans back into the Stone Age and killing thousands of other humans all for the benefit of our military-industrial complex.

    The whole 'right-to-life' debate cloaks the fact that the laws are there merely to restrict individual members killing each other on a grand-scale, as such acts would weaken society itself - however our society permits individual members to take life under certain conditions (Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, etc).

    .

    Quote Originally Posted by DocDJ View Post
    In my view all human life is equal and if we are to have a point where that life has rights it is at the point of conception.
    Why should one draw the line beginning at conception?

    From the viewpoint of society, a fertilised egg holds next to no value for society as it needs a tremendous amount of effort and years of investment before it can functionally co-operate with other existing members and become a productive part of society.

    From the viewpoint of human reproduction, fertilised eggs regularly fail to attach at rates of 30-50% for couples in their 20s and falling drastically to 10-25% and under for couples in their 30s, which is an abysmal success rate. Even if the egg does attach, ectopic pregnancy (where the egg attaches outside of the womb) and miscarriages can and do occur.

    And even if carried to term, because of relatively large cranial sizes and narrow birthing hips, unlike most animals, human babies are born premature, unable even hold their head, much less survive without parental care. Thus different societies differ on the point at which the protections of their laws kick in - societies which prized physical fitness like the warrior Spartans were famous for leaving weak babies out to die after birth - that's after birth abortion.

    Technological changes will undoubtedly race far ahead of the current philosophical views on pregnancy. In future, with artificial wombs, it may be possible to gestate fertilised eggs into humans with a significantly better success rate than natural attempts at pregnancy and to the point where human brains and bodies are more well-developed, perhaps a full-term pregnancy would be 18 months (or possibly longer) and where pregnancy is not complicated by miscarriages or by irresponsible mothers. Developing embryos/fetuses may be screened and tested regularly for genetic and other abnormalities and embyros/fetuses/nearly-formed-babies may be terminated rather than carried to full-birth in artificial wombs should they fail any of the checks/tests. After all, time is money in the artificial womb, and if the corporation which promised defect-free babies delivers instead a handicapped one, they may be sued or held liable. In future, humans may look at current pregnancy practises as barbaric and perhaps beliefs about what constitutes abortion would be viewed rather differently from the way we look at it now.

    TLDR: Aside from 'might-makes-right', we do not have any moral high ground when we look at our history and how our country and society came into being, nor do we have an individual moral high ground when we take the lives of other organisms for our own selfish benefit.

    I think I've said enough in my previous post as well as this lengthy follow-up to hopefully enlighten any interested readers about this topic and its future development possibilities. I would reiterate that at the end of the day, I wouldn't be that presumptuous nor arrogant to claim to have an answer. It is a very deep issue, and one which touches on our own and society's reason for selfish existence.
    Last edited by johnsmith79; September 15, 2021 at 2:43 AM. Reason: grammar, correction on stats

  15. #55
    Senior Member DocDJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    115
    Reputation
    294
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    John,
    forgive my not being able to reply to particular part of your response in the same manner you replied to mine. I am not great at selecting elements in quote if that makes sense.

    So I will just reply. You say:

    Respectfully Doc, that argument is a logical fallacy as: (i) there is no choice given to the child (a child cannot decide to be born or not to be born) and (ii) this assumes that all children should be automatically be grateful for their life, any life, even if theirs is full of suffering and a fate worse than death.
    Those born into a life of permanent handicapped suffering due to irresponsible mothers (see fetal alcohol syndrome from mothers who knowingly drink while pregnant, Down's Syndrome children from ageing women gambling on her last few eggs, etc), those cases would swing compellingly for abortion rather than against abortion"

    Very good point. it may seem like a logical fallacy and I accept that notion. You are correct - none of us chose to be born so we cannot presuppose that a embryo - if it could be asked - would like to be born. But I am working from a position that for the most part, despite life being a period of suffering the majority of us are glad we are here. So my thinking is that if the embryo had an awareness of what life is it may in fact choose it.
    Your point about a child being grateful for their life even if they are disabled - In my initial post I highlighted disability as one of the reasons I would support the rights of the mother. if the foetus is disabled and the mother chose to to abort because she believed she was sparing the child a life of suffering - I see that as an act of love, not selfishness.
    But even when a child is born disabled I am not aware of many who protest at the fact their mother chose to keep them even though the mother knew the child would be disabled.

    I need to digest the rest of your post a bit more before I can offer a worthwhile response - but initial thought is this:
    When we talk about right to life the main distinction which I didnt clarify when i said its a different argument is that abortion is essentially ending a life before it even begins where the other comparisons are regarding life that already exists.
    With that in mind - if we are talking about taking existing life and having a right to do so - I think there is a moral argument if the taking of a life is for survival. But I am thinking of all non human species. That said - we lose this moral argument when we take life frivolously. But in the natural order taking life - bacteria when washing our hands is simply not worth the consideration due to how universal this would be across all species.

    I will end this post as I need food but I will try and add a bit more later. One last thing - I am like you John - I truly do not stand my argument upon granite. I am just positing ideas as they seem to make sense to me. I am open to all ideas and enjoy the debate.


  16. #56

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    Abortion debates in the Anglosphere often end in stalemates because of the contradictions within liberalism and its language of rights. Do fetuses have rights? Do women have rights? Do children have rights? When rights conflict, we can't resolve the priority of different rights by appealing to rights, which means we've conceptually lost our way.

    What if we had an authoritarian, collectivist, based, redpilled, and ultimately Spartan approach that doesn't come with nice-guy liberal assumptions? In a society where fetuses and women don't have liberalism and therefore don't have rights, the state decides when to euthanize the unfit. No choice for the mother, and no rights for the fetus either, which means a world with fewer idiots, less crime, and fewer people struggling through medical issues.

    Burgerland, aka the United States, has Whiggery written into its founding documents, so don't expect illiberal policies anytime soon. But the possibility of illiberalism should make Americans wonder if they're fighting over things like rights and progress that just aren't real, and can't be, because they're incoherent on their own terms.

  17. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Wherever you go, there you are.
    Posts
    1,991
    Reputation
    3382
    Type
    Just Me.

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    Warning: VERY long post. There is a conclusion at the end if you wish to skip.


    Letís get down to basics here. Those of you who are pro-abortion (pro-choice is nothing more than a side-tracking terminology) really need to understand one simple thing:

    Life begins at conception therefore you are talking about the taking of human life.

    Nothing more, nothing less!

    Some of the arguments Iíve read here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Insurgency View Post
    More abortions are needed for population control and to prevent certain morons from being born.
    Surely there are effective means of population control without murdering the unborn. I think someone mentioned reversible vasectomies, a brutish option in my opinion but at least it doesnít involve killing anyone. Another (or maybe the same person) mentioned the number of birth control methods available to women as opposed to men. Iím sure more options could be discovered if the will was there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Insurgency View Post
    If any of you guys disagree with me about abortion, then pay close to attention to the hoods in Chicago and the south. Heck my hood in Los Angeles is a prime example.

    Abortion is necessary. Conservatives donít think long term. Unwanted pregnancies turn into problem children and those problem children turn into problem adults. Better to abort problems before they actually become a problem.

    You canít ban sex. You can try, but it wonít happen.

    Get back to reality
    Understand that you are talking about the taking of human life. Why stop at abortions? Why not take out the baby carriers? (No need for abortions then, eh?) Hell, why not wipe out the whole lower classes? Wouldnít that include you? (you mentioned that youíre on welfare)

    I thought Communism claimed to be supportive of the lower/working classes. You seem to want to be rid of them all, or maybe just the ones you find particularly annoying!

    Quote Originally Posted by Insurgency View Post
    I believe in forced population control by preventing births. Optimal solution would be forced sterilization on people who are proven to be unfit parents.
    Sorry, but just how do you determine who may or may not be an unfit parent? How do you define it exactly? It all seems very arbitrary to me. Scumbags and good people spring from ALL walks of life.

    Enforced sterilisation huh? Government oversight on who can and cannot procreate sounds horrific to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by thenamelessone View Post
    Honestly, if a mother is considering abortion, I can't think of anything worse than denying her that option.
    I can. How about killing someone? (Yes, that unborn is still a someone.)

    Quote Originally Posted by thenamelessone View Post
    do you want a child to be raised by parents who are ambivalent about having a child before it has even arrived? Child rearing is an 18+ year old legal (and moral) commitment that shouldn't be half-assed by people who view it as a begrudging obligation.
    I agree, but that doesnít mean you should go around killing people (the unborn).

    Quote Originally Posted by stanmsl View Post
    Ultimately this law will only force the women who want abortions backstreet or across borders. Millions of abortions were performed before legalization with all the obvious dangers. Itís going to happen anyway, like it or not.
    Hmm. Could not this self-same argument be used to legalise other crimes: Theft, terrorism, kiddie-fiddling? I mean, if itís going to happen why not legalise it? It doesnít really work does it?

    As for the dangers to the women Ė fuck Ďem, theyíre taking human life and deserve all they get. (Iím pro capital punishment Ė for certain crimes like indiscriminate murder.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Faramir View Post
    The much better way to reduce unwanted births is to end welfare. Let people learn there are consequences to their decisions. But, I suspect that you are receiving welfare; so obviously you won't like the obvious and better solution.
    Hmm. Iím on welfare, welfare that I spent most of my working life paying heavily for.

    But even if you restrict cutting off welfare to certain groups would that not make them more likely to turn to crime and bring their kids up accordingly?

    I donít see this as a viable deterrent. When I look at war-torn areas or famine-stricken areas I donít see any lack of children being born.

    Quote Originally Posted by DocDJ View Post
    I am not entirely against pro choice however. i think if a woman has been raped she should be free to choose, or if the baby is found to be in some way disabled and the mother choose to abort out of an act of love.
    I have to admit Iím in two minds here. There is argument for abortion in certain circumstances, like if the womanís life is at risk Ė then it becomes a matter of self-defence.

    I tend to agree with the points you have raised, but I am wary of them being used as an excuse when they donít actually apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsmith79 View Post
    With respect to the debate on abortion, the issues run very deep into social beliefs, theology, and understanding the construction of our laws.


    Ö

    Is all life deserving of the right to live?


    Ö

    1) Firstly, when does a fertilised egg become a member of society to be granted the protection of our man-made laws?


    Ö
    And herein lies the problem. Introducing theology, social beliefs and man-made laws is just a deflection from the point:

    What do YOU (the reader, not just john) believe?

    Life begins at conception. Abortion (in the context of this debate) is the ending of a human life.

    To throw in other organisms is interesting but misleading. We are talking about humans killing humans. This happens, but is it desirable?

    Humans kill other humans:

    1. In wartime. Does that make war desirable to you? Yes I know there are reasons, but generally speaking.

    2. Capital punishment. Punishment for crimes committed Ė doesnít really apply here as the unborn has committed no crime whether you are for or against.

    3. Murder. The taking of a human life for no other reason than it suits you to do so Ė seems to apply perfectly here.


    In conclusion:

    You may have guessed Iím anti-abortion (in all but a few cases).

    Why? Because human life begins at conception. What follows is the development of that life from fertilised egg through embryo, foetus, child (birth), child (pre-teen), teenager, adult and old-age. (Forgive me if Iíve got this progression wrong but the point is valid nonetheless.)

    I simply fail to see the difference between the taking of a human life at any of these stages. If youíre in favour of one, then why not any of the others?

    If a woman has the moral right (to hell with legalities) to take the life of an embryo because she doesnít want it, then why not the life of her 5 year old? Should a man have the right to take the life of his wife because he has grown tired of her?

    Please explain the difference to me.

    A (human) life is a life is a life.

    So, for me, there is only one question:

    Where do your morals lie when it comes to the taking of an innocent human life?

    What about 100 or 1,000 or 1,000,000?

    What will future generations think when they look back on us and see a world where we kill our own children?

    (I know that seems like 3 questions, but they're really the same one.)

    The rest is bullshit!

  18. #58

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    Quote Originally Posted by DocDJ View Post
    I need to digest the rest of your post a bit more before I can offer a worthwhile response ... I am just positing ideas as they seem to make sense to me. I am open to all ideas and enjoy the debate.

    Hi Doc, firstly, thank you for engaging respectfully. As there is no hurry, please take your time before responding. I myself find it helpful to think and mull over the issues thoroughly and like you, I similarly enjoy a good discussion when the arguments presented have been given time to adequately crystallize. I look forward to your response and to a open exchange of ideas.

  19. #59

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    To throw in other organisms is interesting but misleading. We are talking about humans killing humans. This happens, but is it desirable?
    Hi Jackoff, thank you for your questions and for positing your views.

    I would contend that the universal moral value (i) 'Only human life is sacred' is singularly arbitrary to (ii) 'All life is sacred' and see the hypocrisy on why such self-importance is placed on one species alone while others are deemed 'lesser' and therefore can be slaughtered for our enjoyment and convenience.

    Such a distinction between (i) and (ii), arises from a morality of (iii) 'might-makes-right', whereby one has the 'might' and therefore enjoys the 'right' to be thus placed on the totem pole of highest importance. However, if we are to subscribe to a universal morality of 'might-makes-right', then the slaughtering of 'weaker' and 'lesser' humans is then consistent with such a moral value (iii).

    A cursory examination of history will show that the moral value (iii) 'might-makes-right', has been consistently applied. It has been how countries were founded (by taking land away from other 'weaker' humans and slaughtering them), and how we humans have consistently acted towards pests, vermin and livestock, and threats by other humans and other human societies.

    If one were to be consistent and uphold the moral value of 'might-makes-right' then the slaughtering of weaker human babies is thus consistent with such a morality.

    I'm not criticising nor advocating for any position - I have repeatedly stated that I do not have the answers nor do I believe there is a one-size-fits-all solution, however I believe one can be allowed to ponder on the issues and discuss them, and in that process of fact-finding and exchange of ideas, one can develop a deeper and more thorough understanding of the issue.
    Last edited by johnsmith79; Yesterday at 3:05 AM. Reason: grammar

  20. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Wherever you go, there you are.
    Posts
    1,991
    Reputation
    3382
    Type
    Just Me.

    Re: LOL @ Republicans in Texas praising that abortion law

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsmith79 View Post
    Hi Jackoff, thank you for your questions and for positing your views.

    I would contend that the universal moral value (i) 'Only human life is sacred' is singularly arbitrary to (ii) 'All life is sacred' and see the hypocrisy on why such self-importance is placed on one species alone while others are deemed 'lesser' and therefore can be slaughtered for our enjoyment and convenience.

    Such a distinction between (i) and (ii), arises from a morality of (iii) 'might-makes-right', whereby one has the 'might' and therefore enjoys the 'right' to be thus placed on the totem pole of highest importance. However, if we are to subscribe to a universal morality of 'might-makes-right', then the slaughtering of 'weaker' and 'lesser' humans is then consistent with such a moral value (iii).

    A cursory examination of history will show that the moral value (iii) 'might-makes-right', has been consistently applied. It has been how countries were founded (by taking land away from other 'weaker' humans and slaughtering them), and how we humans have consistently acted towards pests, vermin and livestock, and threats by other humans and other human societies.

    If one were to be consistent and uphold the moral value of 'might-makes-right' then the slaughtering of weaker human babies is thus consistent with such a morality.

    I'm not criticising nor advocating for any position - I have repeatedly stated that I do not have the answers nor do I believe there is a one-size-fits-all solution, however I believe one can be allowed to ponder on the issues and discuss them, and in that process of fact-finding and exchange of ideas, one can develop a deeper and more thorough understanding of the issue.
    O.K. I’ll take the bait. I’m not saying that you espouse any of the views you have mentioned, just that you put them up for debate, so let me indulge. I should say I don’t really like the use of the word sacred but I get what you mean, what other way is there of putting it after all.

    To your points:

    (i) Only human life is sacred:

    I think it should begin here. If one cannot respect the life of their own species then what chance is there of them respecting the lives of other species? Of course this does seem to happen in reality but I question the motives of such people. Any lifeform that puts the importance of other species above their own seems errant to me.

    (ii) All life is sacred:

    O.K. I concur with this, but only up to a point. Seriously, I’m the type of guy that literally wouldn’t hurt a fly (if one is annoying me I will try to urge it out the nearest window) yet I have no problem tucking in to a nice juicy steak. There is hypocrisy here but I want to live as much as anyone (or anything) else and the only way to do that is to eat, whether it be meat or veg – it’s all life after all.

    And I guess that brings us to…

    (iii) Might is right.

    Yes and no.

    To kill for survival, whether it be humans (self-defence), animal or vegetable (to eat), pests (wildlife) that threaten your livestock / crops, or germs and bacteria (to avoid infection) is one thing, but to kill just because you can is quite another.

    I would have absolutely no sympathy for a guy that tortures another creature, for example a dog just because he can.

    So I guess it boils down to the meaning one puts on the word “right” and this is where morality comes in.

    Can one do these things simply because they are superior in some way? Sure, of course they can – but should they?

    So yes, quite often might IS right, but when abused might can very definitely be wrong.

    To bring this back to humanity, would you, I or any reasonable person claim might is right when talking about child abuse?

    Context is everything!


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 1, 2020, 9:30 PM
  2. Abortion IS Healthcare (Miley Cyrus)
    By Tangent in forum Lounge
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 5, 2019, 11:40 PM
  3. Ultrasound before abortion
    By pbisque in forum Lounge
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: June 3, 2019, 10:23 AM
  4. Replies: 11
    Last Post: August 7, 2018, 4:12 AM
  5. I wish Lena Dumbham's mom had an abortion
    By Chukhed in forum Lounge
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 2, 2017, 6:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •