Our New President - President Donald Trump

Post Reply New Topic

Wow ... once again we agree, Kraichgauer!

In fact, I'll go beyond what you said.

There is callousness from liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, ...
... big name charities, and churches ...
I could even name names ...
let's just say that I'd rather give my money to a random guy on the street
than to some of these famous charities,
and as far as church-sponsored charities ... you've got to do your homework these days and vet them,
some are good, others not so much.
(Food pantries tend to be on my "good" list,
that said, some people still fall through the cracks in the system.)
I've witnessed this from experience, not just back-and-forth banter on a forum to kill time.

The callousness I'm talking about extends to the physically disabled, seriously chronically ill ...
... one of whom I suspect was an Aspie, and who was my best friend as long as she lived.
Her story rivals that of a certain currently homeless WP member,
only her story went a different direction.

And to get back onto the thread topic ... President Donald Trump?
Well actually, I would say ...
better to help someone yourself
rather than to depend on ANY president.
(I heard what my friend went through under Obama, btw,
so yeah, ANY president.)

Anyways. Pro-life doesn't end when a baby is born.

Last edited by the_phoenix on 27 Feb 2017, 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I understand how you feel, nurseangela.

For the most part, I agree.

People being forced into gas chambers to die because someone doesn't like their religion versus an unwanted fetus never being born. How can you even compare these two things?

What's being compared is not two "things" but two types of people.

A) People being forced into gas chambers to die
B) People being killed in the womb

Nice try. Things refers to the ending of the life not the life itself. Care to try again?

I stand by my post.
It says exactly what I want it to and conveys the meaning I intended.

I'm glad you mentioned the idea of feelings and empathy for the baby, because I feel that many who proclaim to be pro life often lack that very thing and I would like to discuss that. I understand that you and many pro lifers consider a fetus a baby, often back to the point of conception. I understand that you have empathy for that fetus. What I don't understand is why that empathy and desire to care for and protect said fetus/baby often ends when the child is born and it can no longer derive shelter and nourishment directly from the mother's body. I find the limiting of resources to babies and children who cannot fend for themselves, and who's parents cannot or do not properly care for them disgusting.

To this end, I've heard many conservatives fixate on the idea that a person should take responsibility for their offspring. Of course they should but when they don't, regardless of whether or not it's because they won't or can't, that doesn't change the fact that the child is left high and dry.

As I said before, I would be more willing to believe that many who proclaim to be pro life are actually the caring individuals they claim to be, if those same individuals did not also actively seek to limit welfare and programs that benefit disadvantaged children.

In the minds of pro lifers who oppose welfare, how is this....



Or this...



Less deserving of care than any of these?



????

I just don't get how you can compare the two things. You must be taking the fetus as a metaphor for a person and given it too much importance.

I think someone made it mad..

Below is a photo that I took back in January, 2010 when I attended the March for Life in Washington, DC.
Thank you for inspiring me to post my photo.



...

So do you think that all these dead unborn are up there crying because they missed out on life down here? I suspect they've moved on. What I truly struggle with with the pro-life argument is the assumption that to live as a human is a gift. Far too often it is a lonely burden. This is the arrogance I was talking about. Humans worship themselves like idols.

I consider the child on the sign a person.

I don't consider any of these people...



As I previously said, they are stages in human development that have the potential to become people. The fact that they could become people is good enough for some to feel that first trimester abortions should be banned, but then why stop at undifferentiated cells? Why not also consider human eggs and human sperm people, and ban women allow eggs to go unfertilized, and men from wasting sperm (to this end, I would like to point out to the religious individuals here that the bible does indeed condemn men for ejaculating outside of a female, for whatever reason).

My definition of person centers around differentiation and development of the brain. No brain, no person, so while I personally would not get an abortion, and think women should seriously consider other options, I don't believe first trimester abortions should be banned, and I believe that limiting a women's access to abortions actually increases second trimester abortions, because women have to drive farther and come up with more money, which takes time, when they cannot easily obtain first trimester abortions locally.

As for third trimester abortions, most people will point out that most of these are not actually abortions, but early deliveries, that are often done when the mother can no longer safely carry the fetus/baby to term, or when there are twins and one of them has become a threat to the other's life, or when the baby has died in the womb, or when there is a severe fetal abnormality that excludes the possibility of life outside of the womb.

To revert from abortion to a nice, clear-cut issue like gun rights, some of our readers might like this fine 2nd-amendment analysis by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh:



More about the video here (with a bonus photo of Raptor's girlfriend at the top):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... amendment/

the nicest thing one can say about the pres is that he's unenlightened, increasing defense spending when we already outgun the next several largest militaries combined. Eisenhauer said every weapon made is a theft from hungry kids.

Interestingly, they claim that based on the story of Onan, which says no such thing. God orders Onan to commit genocide, but instead Onan substitutes one rape but mitigates it by casting his seed on the ground. As I recall it, the problem was failing to correctly wage holy war and utterly annihilate the enemy women and children. It probably makes a better story the way they tell it, though.