Public Funding for Abortion

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by TheNightFly, May 19, 2017.

  1. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    By claiming abortion is "self defense" you are stating the unborn is a human being. Thanks for admitting the unborn is not just a mass of tissue.
     
    JusticeOne likes this.
  2. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whatever it is you can kill it at will.
     
  3. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    That does not address what I wrote in the post of mine you quoted:

    """"Liberal " arguments ? I'm the one explaining how abortion keeps more people off the Welfare roles...YOU want MORE....""


    Having an abortion when you can't afford or don't want a kid IS taking responsibility...
     
  4. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To me a fetus IS a human being. It is more than just a mass of tissue. It is a precious life that, if given a chance, could be a real living breathing child. That's special to me...the "miracle of life" so to speak. And yet I still think abortion should be legal because a woman's right to choose what's best for her body and her unborn child is hers and hers alone and trumps everything else.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  5. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Does it matter to all those dead babies, children, women , pregnant women, old folks? NOPE! They're dead or maimed no matter what you call it....and some who are against abortion think that is just fine and dandy...figure THAT out!!!
     
  6. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Thank you for the voice of logic, reason and fairness.....many Americans, thankfully, think the way you do.
     
  7. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NOPE! That is NOT what the poster you quoted said:
    TheNightFly said:
    As an act of self defense, elective abortion is the ONLY healthcare service the government is morally obligated to fund.""


    It can only be "self defense" IF the fetus is ever deemed a person....and it won't be.

    So TheNightFly was correct in saying "as an act of self defense" but that didn't mean it WAS an act of self defense....only that it could be IF the fetus is deemed a person....
     
  8. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You said it was "self defense" which implies the baby was engaged in some sort of deliberate act of violence (legally it requires a criminal act) against the mother. Unless a woman was pregnant because she was raped, she voluntarily became pregnant. And the baby has no say in the matter.

    And its best for the unborn to kill it? Not adoption or raising it as best as possible. Can you predict the future and know that the baby would have such a horrible life that death is preferable?

    Also, you admit the baby is special and a human and a miracle of life, yet you would allow the mother to kill it with no review. Why do you limit killing an inconvenient person to just the unborn people? Why not allow the mother to make that decision with her 1 year old if her life situation changes for the worse?
     
  9. SillyAmerican

    SillyAmerican Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2016
    Messages:
    3,678
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    So you and the courts recognize the issue of viability. Yes, the survivability rate is a curve, so it starts getting a bit involved, which is one reason many would have preferred seeing the issue taken up by Congress instead of an out-of-bounds Court. But hey, we are where we are.

    The whole issue hinges on the question of "personhood". The unborn in the third trimester, because of the increase in viability, is close enough to "personhood" to be entitled to further scrutiny and consideration. Those in the first trimester? They're undeserving of additional scrutiny, because of the lack of viability. However, we must understand that viability is a moving goal post, and that a good many people believe it to be the wrong goal post.

    Point taken. My objection is that the government tends not to be as concerned with the way they spend their money as I am about the way I spend my money.
     
  10. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not hard to figure out at all. We understand there is a huge moral difference between

    1) The accidental killing of civilians of a hostile nation and

    2) The premediated and intentional killing of human life which is totally innocent and utterly helpless here at home.
     
  11. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its brain dead. Flush it
     
  12. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    :) Well if that makes you feel better......but they're all still dead....


    But you approve of killing those who are INCONVENIENT....
     
  13. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did not argue otherwise. The fact of the matter is that in the present reality forced sterilization is not allowed so this is not an option at present.

    You then have 2 choices ... pay for abortion or pay for the child.

    There is not fantasy third option.
     
  14. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No. But I believe if a military action is the right and moral thing to do then the deaths of innocent civilians is regrettable yet shouldn't prevent the action from being taken.

    Note, that there are actually very few innocent civilians though.
     
  15. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry. I interjected myself into the middle of the conversation. It wasn't me who said it was self defense.

    I don't think it's best to kill it. And adoption sounds like a great alternative. Let's work to make that a more tenable option. Or maybe reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies to begin with would be a noble goal. I don't know. But, I'm not going to support criminalization or excess regulation of it.

    For me it boils down to whether it's still inside the womb and using her body and her resources. If it is then I feel that it is only her call on the ultimate fate of the pregnancy. I just don't think the government should have that kind of power to dictate what a woman does. For purposes of legality I see it as mostly black and white. If it's in the womb it can be terminated at will. If it's born then it's treated as a living person with all rights bestowed upon it.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2017
  16. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL .. so the USAF is making up it's own definitions - big surprise. Give me a break.

    When you launch a missile into a building that has a bunch of innocents along side a "bad guy" .. there is nothing unintentional about their deaths.
     
  17. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for the clarification.

    I agree.


    If the unborn is a person, then that person gets the same rights and protections as any person. And just as any person who cannot defend themselves (or speak for themselves), they should receive protection from a third party.

    Other than location, there is no difference between born and unborn. Many born people require the use of a persons resources. A 1 month old baby, elderly parent with dementia, adult severely brain damaged due to car accident, are as helpless and demanding as an unborn baby (maybe more demanding since pregnancy is only 9 months). Why not allow anybody who is too burdensome to simply be killed?
     
  18. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    WHAT?!!! "Very few innocent civilians" !!!!! Tell that to Jews, Germans, Poles, the Brits, the French, the Japanese ( you think every Japanese who died in the bombing of Hiroshima was evil???!!!) and other people who have had war on their land...no, innocent civilians died in the Civil War, The Revolutionary War.......oh how lucky you are to sit all nice and safe and judge others... and IGNORE our troops who are "innocent" and get killed in war !!!

    You judge slaughtering civilians as moral....I find abortion moral.....our morals do NOT make laws...:)


    Seems you're another who is OK with killing if the dead were INCONVENIENT to you.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2017
  19. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Because being BORN is a requisite to having rights....don't like how this country does it find another country but I don't think you'll find one that gives rights to the unborn.

    There is a HUGE difference between born and unborn. The unborn are supported by the woman they're in, a born person isn't.

    You: ""If the unborn is a person, then that person gets the same rights and protections as any person.""

    IF the unborn has the same rights as born persons then it also has the SAME RESTRICTIONS...it cannot use another's body to sustain it's life, you can't , I can't , no born person can..
     
    PeppermintTwist likes this.
  20. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Had the Supreme Court simply ruled based upon textualism (pure originalism or "conservative' interpretation), without any pragmatic or natural rights considerations (non-originalism or "liberal" interpretation) then all abortion laws would have been struck down and the Congress would have been prevented from legislating the "trimester" breakdown of "potential" rights for the "potential" person that Roe v Wade established from the bench.

    As an advocate for natural rights (based upon the laws of nature for survival of a species) the issue of when "personhood" is established isn't all that important because the "rights of the person" develop over time because they cannot come into existence if they violate the pre-existing rights of the woman.

    We must always step back on pace because we need to remember that so long as the woman doesn't commit an act of aggression against the "preborn" there's no violation of the "preborn's" rights even if personhood is established at conception. As I mentioned if we simply change the criteria from "abortion" to "surgical delivery" then the rights of the preborn are not violated because an "act of aggression" does not occur.

    All the laws banning "abortion" in the world can exist but if a surgeon removes the preborn from the womb "unharmed and intact" then it's not an abortion. It's a surgical delivery of a "premature baby" that will live or die based upon natural causes. "Anti-abortionists" typically forget that fact.



    I'm not sure that the assumption the government doesn't tend to be concerned with they way the government spends money is accurate although we an certainly see exceptions where we would question the spending. What we should remember is that at the federal level of our government the Congress is mandated to determine the "necessary spending" and we, the people, simply have no say in it.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  21. SillyAmerican

    SillyAmerican Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2016
    Messages:
    3,678
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe so. But that still doesn't give them the right to legislate from the bench.

    An excellent point. However, the problem with delivering a "premature baby" is that once he/she is taken from the womb, the doctor all of a sudden becomes legally obligated to do everything in their power to see to it that the new person survives. As you noted previously, this can quickly become a very costly exercise in futility that would prove beneficial to nobody.

    Two things.
    1. If you honestly believe that the government is not guilty of spending money wastefully, you haven't been paying much attention.
    2. Our Congress is indeed mandated to make appropriate spending decisions. However, you are wrong in your assertion that we have no say in the matter. It's called a ballot box.
     
  22. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Roughly 100,000 Japanese were killed in the bombing of Hiroshima.

    At least 20,000 of them were Japanese military. Thousands of the "civilians" worked directly in industries directly involved in the Japanese war effort
     
  23. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it did, your rights and mine would be ravaged.
     
  24. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Cry me a river. Some things are more important than individual rights you know.
     
  25. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Oh for pete's sake you are floundering now and dragging out an "thought" that fell flat on it's face....those who want to make abortion illegal while HAPPILY funding war are hypocrites...own up to it....


    Now list all the Japanese children, born and UNBORN, killed and maimed in Hiroshima who were involved in the war effort.....you are making a fool of yourself defending war in such a preposterous way..
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2017

Share This Page