Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Trump Takes First Strike Against Abortion

Page 5 of 7 [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

30 Jan 2017, 3:25 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
What does any of this have to do with promimiscuity? I really don't think I am being overly promiscuous if I have sex with my boyfriend...and since we have decided it is best not to have children, the responsible thing to do if our birth control failed would be to get an abortion asap. Also embroys and fetus's that haven't developed into babies yet are hardly 'children'.



If the necessary precautions are taken then you probably won't get pregnant, I do not believe in abortion as birth control and think when a life has been created it should be protected. I hope you are never in that situation where you make that decision.


'probably' being the key word there....which is why access to abortion is necessary should those precautions fail. Also I understand protecting already living life...but is a clump of cells really more valuble than an already living breathing person? To the extent that clump of cells should have priority over the person its growing inside of?

Most abortions take place during the embryonic stage before its even a fetus....I have a hard time seeing an embryo as a valid person.


I disagree that it's a choice between either or, I find it a barbaric practice and a sickness in a civilization that is collapsing.

At what point do you consider it more than a clump of cells? At what point should somebody take responsibility for the life they have created?

The idea that we are better off without these people I think is a very hateful sentiment, that there are too many people already is just not true factually as the fertility rate of this country and especially Europe is far below replacement level. In the west there is an underpopulation problem and which is why the big business pushes so hard for an unlimited international labor pool.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,911
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

30 Jan 2017, 3:48 pm

Earthbound wrote:
I honestly feel if the government made sure sex education was better in all schools plus made condoms, birth control (and so on) cheaper- abortions would go down quite a bit. Planned Parenthood shouldn't get defunded because of ignorant people that have NO CLUE what the company even does.

The world is overpopulated enough! If people want to have abortions- that should be their right, period. But this isn't just an overpopulation issue- it's a CHOICE issue. People should have the choice, and have a safe choice from a regular doctor.. not one that might botch the abortion! If people don't want to like abortion- that's their choice too. But the manner in which they do it.. is quite immature at times. Why must people think their views are the only right ones? Let's be realistic here- abortion will always be a big debate topic. However I think if people mind their own business and let people do what THEY want instead of forcing views onto others so much, there would be a few less issues on the matter.

Sadly the government loves to just be controlling and think they have to decide everything for everyone.


Oh well don't you know its much better to teach young people about abstinence, so that way if and when they have sex they are clueless. Because don't you know pre-martial sex is immoral. I certainly do not suggest 'using abortion as a usual birth control method.' People should be aware of contraception and encouraged to use it to prevent pregnancy and abortion should be availible as a last resort. Granted there are still always going to be stupid, ignorant people that can't be bothered to care who might still get abortions without having attempted other contraception...but do you really want someone that careless having a baby? If they don't even care to use birth control, they probably aren't going to care to take care of themselves during the pregnancy and if they don't kill it with their unhealthy lifestyle and it does go to term and they give birth, the baby certainly going to have some problems like fetal alcohol syndrome, or maybe born addicted to meth or crack(yes there is some pretty horrifying stuff that can happen). I'd still rather they have the option to abort than not.


_________________
We won't go back.


androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

30 Jan 2017, 3:54 pm

Jacoby wrote:
At what point do you consider it more than a clump of cells?

I think the question should be: When does this group of cells have the right to life. Beginning and end of life are times when this comes into question because of the precarious nature of biological existence.
Jacoby wrote:
At what point should somebody take responsibility for the life they have created?

Having an abortion is one way to take responsibility.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,911
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

30 Jan 2017, 4:02 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
What does any of this have to do with promimiscuity? I really don't think I am being overly promiscuous if I have sex with my boyfriend...and since we have decided it is best not to have children, the responsible thing to do if our birth control failed would be to get an abortion asap. Also embroys and fetus's that haven't developed into babies yet are hardly 'children'.



If the necessary precautions are taken then you probably won't get pregnant, I do not believe in abortion as birth control and think when a life has been created it should be protected. I hope you are never in that situation where you make that decision.


'probably' being the key word there....which is why access to abortion is necessary should those precautions fail. Also I understand protecting already living life...but is a clump of cells really more valuble than an already living breathing person? To the extent that clump of cells should have priority over the person its growing inside of?

Most abortions take place during the embryonic stage before its even a fetus....I have a hard time seeing an embryo as a valid person.


I disagree that it's a choice between either or, I find it a barbaric practice and a sickness in a civilization that is collapsing.

At what point do you consider it more than a clump of cells? At what point should somebody take responsibility for the life they have created?

The idea that we are better off without these people I think is a very hateful sentiment, that there are too many people already is just not true factually as the fertility rate of this country and especially Europe is far below replacement level. In the west there is an underpopulation problem and which is why the big business pushes so hard for an unlimited international labor pool.


When the fetus develops into a baby, then it should not be aborted, unless of course it is a medical emergency in which someones likely to die and the mother wishes to be saved. Once it is a baby, it is a person...before that it cannot be defined as such as its not sentient..you can believe its a sentient person as soon as the egg is fertilized all you want but there is no science to back it up.

Also if there is an underpopulation problem in the west, there are plenty of ways to solve it that don't involve forcing american citizens to endure pregancies they don't want and give birth when we have the means to provide abortions in the early stages before the fertilized egg reaches the stage of baby as a last resort to people who don't want or simply can't take care of children. Such as encourage immigration rather than discouraging it...for instance.


_________________
We won't go back.


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

30 Jan 2017, 4:31 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
What does any of this have to do with promimiscuity? I really don't think I am being overly promiscuous if I have sex with my boyfriend...and since we have decided it is best not to have children, the responsible thing to do if our birth control failed would be to get an abortion asap. Also embroys and fetus's that haven't developed into babies yet are hardly 'children'.



If the necessary precautions are taken then you probably won't get pregnant, I do not believe in abortion as birth control and think when a life has been created it should be protected. I hope you are never in that situation where you make that decision.


'probably' being the key word there....which is why access to abortion is necessary should those precautions fail. Also I understand protecting already living life...but is a clump of cells really more valuble than an already living breathing person? To the extent that clump of cells should have priority over the person its growing inside of?

Most abortions take place during the embryonic stage before its even a fetus....I have a hard time seeing an embryo as a valid person.


I disagree that it's a choice between either or, I find it a barbaric practice and a sickness in a civilization that is collapsing.

At what point do you consider it more than a clump of cells? At what point should somebody take responsibility for the life they have created?

The idea that we are better off without these people I think is a very hateful sentiment, that there are too many people already is just not true factually as the fertility rate of this country and especially Europe is far below replacement level. In the west there is an underpopulation problem and which is why the big business pushes so hard for an unlimited international labor pool.


When the fetus develops into a baby, then it should not be aborted, unless of course it is a medical emergency in which someones likely to die and the mother wishes to be saved. Once it is a baby, it is a person...before that it cannot be defined as such as its not sentient..you can believe its a sentient person as soon as the egg is fertilized all you want but there is no science to back it up.

Also if there is an underpopulation problem in the west, there are plenty of ways to solve it that don't involve forcing american citizens to endure pregancies they don't want and give birth when we have the means to provide abortions in the early stages before the fertilized egg reaches the stage of baby as a last resort to people who don't want or simply can't take care of children. Such as encourage immigration rather than discouraging it...for instance.


You are being obtuse, when does a 'fetus' your words become a person? When does it become a baby in your eyes? When there is movement? What there is brain activity? When there is a heartbeat? When they respond to mother's voice or touch? These all happen well before birth. If you want to draw the line at birth then I would say you are more of an extremist than someone who draws it at conception, I believe you are in favor of murder then. If you don't want to or can't then there are plenty of people that would, it's a cruel wicked lie told to people that says otherwise.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

30 Jan 2017, 6:20 pm

As regards the law, I always put the mother first. It's her choice.

If you want her to make the choice you like, convince each mother individually. That is your only option.

Edit: Sweetleaf, I regard your position as a slippery slope. There is no logically consistent way to decide when life begins, so we either concede that the government can try to force women to be incubators or not. If we give in at all, there is no logical place to stop.

Maybe the best case is to always allow the cells to be removed and always try to keep them alive? That also seems cruel, though.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,911
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

30 Jan 2017, 6:32 pm

Jacoby wrote:

You are being obtuse, when does a 'fetus' your words become a person? When does it become a baby in your eyes? When there is movement? What there is brain activity? When there is a heartbeat? When they respond to mother's voice or touch? These all happen well before birth. If you want to draw the line at birth then I would say you are more of an extremist than someone who draws it at conception, I believe you are in favor of murder then. If you don't want to or can't then there are plenty of people that would, it's a cruel wicked lie told to people that says otherwise.


I didn't even say to draw the line at birth, it becomes a baby before its born, around 24 weeks I think is the current limit. Hell if they wanted to put the cap it sooner than 24 weeks, I'd be open to that idea, but banning it altogether even in the earliest stages is unrealistic and in my opinion putting the welfare of a clump of cells that may or may not even develop into a baby above the woman housing it inside her body.

I think you're being obtuse as I never once said I wanted to draw the line at birth, if anything I have stressed that abortions should occur asap. Thinking a fertilized egg or an embryo is a person really doesn't make sense it doesn't even have a brain yet let alone a functional one.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,911
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

30 Jan 2017, 6:40 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
As regards the law, I always put the mother first. It's her choice.

If you want her to make the choice you like, convince each mother individually. That is your only option.

Edit: Sweetleaf, I regard your position as a slippery slope. There is no logically consistent way to decide when life begins, so we either concede that the government can try to force women to be incubators or not. If we give in at all, there is no logical place to stop.

Maybe the best case is to always allow the cells to be removed and always try to keep them alive? That also seems cruel, though.


I am not even talking about when life begins, as I said even the unfertilized egg and sperm are alive....I am talking about when the life becomes a person. Also there already is a limit, 24 weeks, so doesn't seem that slippery to have a limit like that in place.


_________________
We won't go back.


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

30 Jan 2017, 6:47 pm

That's cool. I have gotten tired of the arguments, and I don't see any other path forward besides taking a hard line on this. It's the only position that meets my philosophical standards, and I'll keep advocating for it.

Defining when life starts or defining when cells become a person seems like a distinction without a difference to me, but I'll keep listening.

If you define an abortion as a death, making it illegal will increase the number of total deaths. The best solution is realistic sex education and free birth control everywhere. It won't eliminate abortions, but it would be a good start.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

30 Jan 2017, 6:50 pm

For crying out loud, people. Casually getting an abortion sounds pathological to me, and I have never met someone who casually got an abortion. It's kind of a desperate choice, that would have become more so if women did not have access to safe and legal abortions. If it was illegal, it's a statistical certainty that one of my friends would be dead. Desperate people make desperate choices.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

30 Jan 2017, 6:53 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
That's cool. I have gotten tired of the arguments, and I don't see any other path forward besides taking a hard line on this. It's the only position that meets my philosophical standards, and I'll keep advocating for it.

Defining when life starts or defining when cells become a person seems like a distinction without a difference to me, but I'll keep listening.

If you define an abortion as a death, making it illegal will increase the number of total deaths. The best solution is realistic sex education and free birth control everywhere. It won't eliminate abortions, but it would be a good start.


Yeah not following the logic on how there will be more deaths, there have been 60 million abortions since Roe V Wade and no there wouldn't of been 60 million back alley abortions.

If you believe it is a life that needs protecting at some point before birth then I suppose you can be reasoned with, I would say before 24 weeks but am not sure what date I'd put on it. There a lot of 'pro-choice' people that believe in abortion up until the second before birth and even some people including academic ethicists that think it's even okay to murder babies as they don't believe they are a person until they're like a few months old. These people are sick and more extreme than anybody, I will side with on the side of life not with people that can justify such evil.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

30 Jan 2017, 6:54 pm

I have no objection to requiring hospitals to try to keep the cells alive.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

30 Jan 2017, 10:56 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Raptor wrote:

So double up on the contraceptives.


The point is should the contraceptives fail, the responsible thing for a couple who has decided not to have children...is to get an abortion asap. There is no 100% contraceptive method, there is always a chance it can fail and an abortion will be needed. Also not sure you even understand how contraceptives work with your 'just double them up' comment.

Yeah, I have no idea how contraceptives work. :roll:
Looks like you don't either....

Quote:
Why do are you so hellbent on ensuring unwanted pregnancies go to term, you looking to adopt or pay for unwanted kids?

Show me where I said this please. My point, as stated before, is that I don't want John Q. Taxpayer to have to foot the bill for it. Don't look for that to change with me and I could easy become a full fledged pro-life wacko.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Last edited by Raptor on 30 Jan 2017, 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

30 Jan 2017, 10:58 pm

Paying for contraception now is cheaper than paying for the other services we'll need later if we don't.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

30 Jan 2017, 11:32 pm

androbot01 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
androbot01 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
50 million children killed since the radical Roe V Wade decision is nothing short of a genocide.

A genocide that never was. You debase the word genocide when you use it so casually.


Kind of like how some people debase the word bully by using it too casually...

I'm not sure I get your point; it's pretty hard to take any societal arguments against bullying seriously when your country just elected the biggest bully ever.

Yeah, but he's our bully. :D
He'd have to F up pretty bad for me to want to swap him for Trudeau.
Correction: Nothing Trump could ever do would make me want to swap him fro Trudeau.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 116,882
Location: In my little Olympic World of peace and love

31 Jan 2017, 12:11 am

nurseangela wrote:
I support this. So far, for me, Trump is staying true to his word.


I also support it. I feel that he's doing great things for America.


_________________
The Family Enigma