I am sick of recreational abortion! Keep my tax dollars away from mass murderers!

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Aquarius, Jan 9, 2020.

  1. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    27,633
    Likes Received:
    18,865
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, to raise a child to adulthood (with college expenses) could cost $400,000.

    Wouldn't it be more economically efficient to end that child's life at six months or maybe one year?
     
    jay runner likes this.
  2. Turin

    Turin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Messages:
    4,246
    Likes Received:
    814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I dont understand the point your trying to make here.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  3. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    14,896
    Likes Received:
    8,966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There could be financial testing every three years at age 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15.

    If at any of these junctures things aren't going well financially for the parent(s), they could see the family court judge for a child killing permit and receive taxpayer funded and painless lethal injection.
     
  4. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    27,633
    Likes Received:
    18,865
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To abort a child because it’s less expensive than a hospital birth is sound logic.

    The same logic applies when a six month old child is eliminated, which saves the $400,000 cost of raising and educating that child.
     
  5. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    14,896
    Likes Received:
    8,966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Get'm before college.
     
    Texas Republican likes this.
  6. Turin

    Turin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Messages:
    4,246
    Likes Received:
    814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    It is if you have no intention of keeping said child and you know this before its born.

    Why should a woman put her life at risk to deliver a baby she doesnt want? And I do not think life begins at conception either. So I wont accept that argument at all.

    And again, you can put up a 6 month old child for adoption if it comes to that.

    But instead you seem like you would rather just play word games or semantics?
     
    FoxHastings and Derideo_Te like this.
  7. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    11,032
    Likes Received:
    19,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Was your brother the father of these pregnancies?
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  8. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    27,633
    Likes Received:
    18,865
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. That’s my wife’s sister. All with different men.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2020
  9. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    11,032
    Likes Received:
    19,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Dear, dear.
     
  10. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    27,633
    Likes Received:
    18,865
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m not very supportive of abortion as a routine form of birth control.
     
  11. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    11,032
    Likes Received:
    19,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I think we understood that.
     
  12. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    92,668
    Likes Received:
    28,322
    Trophy Points:
    113
    do you support Abortion in the case of rape?
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  13. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,861
    Likes Received:
    15,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    WHAT TF does marital status have to do with a woman's right to get an abortion????




    OH Look! ANOTHER NON-answer !!!


    Seems the anti-Choice right really doesn't have an argument, no answers=no argument :)


    Standard here,"" When I have no answer I repeatedly yell "keep up"....even though I'm the one so far behind """



    In your haste to type your trite little "Try to keep up" when you have no answer , you did not answer the question you quoted:

    FoxHastings said:
    WHAT TF does marital status have to do with a woman's right to get an abortion????










    Standard here,"" When I have no answer I repeatedly yell "keep up"....even though I'm the one so far behind """
     
    Derideo_Te and Sallyally like this.
  14. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,861
    Likes Received:
    15,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    Yes, if you want the fetus to have the right to use another's body to sustain their life then that means the fetus has more rights than anyone .

    That's impossible....no woman can demand that another person use their body to sustain her life....no woman can demand another person give her their heart or kidneys or blood.... NO ONE CAN.


    But you think a fetus can so that means you think a fetus has more rights than women or anyone else...


    Unable to refute or even address one word.....pathetic.....I guess when one has no real argument it's best to yell Poppycock! ...how about "Balderdash", that, too , could hide the fact you have no answers :)



    UH DUH, the post you quoted but could only reply "Poppycock" to...
     
    Derideo_Te and Sallyally like this.
  15. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,861
    Likes Received:
    15,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    UGGA DUHH...the unborn is inside her and the newborn isn't....didn't you know that ?? LOL!! So it is different..

    See, the unborn doesn't need it's diapers changed or need to be burped.....so it's different...

    No woman is obligated to take care of her unborn or born.....

    If you think the unborn are not part of the woman , AS YOU HAVE STATED, then they have NO need to be in the woman. Why should they just float around unattached (as YOU think they are) not part of the woman ...then why are they even IN the woman ...why can't they be taken out IF THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE WOMAN AS you CLAIM????


    Says who ? You?




    NO, "nature" (science) does NOT say the woman fetus are separate....they are connected....if they weren't connected then the fetus could be taken out of the woman and left to grow on it's own....it can't.
     
    Derideo_Te and Sallyally like this.
  16. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    11,136
    Likes Received:
    7,030
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is a reasonable request. If people want to risk unwanted pregnancy they can risk the cost as well.
     
  17. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,092
    Likes Received:
    15,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I support adoption.
     
  18. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,092
    Likes Received:
    15,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why don't you ask poster #111 who made the false claim that half of abortions are for married women????
     
  19. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,999
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Completely arbitrary.... seriously?

    arbitrary
    adj.
    1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle


    viable
    adj.
    2.b.
    Capable of living outside the uterus. (fetus or newborn)

    So no, the concept of viability is not in fact 'completely arbitrary' as you suggested.
    Measuring the point at which viability actually occurs may certainly be less exact than measuring things like pain perception or consciousness... but viability does have meaning behind it; and there is reason and principle backing up why it could/should be used as a cutoff point for legal abortion, in contrast to your earlier metric of 'human being-ship' (aka person-hood).

    We know the mechanisms behind how pain is transmitted,
    the structures involved can be observed and we also know
    that in the earliest stages of pregnancy, prior to the 23rd week,
    that those structures don't even exist. We also have tools that can measure consciousness.

    But let's step back for a moment... Are you saying that if it could more accurately be determined that pain perception or consciousness occurs only after a particular point, that you would then be in support of a legal abortion cutoff being placed just before that point?

    -Meta
     
    Bowerbird and Derideo_Te like this.
  20. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,999
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sound reasoning imo. Though I would say cost to the mother shouldn't be the only thing to consider.
    BTW, on that note, I've been trying to ask everyone in the thread, but what's your opinion on
    this compromise proposal we cobbled together from some Ranked Vote results a while ago?

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/pf-abortion-reform-compromise.550627/
    -Meta
     
    Bowerbird and Derideo_Te like this.
  21. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,999
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pretty sure I understand it pretty well actually.
    But feel free to fill in any holes you think might exist.
    That's what a discussion like this is for after-all... or at least what it ought to be for...

    Why?

    -Meta
     
    Bowerbird and Derideo_Te like this.
  22. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,999
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting... well, let's do a thought experiment based on that then.

    You're basically saying here that for a cell with the potential to grow into a human adult,
    making it to the uterus is what qualifies such a cell for consideration as a "human being",
    with the right therefor to not be aborted. Right?

    This raises several questions, but I'll just ask a few of them...

    1. Let's say we do get our artificial womb as you suggested. If we take an egg and we take some sperm and create a new zygote cell within that womb, does/should that cell then qualify for consideration as a "human being"? Should subsequent removal of that cell from the artificial womb then be prohibited?

    2. Let's say we don't quite get to an actual artificial womb, but we instead figure out some way to get humans to grow to maturity within basic test-tubes (i.e. literal test-tube babies). If we create a zygote cell in such a test-tube, can it be considered a "human being"? Is it OK to remove it from the test-tube? What if removing it from a test-tube is required at some point as part of the growing process?

    3. Let's say, contrary to the previous case, that the test-tubes aren't capable of fully growing humans, but can only grow a zygote up to the embryo stage, after which the embryo dies... can a zygote cell in such a test-tube still be considered a "human being"? Are we free to remove a zygote cell from these test-tubes? And what are the implications of creating such cells if they are all doomed to die?

    -Meta
     
    Bowerbird and Derideo_Te like this.
  23. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,999
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are plenty of reasons to not be OK with infanticide.
    Sounds to me like your reading something into my posts which wasn't stated.

    That's OK, just thought you might want to clear the record on that, but I guess not.

    -Meta
     
    Bowerbird and Derideo_Te like this.
  24. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    23,418
    Likes Received:
    1,147
    Trophy Points:
    113
    that appears to create a lot of semantics from science, if i may be allowed to respond graphically for the purpose of making this less complicated for the uneducated like myself.

    generally if the male has good sperm count, and the female has good quality ovarian eggs, life begins right after bare back penetration. that should be used as the standard for the potential of life.

    therefore any act of abortion post mutual climax is an abomination unworthy of tax dollars, and could possibly result in criminal penalties pending a Supreme Court decision that overturns roe versus wade.
     
  25. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    21,487
    Likes Received:
    17,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Overturning Roe v Wade would not make abortion illegal. It would just shift authority back to the States, and the majority of states would not completely outlaw abortion. Most would keep the 20 week cutoff that hinges on viability.
     
    Bowerbird and Derideo_Te like this.

Share This Page