LOL, my favorite comment about Biden is the suggestion that he would confuse us less if he just turned the teleprompter around and let us read it ourselves.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
You're comparing the murder of children with that of an embryo/fetus that isn't technically alive. That's not the best argument.
Now in the third trimester when the baby is almost ready to be born and much further developed in body, that's a different story. But abortion in that period of time is incredibly rare. The only time it happens is if something goes terribly wrong with the pregnancy, not because the mother suddenly changes her mind on a whim.
Most abortions happens in the first trimester which is completely appropriate. Most people making 'right to life' arguments don't do so in good faith because they have no interest in the well being of anyone except their own peace of mind, almost always for religious reasons. Who does and does not get an abortion is nobody's business except the woman's.
Last edited:
"Bacteria is life on Mars but a heartbeat isn't life on Earth? Weird."
- Tom MacDonald
OK I'm just going to stop trying to converse with someone who says an embryo/fetus isn't technically alive. Just a passing thought in the form of a question though; ever notice that the brainless always talk about things being clearly on one side of a line or the other, yet can't even begin to logically determine where that line should be?
I've pointed out here before that I've been seeing Biden's routine for a really long time, and have pointed out that he was nearly hooted out of the Senate for guess what? Yep, plagiarism. He got in trouble for it even before his Senate career began. He's pretty much just a serial plagiarist, and that kind of sums up his worth as a politician. As I warned, he's an empty shell of a human being and he's our POTUS. Them dems been duped again but unfortunately the joke's on all of us.
I hope everybody noticed not just the ripoff but the bumbling of it...."the hard nucleus around the Navy forms in times of war..."
We are being led by a dufus, if you can call it being led.
I'd vote that an embryo isn't a live human. An embryo doesn't even become a fetus til week 9
if I left it out, how are you repeating it, genius? Or do you just need everything repeated twice for you? And it is NOT a rant against abortion because I have no particular stance on the issue other than it being one that there is no generally acceptable answer to. While the thought of abortion sickens me, and while I also would never involve myself in one, I don't oppose or condone what other people do on the matter. My post is a rant against faulty reasoning, and even after a second attempt to get that point across, you still failed to pick up on that. Good job, Einstein. As usual.
Oh I see. Please explain what the terms embryo and fetus signify as pertains to a determination of the existence of life. Meanwhile, your vote will be properly considered and discarded.
That video I poasted is hilarious. Yes, not only does he butcher what he ripped off from RR, but then at the end, when he's pissed that his plagiarized joke missed the mark, he calls his audience "a dull class".
This dude is a hoot. We literally have a brain dead guy as President. Look at the shape we're in. My goodness. But at least he doesn't tweet mean things.
Even if a fetus is considered a living rhing, they're only alive thru the mom carrying them, they'd not live outside the womb. So IMO even a fetus is not an independently living human. Why force the fetus to try and develop in a shitty environment (unwanted, no dad, accidental, no funds, drugs, etc)?
But it isn't about the baby or definition of life, it's about politics and power.
But it isn't about the baby or definition of life, it's about politics and power.
An embryo doesn't even have basic components for being a human, the foundation is still in progress... Tons of miscarriages occur pre-fetus simply because the requisite genes aren't in place.
Why force someone else's problem on the rest of society? Why do we try and fix a problem after it's created? Why don't we tell people - "don't have sex unless you're ok with the risk that you might get pregnant. And if you become pregnant, that's a YOU problem that YOU and only YOU will figure out how to solve"?
'Alive' is somewhat subjective here. Yes bacteria on Mars is technically 'alive' but is it sentient? Of course not. And that's the ultimate crux of the issue here. When is a fetus considered sentient or a viable form of life?
We could debate that all day long. But banning abortion at six weeks is too draconian. That's indisputable. You talk about freedom all day long but does a woman not have the right to decide if she wants a child?
As I said, the vast majority of abortions are during the first trimester. There should be no issue with that.
On a side note, I do not want anything biblical or religious dictating what is and isn't law.
I've said it and I'll say it again...if you support a woman's right to abort a baby, I get that. I don't necessarily think you're a bad person for supporting that. But you should never - NEVER - be vocal in your support of such. If someone says that your views are that of a baby killer. You should just walk away from that discussion. Because someone that supports the killing of an unborn child - even as necessary as it may be at times - is always going to look like a piece of shit for doing so. Lighting up buildings, and excitedly shouting from the rooftops because your state just decided to kill more unborn babies is a bad look.
I have provided a statement for those of you that support abortion:
"It is with deep regret and something that I am frankly ashamed to admit to supporting, but I do support a woman's right to choose to abort an unborn child. It makes me feel scummy and sad, and I'd rather not discuss it. I will use my voice on this issue at the ballot box and only there as arguing for the killing of more unborn children is a tough stance to take publicly."
How is someone's legal ability to get an abortion a problem for society?
I'd argue forcing an unwanted baby into the world is creating a societal problem.
Why does being against abortion automatically have to become a religious thing? There's a shit ton of religious people who think it's wrong to kill, steal, rape and assault people. Should we get rid of those laws just because people who are religious say it's bad?
You should receive less federal aid the more children you have...rewarding people with more aid for having kids they can't afford is so ass backwards it's ridiculous.
I actually think they should receive no federal aid but let's start with just much less than they are currently getting. Use that money you're saving in part to provide extremely easy and free access to birth control in poor communities. No excuses when you get knocked up for a kid you can't afford when condoms and BC pills are free.
It usually is religious in nature when it comes to abortion.
Killing, raping, stealing, assaulting, etc. These are all secular in nature. Everyone, whether religious or non religious, agrees under consequence of the law not to do these things. I was talking more about religious dogmatism. We don't want anyone knifing each other, but Creationism taught in schools for example? That's certainly a debate that still goes on.
Look we're not far apart on this. Abortion isn't pretty and nor is talking about it.
I don't shout to the heavens thinking the practice is wonderful and amazing. I just don't agree with these laws essentially trying to ban it altogether. That was my initial problem.
God help us if you finally have a "particular stance on the issue."
Last edited:
LOL yeah, mean tweets are a definite deal breaker. Can't have that, but zombies are OK I guess
If a drunk driver hits a woman on the way to the abortion clinic and kills the fetus/embryo then he gets charged with manslaughter. So part of the law considers it a living being. Abortion should not be birthcontrol. But its an industry all on its own. Just because bareback sex feels good doesnt warrant an abortion because someone mistimed the pull out
Is that Federal law or does it depend on the state?
Grayhead, I don't think any sensible person advocates that abortion should be the sole version ofbirth control. Hell I'm with @dadika13 and just use aid money to make actual birth control super cheap in poorer, disadvantaged areas. It should just be a quiet option for those who want it, that's all. It's a difficult thing to go through. Friend of mine had to have one for medical reasons and the fetus never developed a heartbeat. Still was traumatic.
What's usually to you? We've had this conversation off the board before, so you know my objection isn't religious based. But if you are going to play the "usually/amount" game them you have to give me some numbers. There is plenty of people who say they don't harm others because it's a sin. So let's say 80% of abortion objections are based in religion and 40% of objections to murder are based in religion, at what point does one become non religious based and the other religious based? Is this like a majority thing or do you have another number in mind?
Speaking of poor disadvantage areas, what about requiring birth control for any assistance the government issues? I feel if you need help, then you do not need more kids.
Ive said this before. I worked at a place were people would sell their kids SS numbers because they maxed on the child credits they could receive.
And im ok with free birth control. Maybe not at school, but free otherwise.
ok, let's clarify....you say life is subjective in that it might not be sentient life or because it's only 'technically' alive. But aren't you thereby saying it is in fact alive and that it is indeed life? And wouldn't that life be human? Maybe I'm missing something. Like any semblance of reason in your post.
You don't become more reasonable when you say without basis that banning abortion at six weeks is too draconian.
If there's a human life involved, how is the freedom of the woman more of a consideration than the life that is at the mercy of that woman's freedom? A woman has a right to not become pregnant, we can agree on that. But once life has been created, how exactly do you think you have the wherewithal to say when and if that life can and should be terminated? All I'm looking for is an actual reasoned answer to that question, something that goes beyond your sentiment.
I think a State can make that determination without undue subjective criticism from someone who can't put together logical opposition.
It's never good enough. If the govt paid for free birth control for poor communities, you'd have BLM saying that the govt is trying to keep blacks from reproducing and it's just another piece of evidence that blacks are being held down.
You'd also have women still pissed that that they can't get pregnant and then abort the baby. They'd claim that all women should get to experience being pregnant even if only for a short amount of time.
We'd also see people mad that they'd still have to walk a few blacks to the clinic to get the free birth control. "Why isn't it mailed to me? What kind of access do I really have if I have to go get my free stuff?"
You laugh and say that what I wrote is preposterous. But take a look at what we're hearing from folks now and tell me that my 3 scenarios above are fictional.
oh, I see....got an explanation for babies that don't miscarry? Otherwise, your empty, unsubstantiated claims aren't holding much water.
I don't understand why abortion and birth control have to be in the same convo. Do rapists use condoms, do drugged-out or immature mom's or dads know how to use contraception? Or does access to condoms automatically make a dad support a mom financially forever?
Of course birth control is important, but it shouldn't impact whether or not certain preggers people should have access to abortion.
As for societal burden, 1st trimester abortions are cheap. If we are worried about medical bills first force vaccination & masks since treating a covid patient can be much more expensive than an abortion.
Of course birth control is important, but it shouldn't impact whether or not certain preggers people should have access to abortion.
As for societal burden, 1st trimester abortions are cheap. If we are worried about medical bills first force vaccination & masks since treating a covid patient can be much more expensive than an abortion.
You can't necessarily put a quantitative number on it. I don't have statistics saying which people oppose abortion for religious reasons and which ones oppose it for non-religious reasons. I realize there is danger in generalizing but there is also an easy pattern to follow. Most states instituting these laws are red and conservative which have higher amounts of evangelicals and likeminded Christians which puts the number of those in the 'religious' category pretty high I would say.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that this issue has strong roots in religion. Anyone regardless of faith or lack thereof can agree murder is wrong. But as we all know that's what makes this issue tricky. When does a fetus become viable in the eyes of the law?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Class of 2025 Recruiting Thread (Update 5-21, 4:00 PM: Cloer gets offer)
- Latest: leoxanthakos
