This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Abortion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Lombax
@Lombax- If he's tricked, then no he shouldn't pay. But he shouldn't be able to force an abortion.
Never said that he should be able to force abortion, just that if he opposes giving birth to the child he shouldn't need to pay.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Someone suggested that the father should be able to choose an abortion. I thought that was where your argument was coming from.
Post by
gamerunknown
It comes up in economics, when people would rather complain about how others have more money than them than learn how to make money, and people who put in the bare minimum in looking for work or giving a good performance at work feel entitled to be taken care of by the government regardless of whether or not they do anything to contribute to earning what's needed to stay alive.
Well, this is interesting because the concept of unemployment is central to the Capitalist mode of production. The industrial reserve army is necessary due to the natural collapse of industries. In some instances, letting them starve is the most efficient technique, but limitations on the rights of property such as banning child labour means that there is a long period of non-productivity (parents educating their children is an externality).
Others have advocated either parish charity to sustain the poor (making them dependant of religion to constrain the dialogue) or on voluntarism (making them dependants of the working class, which has the handy side-effect of increasing dissension and resentment). Hazlitt even argued for the necessity of welfare.
There's a pretty simple way to ensure people will do the bare minimum to stay alive: abolish property rights and enable them to work for their own means of subsistence and others if they desire (true voluntary sustenance for a redundant population).
Not to mention the disastrous effect of propaganda and ignorance in contributing to pregnancy - a culture of entitlement is certainly not the only factor. I've mentioned it in another thread, but abstinence only education is an expensive waste of time and may even be counterproductive. The largest sect of Christianity advocates lying to people about prophylaxis since its use runs contrary to their theological positions. Just like Dan Savage says, judging by the number of condoms Planned Parenthood has given out, they've prevented more abortions than they've provided by a factor of 10:1. That's not good enough for Catholics though.
Edit: While emergency contraception prevents ovulation rather than implantation, all forms of contraception are contrary to Catholic orthodoxy.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
First, there is my crazy religious one that you should not be having sex outside of marriage.
Pure insanity. Bonkers, I tell ya.
Post by
Orranis
Philosophy is surprisingly subjective. If you have to argue the philosophical merits of ending a human life, then perhaps you are on the wrong team.
It's a discussion on what makes human life, not whether it should be killed.
For example, I don't particularly feel like the death of a zygote would matter to me as much as the death of a four year old.
Post by
MyTie
I don't particularly feel like
This is what your argument boils down to. It's lousy. What if someone didn't particularly feel like a 4 year old was a human, and killed him. Would that be justification? You are trying to turn something which is objectively wrong into a subjective argument you can win with opinion, but it doesn't work like that.
Post by
Orranis
I don't particularly feel like
This is what your argument boils down to. It's lousy. What if someone didn't particularly feel like a 4 year old was a human, and killed him. Would that be justification? You are trying to turn something which is objectively wrong into a subjective argument you can win with opinion, but it doesn't work like that.
I used that language to remain ambiguous, as I've yet to take a clear stance on the issue.
Post by
MyTie
I don't particularly feel like
This is what your argument boils down to. It's lousy. What if someone didn't particularly feel like a 4 year old was a human, and killed him. Would that be justification? You are trying to turn something which is objectively wrong into a subjective argument you can win with opinion, but it doesn't work like that.
I used that language to remain ambiguous, as I've yet to take a clear stance on the issue.
But you are basing the correctness of this issue on people's views. Don't you see that it doesn't really matter where people's philosophical views about the beginning of human life starts? I maintain that we are not the judge as to when it is ok to kill another.
Post by
Orranis
I don't particularly feel like
This is what your argument boils down to. It's lousy. What if someone didn't particularly feel like a 4 year old was a human, and killed him. Would that be justification? You are trying to turn something which is objectively wrong into a subjective argument you can win with opinion, but it doesn't work like that.
I used that language to remain ambiguous, as I've yet to take a clear stance on the issue.
But you are basing the correctness of this issue on people's views. Don't you see that it doesn't really matter where people's philosophical views about the beginning of human life starts? I maintain that we are not the judge as to when it is ok to kill another.
How can you kill that which hath no life?
Post by
MyTie
How can you kill that which hath no life?
An unborn child is not an inanimate object.
Post by
Orranis
How can you kill that which hath no life?
An unborn child is not an inanimate object.
I never claimed it was.
Post by
MyTie
How can you kill that which hath no life?
An unborn child is not an inanimate object.
I never claimed it was.
Ok, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Let me just answer your question, and then see where you go with it: You cannot kill that which has no life.
If you think that the unborn baby has life, then I'm not sure what the point to that question is.
Post by
Gone
How can you kill that which hath no life?
An unborn child is not an inanimate object.
I never claimed it was.
Ok, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Let me just answer your question, and then see where you go with it: You cannot kill that which has no life.
If you think that the unborn baby has life, then I'm not sure what the point to that question is.
I think he was just quoting the wow episode South Park, not sure if he was making an actual point.
Post by
MyTie
This is the sickness
I'm talking about. Obama did not oppose infanticide, because it might have challenged Roe vs Wade (he says but later tried other explanations), even though it contained wording that specifically said it would not hinder the practice of abortion. In Obama's mind, abortion is such an important thing to protect, that baby killing will not get in his way. Why would you want to protect the practice of abortion, when the fetus can live outside the womb anyway? This man is my president. I don't care if he gives us a utopian society, with economic prosperity, world peace, and joy and happiness everywhere, and a blue and red cape with a big S came out of his suit and he flew around the skies. The man would support killing born babies to protect abortion. He is not fit to be POTUS. He isn't even fit to shake my hand. I wouldn't shake his hand. The man is a disgusting excuse of a human. I have no ill will toward him. I just want to see him in a different line of work. Perhaps a painter. He looks like a tall guy with a long reach. I bet he could roll paint like no other.
Post by
Azazel
Obama is awesome.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
If I'm reading this correctly, the bill would have stated that, if you tried to abort a fetus, and it ended up being born instead, and had life signs, you have to then treat it as a living person and try to administer proper medical care. Am I right?
Does that mean that currently, if an abortion is performed incorrectly, and as a result the woman delivers a living fetus, the doctors kill it? Can a baby accidentally be delivered during an abortion? I admit- I'm not really familiar with the mechanics of the procedure.
Post by
MyTie
If I'm reading this correctly, the bill would have stated that, if you tried to abort a fetus, and it ended up being born instead, and had life signs, you have to then treat it as a living person and try to administer proper medical care. Am I right?
Does that mean that currently, if an abortion is performed incorrectly, and as a result the woman delivers a living fetus, the doctors kill it? Can a baby accidentally be delivered during an abortion? I admit- I'm not really familiar with the mechanics of the procedure.
Yes, it happens. Some aborted babies are viable outside the womb, and are born with... drum roll... signs of life. Amazingly, babies are not inanimate objects.
Here's a clinic
that had 66 live births in a year. After one abortion didn't kill the child completely, doctors assured the mom the baby would die during labor. However, the child was born gasping for air before he/she finally expired. One baby lasted 10 hours after its abortion, outside the womb, before dying. This is beyond any horror movie conceived. It's more demoralizing and ominous than any nightmare of the imagination.
When all is said and done, and history records the millions of murders of unborn babies, I'll be on the right side of this issue, thank you very much. People will be in horror that we elected a president that voted this way. I just, cannot understand.... I just don't.... HOW COULD YOU SUPPORT THIS? How does anyone vote for Obama? How does that happen? How could they? It's so terrible in degree, and so numerous in scope.
When a baby should be warm, and wrapped in soft folds, and loved, it is mutliated, ripped from the womb, and left on a surgical table to flail until it finally dies
.
OBAMA VOTED TO PROTECT THAT
. It infuriates me.Obama is awesome.You are my antithesis. What you stand for, I am proud to say, I find incomprehensibly unacceptable.
Post by
Azazel
Hey-hey. You don't have to get all personal just because I don't have the same beliefs as you.
Post by
MyTie
Hey-hey. You don't have to get all personal just because I don't have the same beliefs as you.
Nice feigned surprise. Your comment was an obvious troll, and you got burned for it. Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion besides "IlikeObamalol"? If not, move along.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.