Some Pro Athletes do try to make a positive difference

FoxHastings said: ↑
No, laws are not based on your morals nor anyone else's.


And our society , the majority, think abortion should be legal....and it is

No, they are not or they would be one horrible giant mess since everyone has different morals..

I have no idea what that sentence means.

The polls have shown for years that America believes women have a right to their own bodies, that abortion should be legal.

We can't vote on taking away people's rights...

 

Once again you are wrong!
http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/moralityandlaw.htm

Laws are based on Morals,undeniably!

I am not surprised your comprehension fell short.

Polls eh, like the one that said the Hildabeast would win the election?

 

No, like the polls that have shown for years that Americans believe that women have a right to their own bodies and that hasn't changed.


"Hildabeast"? Yup, one more sign of total disrespect for women...

 

LOL, she showed total disrespect for the women her husband raped. You are so far off track you can’t see the forest for the trees.

Polls are easily manipulated,as all thinking people know.

 

For someone claiming to have knowledge on how to debate, you are working over time to avoid it. The topic, once again, is about making a difference.

What are you proposing?

 

The topic was actually about one specific pro athlete trying to make a difference.

I don’t see anything in any of your posts worthy of debate. I propose we stop pretending abortion isn’t homicide and put tax dollars and individual efforts behind assisting in the raising of these children instead of funding their slaughter!

 

So you have nothing to contribute when it comes to making a positive difference. You don't challenge my posts because you know it will lead to having to think past the tip of your nose.The article talks about men standing up and providing care, which is what I have been proposing all along. How, exactly, is calling it homicide and comparing it to gun crime making a positive difference?

 

I explained what I proposed. That is what you asked me, what I proposed.Now you want to throw a toddler fit about my not addressing something you didn’t bring up?

That’s typical.

 

It is making sure people truly understand that abortion is killing a child. Abortion proponents have been telling women for years it doesn’t involve a child, just a meaningless lump of cells. That is a blatant lie and has led many women down a horrible path. That is how it makes a positive difference, how can the truth be detrimental????

 

Is the "toddler fit" comment an example of your superior debating skills? Insults only show weakness and lack of confidence in ones position.

I am talking about making a positive difference. All you did was rebleating your position (Abortion is homicide) over and over again. Lets give you the advantage of being right about:

Abortion is homicide
Abortion is wrong
Life is precious

Now the only thing left is to discuss what to do about it. Well...

 

Okay, so we will change the terminology from "Abortion" to "Killing a child" Now what?

 

Make it illegal as it should be. Stop all funding Of Abortion by our govt. divert those tax dollars to aid mothers of young children. Overhaul our adoption laws to remove the irrational barriers to adoption that currently exist. As a nation,as a society, that is what we should do. This is a political forum so the discussion should be about what our govt and our society should do.

I am not taking the bait to run down some rabbit trail about what individuals are doing or not doing, that Has no place in a political debate.

 

I agree 100% with not forcing tax payers to pay for it. If they can open their legs, they can open their own wallet.

As it is, there is no shortage of assistance for child care. I am fortunate not to need financial help from the government, but most adopting parents receive monthly payments. I know of a case where a couple adopted 6 special needs children and receive 100% of their income from the government.

From my experience, adoption barriers are minimal. I know of single men and even a lesbian couple who were able to adopt with no problem.

Financial assistance and ease of adoption has not solved the problem of having thousands of unwanted children. It does put a dent in the problem, but thats all.

I am not trying to trap you or have you chase rabbits, but society is made up of individuals. That means that you and I have the power to make a difference if we choose.

Allowing government into uteri violates liberty and, like anything they are involved in, is unlikely to produce positive results. Keep in mind that the ideology has already failed in a time before the internet, and dark web, abortion/morning after pills. Abortion laws have no chance in today's society, but that doesn't mean that society can't make a difference.

 

If you think adoption is inexpensive and/or easy in the U.S. you need to take another look.

Actually we have already allowed the govt into utero, and it is morally right to do so. The UVVA backs up the prosecution of people who kill children in utero.

That ideology has not failed. You seem to misunderstand the goal. If the measure is total eradication of abortion then we need to abolish all murder laws because none have eradicated it.

 

Anyone who does anything to a woman's body against her will, violates her liberty, and should be prosecuted. Adoption is not expensive at all, unless you are talking adopting a newborn baby. You can adopt from "the system" at no cost.

The goal is not complicated; you feel that the little baby in the womb deserves a chance to live. You have good intentions. The complicated part is using government involvement to achieve positive results. If abortion laws failed in a time before the internet, abortion drugs, and the dark web, what makes you think it can succeed now?

 

Gee, sounds like a lousy option....

 

Wow, you are seriously misinformed.

https://adoptiondiscovery.org/adopt...MIi_r4zIvp3QIVxFYNCh0SvQ3qEAAYASAAEgKWGfD_BwE


The goal is to show through the legal ststem that life is precious and wanton homicides are not acceptable. Making abortion illegal would help do that. The goal of law is not to eradicate all crime, that is an unrealistic goal. If that is how we look at law, we should do away with all law because they aren’t 100% deterrents.

 

Yeah killing children is better?whatever is cheaper, right!

 

Is this the superior debate you promised? Cheap insults, statements already proven false, and then move the goalpost to crime/murder?

Abortion laws failed in a time when internet and abortion drugs were not available yet. You have failed to show how they would be effective today. You have ignored my challenges and failed to address:

Medical tourism
Black market abortions
Abortion drugs
The cost of imprisoning those who lack the finances to travel to where abortion is legal

And finally, what would we do with thousands of unwanted children when we don't have enough people willing to adopt as it is. (Unless you want a newborn, adoption does not cost anything and state aid is available for adopting parents.)

I gave you the advantage of being 100% right and you still failed to show how government involvement would make a positive difference.

 

P

Abortion laws have never failed, unless you believe that all law has failed. If the measure of success in abolition, all laws have failed. If the goal is something less abortion laws have not failed.

So once again it becomes a money issue. It seems you think it is acceptable to kill to avoid expense.

 

So now your are using the lefts gun control tactic: If it only saves one life, its worth it!? Why it failed can be argued, but it was rejected by society and only exists in history. The symbol of its failure, the wire hanger, is nothing compared to what can be used today.

In a time when one can pee on a stick and take a pill in the privacy of their own home, your outdated, tried and failed, abortion law becomes useless.

Instead of moving the goalpost to "all laws, murder, etc" how about addressing the issues I asked you about?

 

You are confused. The goal of law is to set societal standards for behavior. The goal should never be eradication because that is unattainable. All reasonable people agree abortion is a terrible thing. So why do we allow such horrific behavior?

 

There is nothing confusing about this topic. Laws are there to protect rights, not set social standards. I already gave you the advantage of agreeing that abortion is wrong. I appreciate you defending my position, but you still have unanswered challenges.

 

Wrong!!!!

I don’t see any unanswered challenges concerning whether or not abortion is a horrific homicide.

 

I already gave you that advantage. We are discussing Making a positive difference. Are you unable to show how government involvement would do that?