my beef with the Liberal position.

[year2late]

How many kids are there waiting to be adopted right now?

We have people having their bodies poked and prodded and paying huge sums of money for IVF in order NOT to adopt. We have so many adoptable kids within our own country and we have people adopting from outside our own country. We have gay people in some areas begging to adopt who are not allowed to.

Seriously.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

The fetus did not put itself in that position. Even the deranged psycho killer who doesn't know her/his actions are wrong still puts him/herself in that position.

It doesn't matter. Neither did a parasitic twin, a mentally incometent assailant, or a coerced assailant. And yet we retain the right to defend against any of them.

Your view reduces the value of human life.

Only if you don't consider women human life.

I'm glad my mother saw it fit to allow me to experience life.

Whoop-te-do.

The first and most likely only agreement. Still it's always nice to have one.

Unless you wish you didn't, which plenty of people do. So what right do we have to force it on them when they might not want it?

Thank you for pointing that out. I addressed it in the beginning of this post.

No, you didn't. See my first point. You've been avoiding it this whole time.

 

[sbrettt]

It doesn't matter. Neither did a parasitic twin, a mentally incometent assailant, or a coerced assailant. And yet we retain the right to defend against any of them.

I would argue the mentally incompetent/coerced assailant was still involved in being that position. They a degree of control even if it was an extremely low amount.

Only if you don't consider women human life.

That's a cop out. You're still saying humans at young enough age have no value.

Whoop-te-do.

I was pointing out that I don't take life for granted.

Unless you wish you didn't, which plenty of people do. So what right do we have to force it on them when they might not want it?

Are you saying unless you wish you weren't born specifically instead just wanted to commit suicide?

No, you didn't. See my first point. You've been avoiding it this whole time.

Because the thing or person (it doesn't matter which it is -- call it whatever you want) that is infringing on someone else loses their rights automatically.

Assuming this is the point you're referring to I addressed it. The fetus does not have any opportunities to make choices before being put in that situation. Regardless of what type of assailant you're talking about, they can be psychotic, just plain stupid whatever, still has opportunities to make choices concerned the person they are damaging.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I would argue the mentally incompetent/coerced assailant was still involved in being that position. They a degree of control even if it was an extremely low amount.

So you want to blame someone who is extremely mentally retarded or forced at gun point for what happened?

How about parasitic twins? Got a cop out for that one?

That's a cop out. You're still saying humans at young enough age have no value.

No, I'm not. I am saying something that harms another has only as much value as the one being harmed allows it.

Are you saying unless you didn't wish you were born?

I don't really understand the question. Unless what?

Myself? Living seems cool. But having never lived doesn't seem like a big deal.

However, it is demonstrably true that many people wish they hadn't lived.

Assuming this the point you're referring to I addressed it. The fetus does not have any opportunities to make choices before being put in that situation. Regardless of what type of assailant you're talking about, they can be psychotic, just plain stupid whatever, still has opportunities to make choices concerned the person they are damaging.

No, they don't. You're copping out because your position is indefensible.

Also, it doesn't matter if the ZEF gets to make choices. It has no right to occupy and harm another.

 

[sbrettt]

So you want to blame someone who is extremely mentally retarded or forced at gun point for what happened?

LOL WHAT? No, I was pointing out that there's a difference between the two situations.

How about parasitic twins? Got a cop out for that one?

Okay, now you're just being rude.

No, I'm not. I am saying something that harms another has only as much value as the one being harmed allows it.

Is the infant being aborted not being harmed?

I don't really understand the question. Unless what?

Myself? Living seems cool. But having never lived doesn't seem like a big deal.

However, it is demonstrably true that many people wish they hadn't lived.

This part is a little funny because it's you not understanding me not understanding you. I was confused by this,

Unless you wish you didn't, which plenty of people do. So what right do we have to force it on them when they might not want it?

No, they don't. You're copping out because your position is indefensible.

Yeah they do. For instance you gave the example of someone having their life threatened if they don't take another life. There is still choice there.

Also, it doesn't matter if the ZEF gets to make choices. It has no right to occupy and harm another.

So essentially it doesn't have a right to exist. This is where we're disagreeing.

 

[minnie616]

... I'm no where near economically savvy, but Planned parenthood received $270 mil in government grants. That could go to running programs intended to help families who can't support a child support their child unless I'm overestimating how far that $270 could go.

You are forgetting that the government grants planned parenthood receives is to help with the many ,many services they offer such as cancer screening, std tests, birth control, breast exams etc.

That money is not being used for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the patients were in danger such as an ectopic pregnancy.

 

[sbrettt]

You are forgetting that the government grants planned parenthood receives is to help with the many ,many services they offer such as cancer screening, std tests, birth control, breast exams etc.

That money is not being used except in cases of rape,incest, and if the patients were in danger such as an ectopic pregnancy.

The post you're going after was already debunked. xD

 

[minnie616]

Adoption.

Less than 2 percent of women give their child up for adoption.
Most women choose to continue a pregnancy and raise the child themselves.
Some choose abortion and less than 2 percent give the child up.

Making abortion illegal will not change that stat.

The idea of giving a child away is more terrifying to many women than the other options.

Also it is interesting to note that more than 60 percent of the women who have abortions have already given birth to at least one child.

 

[minnie616]

The post you're going after was already debunked. xD

Sorry .
I must have missed that post.

 

[Removable Mind]

I see more in people than their cost. Any life is better than no life at all.

Why?.....

You've been pretty clear about your beliefs being adamantly against abortion, but why do value a conception so intently? What personal impact does an abortion say by a woman in California, who you don't know have on you? There's no confusion about a conception being human, so that's a given. Beyond that, how does any random abortion at any given place and time somewhere around the planet affect your life?

As a man, who bears none of the burden of gestation (physical, mental, emotional) or in many cases the financial burdens of a pregnancy...do you not connect at all with a woman being an individual being...despite the consequence of birth of being to provide the biological environment to allow the development of a conception...that she has every right to liberty and self-determination of that of her counterpart...a man?

No human at any stage of development or age is exempt from death. Life is totally unpredictable for us all. Death is also totally unpredictable.

By the way, the adoption angle isn't a viable solution. There are tens of thousands of children who are wards of the state who will live out their lives under the conservatorship of the state. People who are serious about adoption gravitate to private agencies rather than state agencies in order to forego the possibility of getting a damaged child (abused, special needs, born with addiction, etc). And most people want babies preferably 6 months old and under.

 

[Peter King]

At the times when it is legal to have an abortion there is only one human being and the rights of that human being that count. A fetus is not a person, it does does not have personhood rights.

The financial details of the parent/parents have nothing to do with the practice of abortion. Some parents might make that decide to have an abortion because they cannot feed the ones they already have but the reasons for abortion are personal decisions and none of the public's business.

And don't be silly, there are people with are way more insensitive (and I am sure people will have thought that of me at times).

You cannot help the way you feel but you are right, the pro-choice people like myself are going to vehemently disagree with you. Especially about the "human rights for a ZEF" issue. Most pro-choice people will not agree with you on that one.

Sorry for the grammatical and language errors, I was barely awake when I wrote this. Will do better next time.

 

[minnie616]

Sorry for the grammatical and language errors, I was barely awake when I wrote this. Will do better next time.

Not a problem.
I have made many such errors myself.

 

[Removable Mind]

There was around 1.2 million abortions in 2011. I believe less than 5% were because the mother had health concerns. So there would be a lot of extra children in bad circumstances. I'm no where near economically savvy, but Planned parenthood received $270 mil in government grants. That could go to running programs intended to help families who can't support a child support their child unless I'm overestimating how far that $270 could go.

Better yet, why not end the "War on Drugs", which the government frivolously throws away over $20 Billion each year and use that for all that you've suggested above? Now remember, if all of the abortions that have occurred, were in fact born, over time their numbers would begin to compound exponentially and costs to do the things you've suggested will also grow exponentially.

Your proposal would have every person who is already complaining about social services programs...marching in the streets. Politicians who now work to terminate social programs, which affect most poor children will work even harder to save taxpayers from socialism.

As Minnie pointed out, Planned Parenthood uses the funding they receive for many health services for women...and men as well. If there was a deduction in funds by the government based on their abortion services...and they simply didn't provide abortion services for any reason, it still wouldn't reduce the government contribution by all that much. You might drop by a PP site and review all of the health services that the do provide.

 

[specklebang]

How many kids are there waiting to be adopted right now?

250,000 (Meet the Children - AdoptUSKids)

Some abortions will eliminate a future great person. Some will eliminate savage killers.

IMHO we have way too few abortions. Some days, I wish they could be retroactive.

 

[lolabird]

Adoption.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/14/article-2393912-1B344E9A000005DC-459_634x371.jpg

Erica Lynn Parsons was adopted and received abuse.
She's been missing for two years, but the adoptive parents only admitted her absence recently.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Disclaimer, I support abortion in instances where the mothers physical health is at stake.
I find the Democratic parties position on abortion to be both oversimplified, and self contradicting. For instance, how can you say everyone has a right to choice on the subject while also saying the human being aborted has no right to choice? I understand the fetus can't make decisions yet, but is the inability to make decisions enough to lose that right? Why do the financial details of the parent(s) matter when adoption exists? It's disturbing to me that the left is happy to strip away an unborn humans life, potential for greatness, and influences on other people that could better their lives simply because the mother and or father can't afford it? I feel like I'll catch a lot of flak for this sentence, but is it not inherently selfish to deny an unborn human being life because you can't afford? In my opinion living is better than having your entire life taken away just because you don't have a voice yet. I'm sincerely sincerely sorry if I come off as insensitive to anyone on this forum.

And here we have yet another one without a uterus wanting to dictate to those of us with one what we can or can't do with the contents of ours .....

I am not liberal and I am pro-choice. It's not up to the govt. to make medical decisions for people.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Adoption.

I believe adoption is wrong and would never support it as the best choice. Besides, it's not an option for the woman who is unwillling to put her body through the trauma of gestation and childbirth.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

I believe adoption is wrong and would never support it as the best choice. Besides, it's not an option for the woman who is unwillling to put her body through the trauma of gestation and childbirth.

Adoption is wrong?!

I and my adopted son would vehemently disagree with you.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I see more in people than their cost. Any life is better than no life at all.

I disagree. I would rather be dead than, for example, be paralysed.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Any life is better than no life. For you to sit there and imply that orphans would be better off dead is extreme and rather insulting to orphans. Scrabaholic held the same reasoning. She claimed to be adopted, that's why she knows how hard it is and why she would rather have all orphans be offed instead of being given a chance.

I have never said any such thing. Please stop lying about me.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

LOL WHAT? No, I was pointing out that there's a difference between the two situations.
Okay, now you're just being rude.

You're making up baseless fact-free excuses to avoid the challenges of my argument.

Is the infant being aborted not being harmed?

Uh, infants don't get aborted, first of all. Words mean things.

Second of all, the harm that comes to the assailant in the process of ending the assault is irrelevant because, as I said, they have lost their rights.

Yeah they do. For instance you gave the example of someone having their life threatened if they don't take another life. There is still choice there.
So essentially it doesn't have a right to exist. This is where we're disagreeing.

Yeah, sure there is. But are you going to tell someone they're wrong for defending their life?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

:roll:

This may sound strange but I'd say that before any male advocate of Pro-Life speaks to the process of requiring a woman to carry an unwanted baby to term, they set up a personal "baby burden" experiment.

Anyone remember those old Home Economics projects where students taking the class had to pretend to take care of a baby? I say using modern technology we strap a growing "baby machine" to each man's stomach and let him endure 9 months of it as it slowly gains weight, kicks, puts pressure on his back, etc. To further simulate the process, he would be required to take medication periodically to simulate the internal upsets that occur during this process that women go through. Finally, to experience birth pains, strap an expanding catheter inside his penis and add electronic muscle spasms.

If at the end of nine months of this "baby burden" experiment he still thinks a women should be forced to endure this just to give a baby an opportunity to be adopted, we can count his vote as having some small value. Otherwise, any male arguing on behalf of forcing women to endure childbirth has no merit.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

For instance, how can you say everyone has a right to choice on the subject while also saying the human being aborted has no right to choice?

I don't say that "everyone has a right to choice". I say the pregnant women and girls have the right to choose.

I understand the fetus can't make decisions yet, but is the inability to make decisions enough to lose that right?

I don't believe it ever had the right to begin with so it can't lose it.

Why do the financial details of the parent(s) matter when adoption exists?

The financial details may matter for some people and not others. Even further, it's likely that any pregnant woman is going to have to pay for some sort of medical care even if she gives the kid up for adoption. In any case, financial matters are not a part of my pro-choice position. Also, adoption isn't an option for everybody - ask all the unwanted kids in foster care.

It's disturbing to me that the left is happy to strip away an unborn humans life, potential for greatness, and influences on other people that could better their lives simply because the mother and or father can't afford it?

I'm not "happy" to do any of that. And, by the way, the unborn children whose lives you seem so optimistic about could also grow up to mass murders, rapists and other parasites on society. Maybe one of them would have grown up to shoot your mother in the face. We don't know so that emotional appeal is meaningless to me.

I feel like I'll catch a lot of flak for this sentence, but is it not inherently selfish to deny an unborn human being life because you can't afford?

Is it not inherently selfish to condemn a women for having an abortion even though you wouldn't be the one to raise it? That's one of the things that always gets me about the judgment that seeps out of posts like yours. You are perfectly willing to condemn those who have abortions, but are you going to take care of the children if they decide to have them? Are you going to take care of the children when they end up abusive foster homes? Are you going to pay the bills for these womens' medical care? No, you're not so you have no authority to condemn their choices.

 

[sangha]

Disclaimer, I support abortion in instances where the mothers physical health is at stake.
I find the Democratic parties position on abortion to be both oversimplified, and self contradicting. For instance, how can you say everyone has a right to choice on the subject while also saying the human being aborted has no right to choice? I understand the fetus can't make decisions yet, but is the inability to make decisions enough to lose that right?

I don't believe that everyone has a right to choice; I believe that every person has a right to choose. A ZEF is not a person, and therefore has no rights.

Just as importantly is what the constitution says. It only grants the govt the power to protect the rights of persons, not "all human life". The word "person" (and it's variants like "people", etc), as used in constitution, does not apply to the unborn

Even if I did believe that a ZEF should have rights, it would be foolish to allow the govt to exercise a power that the constitution does not grant it

 

[Scrabaholic]

Adoption is wrong?!

I and my adopted son would vehemently disagree with you.

I said *I* believe it is wrong. And I am adopted.